Squiggs Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Why don't cyclists have an mot for riding on roads? You'd think there would be a minimum road safety requirement if they are going to use the roads 1. Lights 2. Reflective gear/accessories 3. Helmet. There is another thread going at the moment where a cyclist has been cautioned by police for running a red light, so it seems the cops are being pro active towards road users who need to brush up on the highway code. There is already a legal requirement for lights to BS6102/3 after dark, and reflectors to BS6102/2 front, rear and on the pedals Anything else is akin to banning black cars from the road unless they are fitted with a hi-vis car cover Helmets are another long discussion which is not resolved in multiple threads here and on cycling forums, so is not worth going into again here suffice to say that opinion both amateur and professional, is divided as to the merits of compulsory helmet wearing None of the 3 things you mention would have made any difference to an idiot who thinks that red-light jumping is a safe option (and unfortunately there are a vocal minority) Edited January 1, 2015 by Squiggs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 I've just took the lights off. Means we don't have to worry about the colour, means I can catch more cyclists on red light and OWD and snailyboy have something to feel all outraged at. Everyones' a winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I've just took the lights off. Means we don't have to worry about the colour, means I can catch more cyclists on red light and OWD and snailyboy have something to feel all outraged at. Everyones' a winner! Outraged? All I did was ask for further details, as we only have your version of events. With the details coming out you may want to change the title of the thread to 'cyclist vs unlit trailer' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Am satisfied the op was in the right and did everything possible to prevent an accident. The cyclist was behaving recklessly in this case and was lucky to escape with his life. Lesson learned hopefully. Leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 Outraged? All I did was ask for further details, as we only have your version of events. With the details coming out you may want to change the title of the thread to 'cyclist vs unlit trailer' Oooh look as expected - there's your outrage Trailer was lit at the time of the crash. Beyond the legal requirements. But even if it wasn't - even if the lights were not fitted, even then I'd still be legal and the cyclist would still be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Am satisfied the op was in the right and did everything possible to prevent an accident. The cyclist was behaving recklessly in this case and was lucky to escape with his life. Lesson learned hopefully. Leave it at that. No one accused, or implied, that the op was in any way at fault, at any point throughout this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Oooh look as expected - there's your outrage Trailer was lit at the time of the crash. Beyond the legal requirements. But even if it wasn't - even if the lights were not fitted, even then I'd still be legal and the cyclist would still be wrong. You have a very strange definition of outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubermaus Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 No one accused, or implied, that the op was in any way at fault, at any point throughout this thread. The OP was in the right. The cyclist was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 The OP was in the right. The cyclist was wrong. Why do you keep repeating that? No-one's disagreeing with it. It's been clearly stated several times that the OP did nothing wrong, and, that the cyclist was riding foolishly. Yet people keep repeating "The OP was in the right. The cyclist was wrong." as if, there's some disagreement. Who do you think is disagreeing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Woodhouse lane in Leeds by the Dry Dock. That road must bring out the worst in some cyclists. My step-mum (a pedestrian, in her 80s) was knocked right off her feet by one there (again, he was jumping the lights) a few years ago. Her shoulder and knee are still not - and probably never will be - back to normal. I'm glad your incident ended without injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts