If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land.Car drivers can see black cars so they should be able to see a cyclist dressed in grey.
If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land.Car drivers can see black cars so they should be able to see a cyclist dressed in grey.
High - Vis clothing is not the answer to irresponsible negligent drivers.If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land.
If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land.
Haha I love this! Even if that wasn't a ridiculous over estimation (which it is)Haha I love this. I would suggest that 90% of drivers break the law on a daily basis. It's called speeding.
You would be shocked if you came to London. Even the briefest of cycle rides and you'll see the red light jumpers. Flying through pedestrian crossingsOf course they do. And I'd say it's more like 99%.
Can't speak for London (and I suspect it's a minority anyway) but I very very rarely see cyclists breaking the law.
The rule change is to protect cyclists from vehicle drivers not the other wat round.
Haha I love this! Even if that wasn't a ridiculous over estimation (which it is)
It's funny that the only defence people have of breaking the law is that other people also break the law.
I must remember that next time I'm in court for GBH: "yes your honour, but Harold Shipman"
You would be shocked if you came to London. Even the briefest of cycle rides and you'll see the red light jumpers. Flying through pedestrian crossings
“Of course” is the issue I have with this post. You can defend the cyclists all you wish but you really can’t put “of course” as I see exactly the opposite behaviour every single day. As a cyclists myself it frustrates and infuriate me how this law breaking, and the brazen, Boris Johnson esque way the cyclists justify breaking the law is really not a good look. And I’m getting tarred with that brush, despite following the rules
How do drivers manage in everyday life wandering round bumping into things not lit up like Christmas trees?I saw a disabled cyclist interviewed saying it's great news and riding in the middle of the road will make cyclists more visible. He was sat on his bike in the street.... dressed all in dark grey.
If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo landHigh - Vis clothing is not the answer to irresponsible negligent drivers.
How silly.How do drivers manage in everyday life wandering round bumping into things not lit up like Christmas trees?
Now all new cars have to have daytime running lights, no doubt all traffic collisions will cease as drivers will finally be able to see other vehicles.
I agree, but it is a part of the safety solution, cyclists could and should help themselves with their personal safety by adopting it, especially when so many still like to ride on a road without any lights on, or maybe one not working, i see some that do, just like some irresponsible car drivers venture with bulbs gone.High - Vis clothing is not the answer to irresponsible negligent drivers.
If you`ve ever done more than ride around the park - high vis does not:-If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land
Thats fair commentI agree, but it is a part of the safety solution, cyclists could and should help themselves with their personal safety by adopting it, especially when so many still like to ride on a road without any lights on, or maybe one not working, i see some that do, just like some irresponsible car drivers venture with bulbs gone.
The problem is often the selfishness of the road user (driver or cyclist) who because of their situation are willing to take a chance as it is unlikely they’ll get caught or be in an accident, unfortunately the just this once mentality will happen more than just this once. Hi vis exists for a reason, it makes common sense to do everything to be safe as you can in my eyes.
If you don't accept the big difference between grey clothing and something bright set against a grey road you're in cuckoo land
If you`ve ever done more than ride around the park - high vis does not:-
* prevent drivers from speeding,
* passing too close to cyclists including hitting riders on the overtake.
* parking all over pavements and blocking combined pedestrian/cycle lanes,
* using mobile phones on their laps [!] whilst driving,
* cutting illegal left turns, causing accidents and damage to other road users,
* opening driver-side doors without looking in the rear-view mirror,
* pulling out in front of cyclists and not giving way at signed junctions,
* abusing other road users and pedestrians as a matter of course,
* driving without the required lights including indicators and headlights / tail lights.
* overtaking on marked [two solid white lines] roads, into cyclists and other road users.
* Speeding into blind bends and corners, risking death and serious injury to other road users, including cyclists.
* Illegal U-turns in busy and open roads.
* tailgating cyclists risking death or serious injury.
* deliberately forcing cyclists off the road into the gutter,
* stopping / parking on zig-zags outside schools and on pelican crossings.
* stopping in the cycle-priority boxes at traffic lights.
* not paying due care and attention to other road users and pedestrians - forced breaking and swerving at risk of injury to others.
Its the same as "Did the cyclist have a helmet" (?)
* Helmets dont prevent careless, dangerous and negligent drivers from being behind the wheel of a sofa-in-a-box.
I agree, but it is a part of the safety solution, cyclists could and should help themselves with their personal safety by adopting it