Jump to content

mike142sl

Members
  • Content Count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mike142sl

  • Rank
    Registered User

Personal Information

  • Location
    Up on them there hills
  1. Maybe, unless the cyclist is 'effectively' camouflaged. I'm happy to claim I've never missed seeing a cyclist when pulling out of a junction, for various reasons I have a habit of double checking, however can any of us genuinely make that claim?
  2. As I said before - You're misusing Stats and very badly. 446 pedestrians! how many of those using a pedestrian crossing? The risk of crossing the road at a crossing is very low because you can stop and check that the road is clear before crossing. If a car doesn't stop you are still safe because you haven't stepped out into the road, that element is in the hands of the pedestrian and therefore HiViz is not necessary. Being knocked off a bike is a very different scenario and involves the car driver being able to see the cyclist because there aren't other interventions such that you have with a pedestrian crossing. Your comparison is invalid.
  3. Because the risk is much much lower and HiViz it not required. Well done on identifying a hazard, but your risk assessment is poor.
  4. Because a car is about 5 times wider than a cyclist and therefore easy to see!!! if not impossible to miss? I agree with ChaznDave, if we make ourselves difficult to see we are asking for trouble. I've now read the arguments by the Cycling UK about perceived health benefits outweighing legislation but find it to be the flimsiest argument which ignores the safety of those who are cycling. There have been plenty of Stats posted on this thread but there is a problem with Stats in that they tend to be quoted in a particular way. We have also been told that legislation is a barrier and led to believe it would prevent take up of cycling, however that seemed to change later as we are now told it just slows the take up down. Well if the latter is the case then there isn't a problem, and introducing legislation which clearly improves the safety of cyclists would surely be be a good thing. As for HiViz making cycling look extremely dangerous..hmmm So the preferred option is not to tell them, and if they get knocked off to console them with the statement that it wasn't their fault as the driver should have been more observant??? I'm sure that will make them feel a whole lot better.
  5. By the same token the legislation encompassed in the Highway Code is a barrier as they are legal requirements - however those legal requirements haven't stopped people cycling. Introducing legislation which requires us to wear clothing which is more noticeable (not necessarily Hi-Viz bibs etc) would not stop people from cycling! It would give a few people an excuse not to, however it would be just that - an excuse, for which they probably already have some. It may not be a direct comparison but making helmets a legal requirement for motorbike riders didn't stop people riding motorbikes. The barrier for me in Sheffield was the hills, or was that just an excuse? Maybe. However the progress in electric assisted bikes has been massive in the last eight years since I last looked at the option. Back then they were pretty poor and I ended up buying a 250cc scooter. Now they are far better and that issue of the hills has been removed. My journey to work is about the same, maybe slightly quicker. The journey home however is about twice the time - perhaps that is one of your barriers, or another potential excuse for those not wanting to cycle.
  6. Not convinced that's entirely fair. We're talking about how easy it is to 'see' cyclists who dress in what is effectively camouflage. Cars of any colour will always be easier to see because they take up pretty mush all of the carriageway they are on. Cyclists however are about 1/5th the width so in any event will be by definition less easy to see. So, when cycling I will make every effort to make myself more visible and hopefully prevent that car from pulling out in front of me. I haven't been cycling that long, but I feel a lot safer that drivers can see me 'at a glance'. Arguing that a motorist should have looked more closely if I were wearing something that blends in to the background would be cold comfort I'm afraid. I really do not agree that wearing highly visible clothing or items is a barrier to cycling - no matter how many times it has been said on this discussion. I can't see it being made a legal requirement, that tends to be driven by the number of deaths which are presumably thankfully low (unless someone has the figures) So if it's ok with everyone I shall continue to wear mine when commuting to work.
  7. You really haven't read this thread have you??? (NOT my thoughts) My post was a reply to a previous one which you have ignored - go back and read!
  8. It would more likely be dealt with at point of incident. i.e. cyclist gets knocked off bike at a junction - if not wearing HiViz then a fine or unable to take action against whoever knocked him/her off. Might have the occasional drive to remind cyclists, a bit like how they did it recently with mobile phone use. All this talk of having to buy items being a barrier? makes you wonder how they buy the bike in the first place!
  9. I've just taken up cycling to work - only in my 5th week so far but finding it far more enjoyable than the maxi scooter I used for decades up to now. A Hi Viz vest wasn't even a question of should I or shouldn't I, it was an obvious part of buying the bike to me, along with all the other items such as lights, waterproof, blah de blah. The Hi Viz may not prevent a driver pulling out on me but I'm pretty sure it will massively reduce that particular risk. I'm not the sort to make a style statement when cycling so have no issue about wearing Hi Viz. However, you would not see me wearing Lycra - I would object to that being mandatory.
  10. To be nerdy it's £1m for votes - they already had the £0.5m
  11. I passed a caravan parked just below the Golf Club House yesterday evening. It's not a road I use a lot but remember seeing it there a few weeks ago. Looks like there is a note stuck to the window but I didn't have chance to stop and read it! Does anyone else know why it's been left there - or has it been dumped?
  12. I also know who owns it and can confirm it is 'habited' although I'm not sure it's on a permanent basis at the moment.
  13. I bough my first NEW car from Sandygate Motors in 1983. A Silver MG Metro reg: A 370 WHE from a salesman called Neil Letherland. The mechanic was Eddie Marples. Had that car 9 years.
  14. Old thread but this guy is leafletting in the Fulwood area again. His prices are on the eye watering side, and seems a bit on the able side to add work to the request and then charge accordingly?
  15. The bus stop is being moved 'up' Crookes Rd a bit so should be able to drive around the back of parked busses - although reality needs to be seen over theory!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.