Crashes on Guided Bus maintenance path!

88 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Chisholm

unread,
Dec 5, 2011, 11:17:35 AM12/5/11
to
Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had reports from numbers of people who
have had crashes on this route.

We wrote to the County Council in July expressing some concerns and
giving some 'snagging' items.

This letter and some further details is now 'on-line' at:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/99/article4.html

If you've had a crash, especially if you've been injured:
please report it to both the County Cycling Officer
(patric...@cambridgeshire.gov.uk)
and your local County Councillor

It appears that no formal safety audit was done (as it wasn't designed
as a cycle route..).

I counted over 140 cyclists and pedestrian at the junction between
Addenbrooke's and Trumpington in a very dark hour between 16:30 and 17:30

Jim Chisholm
(please don't shoot the messengers)
Message has been deleted

Jim Chisholm

unread,
Dec 5, 2011, 3:48:27 PM12/5/11
to
On 05/12/2011 18:28, Dave wrote:
> I wonder how many people observe the general 'on the left' rules, and how
> many cyclists don't have lights. I'm told by someone who does use the
> northern end out of town that there are indeed some idiots cycling along
> with no lights, wearing dark clothing (and so pretty much invisible with no
> street lights) and apparently making very little attempt to avoid those who
> are visible. I don't know about the pedestrians, although they are probably
> more aware and more likely to be hurt in collisions and so possibly keep a
> better lookout.

So on which side should unlit pedestrians walK?

Having used the DNA path (Shelford to Addenbrooke's) since it opened in
2006 I can assure you that an issue is the walkers and joggers in dark
clothing. If cycling at 10-15mph even a normally good light is
insufficient to see these zombies.
Numbers of walkers and joggers who use this path DO have either lights
or reflective clothing. I give pedestrians who are travelling in the
same direction a friendly ring so that (as long as they aren't iPodding)
they know I'm coming. If they move to the side, a frindly wave on
passing helps.

The issues on maintenance path is more the physical defects in design.
Grey Bollards and Chicane barriers in grey with no reflective markers or
flourescent paint.
No lighting
No edge marking (and a sharp drop from edge of blacktop
Kerbs dropped, but with big upstand (NOT flush) at locations where
cyclists are clearly likely to cross at an angle.
etc etc

Jim


nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 5, 2011, 5:13:35 PM12/5/11
to
In article <jbjan2$i2b$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Having used the DNA path (Shelford to Addenbrooke's) since it opened in
>2006 I can assure you that an issue is the walkers and joggers in dark
>clothing. If cycling at 10-15mph even a normally good light is
>insufficient to see these zombies.

Perhaps you should learn something about the law as regards the
use of highways and byways. You should never drive or ride faster
than you can stop in the distance you can see. If you can't do
that, either get better lights or get off your vehicle and walk.

Of course, you are ready enough to damn drivers who say that that
it is entirely the cyclists fault if they don't have reflective
clothing, helmets and lights bright enough to show up against
cars' headlights.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 5, 2011, 7:54:59 PM12/5/11
to

"Jim Chisholm" <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:jbjan2$i2b$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Having used the DNA path (Shelford to Addenbrooke's) since it opened in
> 2006 I can assure you that an issue is the walkers and joggers in dark
> clothing. If cycling at 10-15mph even a normally good light is
> insufficient to see these zombies.

I suggest you get your eyes checked PDQ.

> Numbers of walkers and joggers who use this path DO have either lights or
> reflective clothing. I give pedestrians who are travelling in the same
> direction a friendly ring so that (as long as they aren't iPodding) they
> know I'm coming. If they move to the side, a frindly wave on passing
> helps.

Now THAT's constructive.

> The issues on maintenance path is more the physical defects in design.
> Grey Bollards and Chicane barriers in grey with no reflective markers or
> flourescent paint.
> No lighting
> No edge marking (and a sharp drop from edge of blacktop
> Kerbs dropped, but with big upstand (NOT flush) at locations where
> cyclists are clearly likely to cross at an angle.
> etc etc

Ah, but think of the money they saved...

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop


Paul Rudin

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 3:23:57 AM12/6/11
to
Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> writes:

> I wonder how many people observe the general 'on the left' rules...

JOOI is there anything in, for example, the HC that tells you to stay on
the left when not on a road?

I know that it makes sense for there to be a convention ... and the same
one as on the roads makes sense, but I wonder whether it's really a
"rule" in the normal sense?

Owen Dunn

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 4:11:32 AM12/6/11
to
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> writes:

> So on which side should unlit pedestrians walK?
>
> Having used the DNA path (Shelford to Addenbrooke's) since it opened
> in 2006 I can assure you that an issue is the walkers and joggers in
> dark clothing. If cycling at 10-15mph even a normally good light is
> insufficient to see these zombies.

Tough, approximately: slow down so you can stop within the distance
you can see to be clear. I see no reason why pedestrians should wear
lights or idiotically coloured clothes to compensate for your poor
eyesight.

(S)

Andrew May

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 4:15:03 AM12/6/11
to
Although the convention for walking on a road without pavements is to
face the oncoming traffic, i.e. walk on the right. Perhaps the same
should apply off-road. Oh, now we have _two_ conventions. Are there any
more?

Mike Clark

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:21:04 AM12/6/11
to
In message <33fvq8-...@llondel.org>
Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:

> Jim Chisholm wrote:
>
> > Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had reports from numbers of people who
> > have had crashes on this route.
[snip]
> > I counted over 140 cyclists and pedestrian at the junction between
> > Addenbrooke's and Trumpington in a very dark hour between 16:30 and
> > 17:30
> >
> I wonder how many people observe the general 'on the left' rules,

It's not a road so there aren't any such rules.

> and how many cyclists don't have lights. I'm told by someone who does
> use the northern end out of town that there are indeed some idiots
> cycling along with no lights, wearing dark clothing (and so pretty
> much invisible with no street lights) and apparently making very
> little attempt to avoid those who are visible.

I suppose the problem is that this is not a road so in fact there is no
legal requirement to have lights or to keep to the left.

The route is used by dog walkers and joggers as well as cyclists so
again not all the pedestrians/joggers and their dogs are dressed in
reflective clothing or fitted with lights.

> I don't know about the pedestrians, although they are probably more
> aware and more likely to be hurt in collisions and so possibly keep a
> better lookout.

The other evening I decided I needed some exercise so rode out from
north Cambridge to St Ives and then back again (about an hour in each
direction [1,2]. Although it was very dark (except near the major road
crossings) and I only had my standard cateye HL-220 LED front lights
[3], I managed to keep up an average speed of about 20km/h (12.5mph)
which included stopping at the junctions. However I've got reasonably
good night vision and also as a caver and mountaineer I'm used to
wandering around in tricky and dangerous locations with less than
optimal lighting.

Along the way I encountered a number of joggers and dog walkers, only
some of which were wearing bright clothing or carrying a light. The
worst hazards were those dogs off of a lead, and one jogger without
lights or bright clothing was also accompanied by a dog off of the lead.
This was on the north section between Fen Drayton lakes and St Ives. Of
the cyclists I encountered, all of those on the sections between St Ives
and Histon were using lights, and many had very powerful lights. One
cyclist I rode along with for a while said that he regularly used the
route for a daily commute between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

There are certainly hazards on the route including for some sections
drop-offs of more than a foot on one side and also low unmarked bollards
at the by-way crossings. Having ridden the route several times in
daylight I was aware that these hazards existed so was prepared for
them. The numbers of users were greatest at the southern end of my route
i.e. between Histon and Cambridge.

One comment I could make is that all the Guided Bus drivers I
encountered were courteous enough to dip their lights as they approached
me and I thus didn't find myself too inconvenienced by their lights.

My view is that at a minimum the bollards ought to be well marked with
reflective markers of some kind. White paint to indicate the edge of the
track might also be useful.


[1] http://connect.garmin.com/activity/131898740
[2] http://connect.garmin.com/activity/131898730
[3] http://www.cateye.com/uk/products/detail/HL-EL220/


Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:24:21 AM12/6/11
to
In article <87aa76k...@no-fixed-abode.cable.virginmedia.net>,
Assuming you're still talking about the busway maintenance track, that's
a highway and hence a "road" for most statutory purposes. The rule
about keeping to the left side is enacted in section 78 of the Highway
Act 1835:

"... if the driver of any waggon, cart, or other carriage whatsoever, or
of any horses, mules, or other beast of draught or burthen meeting any
other waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules, or other beasts
of burthen, shall not keep his waggon, cart or carriage, or horses,
mules, or other beasts of burthen, on the left or near side of the road;
...
or if any person shall in any manner wilfully prevent any other person
from passing him, or any waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses,
mules, or other beasts of burthen, under his care, upon such highway,
...
or shall not keep his waggon, cart, or other carriage, or horses, mules,
or other beasts of burthen, on the left or near side of the road, for
the purpose of allowing such passage;
...
every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid, and being
convicted of any such offence, either by his own confession, the view of
a justice, or by the oath of one or more credible witnesses, before any
two justices of the peace, shall in addition to any civil action to
which he may make himself liable, for every such offence forfeit any sum
not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale"

"Carriage" of course now includes motor vehicles and cycles.

--
Ben Harris

Andrew May

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:30:14 AM12/6/11
to
Doesn't that refer to vehicles (of one sort or another). I was thinking
about pedestrians. Is there anything in the act that says which side of
the road (or busway access track) a pedestrian should be on?

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:38:52 AM12/6/11
to
In article <eece543d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In message <33fvq8-...@llondel.org>
> Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>> Jim Chisholm wrote:
>>
>> > Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had reports from numbers of people who
>> > have had crashes on this route.
>[snip]
>> > I counted over 140 cyclists and pedestrian at the junction between
>> > Addenbrooke's and Trumpington in a very dark hour between 16:30 and
>> > 17:30

>I suppose the problem is that this is not a road so in fact there is no
>legal requirement to have lights or to keep to the left.

I'm a bit confused by this claim. My understanding was that the
northern section maintenance track was to be dedicated as a public
bridleway (and the County's on-line version of the Definitive Map shows
it as such) and that the southern section maintenance track was to be
dedicated as a cycle track (cycle tracks not appearing on the Definitive
Map). Is there some part that hasn't been so dedicated?

>My view is that at a minimum the bollards ought to be well marked with
>reflective markers of some kind. White paint to indicate the edge of the
>track might also be useful.

Curiously, I can't find any marking in the Traffic Signs Regulations for
the edge of a bridleway. Diagram 1012.1 marks the edge of a
carriageway, and diagram 1049 marks the edge of a cycle track or route
used by pedal cycles and pedestrians only, but neither of those
describes a bridleway.

--
Ben Harris

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:40:51 AM12/6/11
to
In article <9k6g6m...@mid.individual.net>,
Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 06/12/2011 12:24, Ben Harris wrote:
>> In article<87aa76k...@no-fixed-abode.cable.virginmedia.net>,
>> Paul Rudin<paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Dave<noone$$@llondel.org> writes:
>>>> I wonder how many people observe the general 'on the left' rules...
>>>
>>> JOOI is there anything in, for example, the HC that tells you to stay on
>>> the left when not on a road?
...
>> Assuming you're still talking about the busway maintenance track, that's
>> a highway and hence a "road" for most statutory purposes. The rule
>> about keeping to the left side is enacted in section 78 of the Highway
>> Act 1835:
...
>Doesn't that refer to vehicles (of one sort or another). I was thinking
>about pedestrians. Is there anything in the act that says which side of
>the road (or busway access track) a pedestrian should be on?

Ah, sorry. Indeed there's nothing in the Highway Act stating which side
pedestrians should keep to, as long as they don't wilfully obstruct
other traffic.

--
Ben Harris

nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:42:40 AM12/6/11
to
In article <eece543d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>The route is used by dog walkers and joggers as well as cyclists so
>again not all the pedestrians/joggers and their dogs are dressed in
>reflective clothing or fitted with lights.

It is a great pity that we don't have more badgers around here,
because they are a good way of teaching cyclists that they should
not ride in such a way that they can't see to stop! A badger will
normally come off a lot better than the cyclist :-)

>The other evening I decided I needed some exercise so rode out from
>north Cambridge to St Ives and then back again (about an hour in each
>direction [1,2]. Although it was very dark (except near the major road
>crossings) and I only had my standard cateye HL-220 LED front lights
>[3], I managed to keep up an average speed of about 20km/h (12.5mph)
>which included stopping at the junctions. However I've got reasonably
>good night vision and also as a caver and mountaineer I'm used to
>wandering around in tricky and dangerous locations with less than
>optimal lighting.

I walk from Trumpington to Addenbrookes, and there is absolutely no
good reason I should carry lights or wear poncy clothing. The sort
of cyclist who can't see me is the sort who is likely to give me
completely inadequate room on the section that is now a building
site bypass. And the lights on the busway service road are almost
blinding.

>Along the way I encountered a number of joggers and dog walkers, only
>some of which were wearing bright clothing or carrying a light. The
>worst hazards were those dogs off of a lead, and one jogger without
>lights or bright clothing was also accompanied by a dog off of the lead.
>This was on the north section between Fen Drayton lakes and St Ives. Of
>the cyclists I encountered, all of those on the sections between St Ives
>and Histon were using lights, and many had very powerful lights. One
>cyclist I rode along with for a while said that he regularly used the
>route for a daily commute between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

Almost all of the claimed 140 MGB cyclists in a hour will have been
travelling between Addenbrookes and Trumpington, and that has been
a permissive cycleway for decades. Many will doubtless use the MGB
service track instead of their previous route, because it is better
(when it leads in the right direction and has appropriate exits!),
but I doubt that it has had any significant effect on the amount of
use.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Mike Clark

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 7:53:38 AM12/6/11
to
In message <jbl2cs$qgi$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>
bj...@cam.ac.uk (Ben Harris) wrote:

> In article <eece543d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
> Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In message <33fvq8-...@llondel.org>
> > Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Chisholm wrote:
> >>
> >> > Cambridge Cycling Campaign has had reports from numbers of people who
> >> > have had crashes on this route.
> >[snip]
> >> > I counted over 140 cyclists and pedestrian at the junction between
> >> > Addenbrooke's and Trumpington in a very dark hour between 16:30 and
> >> > 17:30
>
> >I suppose the problem is that this is not a road so in fact there is no
> >legal requirement to have lights or to keep to the left.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this claim. My understanding was that the
> northern section maintenance track was to be dedicated as a public
> bridleway (and the County's on-line version of the Definitive Map
> shows it as such) and that the southern section maintenance track was
> to be dedicated as a cycle track (cycle tracks not appearing on the
> Definitive Map). Is there some part that hasn't been so dedicated?

I've just seen your posting about the 1835 Highways Act, which I was
unaware of, so yes it would seem that passing other oncoming vehicles by
keeping to the left would be a requirement as it is a marked bridleway
between Cambridge and St Ives. However do lighting regulations for
bicycles also apply to use on Bridleways?

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 8:15:58 AM12/6/11
to
In article <50ca573d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I've just seen your posting about the 1835 Highways Act, which I was
>unaware of, so yes it would seem that passing other oncoming vehicles by
>keeping to the left would be a requirement as it is a marked bridleway
>between Cambridge and St Ives. However do lighting regulations for
>bicycles also apply to use on Bridleways?

Yes. Regulation 24 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989:

(1) Save as provided in paragraphs (5) and (9), no person shall—
(a) use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road any vehicle
which is in motion-
(i) between sunset and sunrise, or
(ii) in seriously reduced visibility between sunrise and
sunset; or
(b) allow to remain at rest, or cause or permit to be allowed
to remain at rest, on a road any vehicle between sunset and
sunrise
unless every front position lamp, rear position lamp, rear
registration plate lamp, side marker lamp and end-outline marker
lamp with which the vehicle is required by these Regulations to be
fitted is kept lit and unobscured.
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24>

"Road" isn't defined in the Regulations, so following the usual rules of
statutory construction, the definition comes from the legislation under
which the Regulations are made, namely the Road Traffic Act 1988. That
defines (in section 192(1)):

(1) In this Act-
...
"road" (a), in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and
any other road to which the public has access, and includes
bridges over which a road passes,
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ukpga/1988/52/section/192/1>

Since a bridleway or cycle track is a kind of highway, this means that
vehicles required to be fitted with position lights (including pedal
cycles between sunset and sunrise) are required to have them lit between
sunset and sunrise.

--
Ben Harris

g...@garethrees.org

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 8:44:38 AM12/6/11
to
Jim Chisholm wrote:
> So on which side should unlit pedestrians walk?

Pedestrians can walk on whichever side they like (or down the
middle), are not obliged to wear particular colours, and are not
required to show lights at night. It is up to faster-moving
users of shared-use paths to anticipate and pass them safely.

It may be frustrating for cyclists not to be able to go at the
same speed at night as they can during the day, but really,
that's just tough.

Also, cyclists do themselves no favours by alienating
pedestrians and calling them "zombies" or "ninjas" or
criticizing them for listening to music. This is exactly the
kind of bullying that we get from motorists, and it's just as
bad.

--
Gareth Rees

Ian Jackson

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 8:49:22 AM12/6/11
to
In article <83obvm6...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Tough, approximately: slow down so you can stop within the distance
>you can see to be clear. I see no reason why pedestrians should wear
>lights or idiotically coloured clothes to compensate for your poor
>eyesight.

I quite agree.

I have no difficulty seeing pedestrians in time to pass them
comfortably, even at over 20mph. But then I have gone to the trouble
and expense of fitting my bike with a light suitable for riding fast
in unlit areas.

Cyclists who haven't done that and therefore don't have the right
equipment, or whose eyesight isn't adequate for the task, should slow
down. It is the cyclists' responsibility to see and avoid
pedestrians, not the pedestrians' responsibility to make themselves
conspicuous.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 8:55:19 AM12/6/11
to
In article <14201539.185.1323179078420.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbaa2>,
<cam.tr...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Also, cyclists do themselves no favours by alienating
>pedestrians and calling them "zombies" or "ninjas" or
>criticizing them for listening to music. This is exactly the
>kind of bullying that we get from motorists, and it's just as
>bad.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

Alan

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 9:12:25 AM12/6/11
to
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 20:48:27 -0000, Jim Chisholm
<jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:


> Numbers of walkers and joggers who use this path DO have either lights
> or reflective clothing. I give pedestrians who are travelling in the
> same direction a friendly ring so that (as long as they aren't iPodding)
> they know I'm coming. If they move to the side, a frindly wave on
> passing helps.
>

What's a "friendly ring" sound like?

The polite thing is to slow and say "excuse me" or something similar.

--
Alan

To Reply, use e-s.news AT ourmailbox.org.uk in a sensible manner....

John Connett

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 9:22:24 AM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 9:15 am, Andrew May <andrew_d_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The maintenance track on the southern section is mostly a single track
road with no markings and no separate footpaths. It's possible to
encounter motor vehicles on this track. If you're very lucky you
might even see the £75,000 “Multihog” snow plough and brine sprayer
zipping along at up to 25 mph.

When walking south from Cambridge I keep to the right and face the
oncoming traffic. In most places there is the option to jump off the
track should it be necessary. However, when walking north towards
Cambridge keeping to the extreme right would place you inches from the
edge of the busway with buses approaching from behind at top speed and
with little noise from the smooth concrete surface. It seems sensible
to walk further out from the edge of the busway for safety.

It would be interesting to know what safety testing has been conducted
on the busway system.

During the leaf fall season I saw that leaves didn't appear to stick
to the concrete busway surface EXCEPT for the roughened surface
treatment applied before stops and crossings where braking is
required.

The guide wheels run close to the top of the kerb of the busway. If
the front wheel of the bus hit packed snow or a solid object it might
"derail" the guide wheel and turn the bus in that direction. This
could direct the bus onto the maintenance track.

Jim Chisholm

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 10:08:10 AM12/6/11
to
I can say that I've yet to hit anyone or anything, hence I can say that
my lights are adequate. As they are dynamo the faster I go the brighter
is the light... I've never suggested that it is a legal requirement for
pedestrians, and even a 'normal' jacket is sufficient to help, but the
trend does seem to be for jet black trousers and jackets. I do know that
numbers of people who use this path have VERY powerful bike lights and
these can blind other people.

I'd thought that individual bike lights over 5w were illegal, but of
course 5watts of electrical power can give a lot of light from LEDs..
Perhaps Ben can advise?

I'm sure that those who walk this route would not wish cyclists to use N
hundred lumens lights. A little compromise would help. If ALL (and that
includes zombie cyclists) had reasonable lights or non-black clothing, I
would not complain and pedestrians would not be dazzled.

Jim

ng...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 10:27:09 AM12/6/11
to
On 6 Dez., 13:21, Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:



>
> Along the way I encountered a number of joggers and dog walkers, only
> some of which were wearing bright clothing or carrying a light. The
> worst hazards were those dogs off of a lead, and one jogger without
> lights or bright clothing was also accompanied by a dog off of the lead.
>

I see your dog off a lead and raise you.
Pootling along one evening, I noticed a pedestrian keeping well to one
side and so didn't bother to ring the bell (some people don't like
being made to jump unnecessarily).
As I got closer, I noticed a dog rootling around in the undergrowth on
the other side of the path so kept an eye on that, only to realise as
I got closest of all that it was on one of those stupid retractable
leads which thus extended across the path. At that point I did use my
bell, but still had to stop.

Ian Jackson

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 10:56:10 AM12/6/11
to
In article <jblb5o$i3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I can say that I've yet to hit anyone or anything, hence I can say that
>my lights are adequate.

You were complaining about the attire of pedestrians. That's quite
out of order. They are entitled to wear what they like and you have
no right to complain about it.

> I do know that numbers of people who use this path have VERY
>powerful bike lights and these can blind other people.

A properly designed front light (like my B&M IQ Cyo) has a
well-defined upper edge to the bright area of the beam, which means
that (properly adjusted, of course) it doesn't dazzle people.
Message has been deleted

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 1:28:44 PM12/6/11
to
In article <jblb5o$i3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I'd thought that individual bike lights over 5w were illegal, but of
>course 5watts of electrical power can give a lot of light from LEDs..
>Perhaps Ben can advise?

I don't believe that there's any such restriction. There are power
limits on dipped-beam headlamps fitted to pre-1986 motor vehicles, but
these don't apply to pedal cycles. It's possible that limits are
imposed by the various standards that obligatory lights are required to
conform to, but these don't apply to optional lights, so you could
always have a BS-conformant front position lamp and an
arbitrarily-powerful optional headlamp.

Regulation 27 requires that lamps not be used so as to cause undue
dazzle or discomfort to other road-users. This may well mean that
poorly designed or installed lamps (or simply ones intended for off-road
use) are illegal on roads, but there are plenty of lights that are
designed to be bright but non-dazzling, Busch and Mueller's Lumotec IQ
range being the best-known example.

--
Ben Harris
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Ian

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 2:05:23 PM12/6/11
to


"Ben Harris" wrote in message
news:jblmss$4sc$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk...

I don't believe that there's any such restriction. There are power
limits on dipped-beam headlamps fitted to pre-1986 motor vehicles, but
these don't apply to pedal cycles. It's possible that limits are
imposed by the various standards that obligatory lights are required to
conform to, but these don't apply to optional lights, so you could
always have a BS-conformant front position lamp and an
arbitrarily-powerful optional headlamp.

Regulation 27 requires that lamps not be used so as to cause undue
dazzle or discomfort to other road-users. This may well mean that
poorly designed or installed lamps (or simply ones intended for off-road
use) are illegal on roads, but there are plenty of lights that are
designed to be bright but non-dazzling, Busch and Mueller's Lumotec IQ
range being the best-known example.

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A summary of cycle lighting regs can be found at-


http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4071

Ian



Message has been deleted

nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 3:01:35 PM12/6/11
to
In article <jblmss$4sc$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
Ben Harris <bj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <jblb5o$i3i$1...@dont-email.me>,
>Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I'd thought that individual bike lights over 5w were illegal, but of
>>course 5watts of electrical power can give a lot of light from LEDs..
>>Perhaps Ben can advise?
>
>I don't believe that there's any such restriction. ...

There used to be, hidden in the British Standard, which was designed
to ensure that no nasty foreigners could compete with Raleigh. But
they got abolished when the EU (or was it EC?) tightened the rules
against restrictive practices, and had been in abeyance even before
that. They are legal if they are legal in any state in the EU.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 6, 2011, 3:49:40 PM12/6/11
to
In article <14201539.185.1323179078420.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbaa2>,
<cam.tr...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Jim Chisholm wrote:
>> So on which side should unlit pedestrians walk?
>
>Pedestrians can walk on whichever side they like (or down the
>middle), are not obliged to wear particular colours, and are not
>required to show lights at night. It is up to faster-moving
>users of shared-use paths to anticipate and pass them safely.

This is particularly the case on bridleways, where bicyclists' right to
use them is conditional on their giving way to pedestrians and horse
riders (section 30, Countryside Act 1968).

--
Ben Harris
Message has been deleted

Ian Jackson

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 6:44:44 AM12/7/11
to
In article <3nnsd7pfjuc2a9280...@4ax.com>,
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>It is probably fair to say that you and I are probably in a minority
>though - most of the bright cycle lights you see are clearly not road
>legal, and most of the cheapy ones are inadequate for unlit areas.

If by "clearly not road legal" you mean that they are too bright:
I wasn't aware of any maximum brightness restriction in the UK
regulations.

If you actually mean that they don't have the right kitemark
etc. etc., then I don't think "clearly" comes into it unless you've
been hovering alongside these other cyclists with a bright headtorch
and a magnifying glass (and perhaps an inspection mirror) ...

>It can be difficult to persuade a casual cyclist that it is worth
>paying the premium price for good quality cycle lights, when for less
>than half the money they can buy a much more powerful light - still
>marketed as a cycle light but not legal - from somewhere in the far
>east selling over the internet.

I was under the impression that the brighter lights are generally more
expensive, being designed for gearhead night MTBers.

Ben Harris

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 7:18:19 AM12/7/11
to
In article <GMB*Rr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <3nnsd7pfjuc2a9280...@4ax.com>,
>Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>It is probably fair to say that you and I are probably in a minority
>>though - most of the bright cycle lights you see are clearly not road
>>legal, and most of the cheapy ones are inadequate for unlit areas.
>
>If by "clearly not road legal" you mean that they are too bright:
>I wasn't aware of any maximum brightness restriction in the UK
>regulations.

I think what he means is "incapable of being used without causing undue
dazzle or discomfort to other road users". Causing undue dazzle or
discomfort is outlawed by regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles Lighting
Regulations 1989.

--
Ben Harris

nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 7:46:50 AM12/7/11
to
>In article <3nnsd7pfjuc2a9280...@4ax.com>,
>Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>It is probably fair to say that you and I are probably in a minority
>>though - most of the bright cycle lights you see are clearly not road
>>legal, and most of the cheapy ones are inadequate for unlit areas.
>
>If by "clearly not road legal" you mean that they are too bright:
>I wasn't aware of any maximum brightness restriction in the UK
>regulations.

I believe that there have been none, at least since the post-Maastricht
changes, and possibly since the post-EC-joining ones. As I said,
there were, once, but they were in terms of requiring a specific
voltage and current and an incandescent bulb.

>If you actually mean that they don't have the right kitemark
>etc. etc., then I don't think "clearly" comes into it unless you've
>been hovering alongside these other cyclists with a bright headtorch
>and a magnifying glass (and perhaps an inspection mirror) ...

And an intimate knowledge of which other standards the courts would
deem to be equivalent - as far as I know, that has not been tested.
What the DafTies think is clearly irrelevant :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Mike Clark

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 7:52:22 AM12/7/11
to
In message <su1ud7hq4efkqq979...@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> nm...@cam.ac.uk considered Tue, 6 Dec 2011 20:01:35 +0000 (GMT) the
> perfect time to write:
[snip]
> >
> >There used to be, hidden in the British Standard, which was designed
> >to ensure that no nasty foreigners could compete with Raleigh. But
> >they got abolished when the EU (or was it EC?) tightened the rules
> >against restrictive practices, and had been in abeyance even before
> >that. They are legal if they are legal in any state in the EU.
> >
> Not quite.
> They have to meet an "equivalent standard" from elsewhere in the EU,
> which, although it is rather vague, certainly requires an actual
> standard, rather than just "white to front and red to rear" and is
> widely interpreted (including by CTCs legal advisors, the DfT, and
> Chris Juden (CTC tech officer) as "meeting a standard equal to or
> better than BS".
> AFAIK, the German StVZO standard is the only EU standard that is
> generally accepted as being equal or better than BS, so that's what we
> can use in addition to BS lights. Other EU standards may be arguably
> legal, but there is little certainty that they would comply.
> My main tail light (I use more than one) is BS (and has a combined BS
> reflector) and the headlight is StVZO.
>
> The "restrictive practices" laws can be set aside on grounds of safety
> (how do you think they got away with banning our beef?)
>
> Visiting foreign bikes get an exemption, and can use lights from their
> country of origin. Pre 1990 bikes can use any white light at the
> front.

Whilst that may be the technically legal position the fact remains that
the vast majority of bicycle shops (physical and online) stock a huge
range of dedicated cycle lights, many of which, perhaps most of which,
haven't been certified to any of the recognised standards. For example I
have quite a range of Cateye cycle lights for my bikes, only some of
which seem to bear a recognised certification mark. LED lighting
technology has been changing so fast that most models of light seem to
only be manufactured for a very short window of time before being
replaced with new models. My most recent front light purchases, bought
only a few months ago were two HL-EL220, now listed as archived on the
website[1]. An older (defunct due to it not being resistant to being
dropped on the floor) LED front lamp I have in my office drawer is an
HL-EL500 which seems to be no longer listed and to have been replaced on
the website by the HL-EL530. My emergency lamp which I carry daily in
case of problems with the main lamp is an HL-EL130/135, and I also have
on two of my bikes at home two HL-EL520 (in my experience they seem to
be more resistant to being dropped than the EL500). The only standard
marks that I've been able to see on any of these lights are CE marks on
some of them.

Similar things can be listed about an array of different rear red Cateye
LED lights that I have [2], although I have a couple of TL-AU100 which
bear a BS6102/2 mark on the integral reflector, the TL-LD170 (no longer
listed) and the TL-LD630 don't have anything other than a CE mark.

The attitude I take is that all of the above are functional lights in
allowing the bike to be clearly seen at night.


[1] http://www.cateye.com/uk/products/category/3/
[2] http://www.cateye.com/uk/products/category/4/

Mike Clark

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:09:39 AM12/7/11
to
In message <jblp1k$can$1...@dont-email.me>
"Ian" <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[snip]
> A summary of cycle lighting regs can be found at-
>
>
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4071
>
> Ian
>

Which after a very informative list of regulations ends with

"Unfortunately Britain is not the force it once was in the world cycle
market, with the result that very few manufacturers can nowadays be
bothered to test and mark their products to our standards. So it can
be really hard nowadays, to find any approved lamp for sale these
days, flashing or not!

Fortunately our Police seem hardly more concerned by legal niceties
than lamp manufacturers. And since it became theoretically legal to
ride a bike with just flashing lights on it, they're nowadays no more
likely to quibble its legal status than one equipped with steady
lights – unless they're rather dim (the lights that is) or involved in
an accident. Then it's possible that someone might look a bit closer.

Chris Juden 2011-02-03"

Ian Jackson

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:12:45 AM12/7/11
to
In article <jbnlib$upd$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
Ben Harris <bj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>I think what he means is "incapable of being used without causing undue
>dazzle or discomfort to other road users". Causing undue dazzle or
>discomfort is outlawed by regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles Lighting
>Regulations 1989.

Yes, I suppose that's a plausible interpretation. I rarely meet any
of those but I guess conditions vary - I'm rarely on the southern
section.

Roland Perry

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:08:33 AM12/7/11
to
In message <6082db3d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
12:52:22 on Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>The attitude I take is that all of the above are functional lights in
>allowing the bike to be clearly seen at night.

I see more and more cyclists with flashing white LED front lamps. In a
busy urban streetscape (which is where I typically drive) they are
probably harder to identify and track than a much weaker but steady
light.
--
Roland Perry

Mike Clark

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:24:22 AM12/7/11
to
In message <ymIVLnlR...@perry.co.uk>
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
> I see more and more cyclists with flashing white LED front lamps.
[snip]

It's the ones you don't see that are the real problem, but how many of
them have flashing versus steady lights on them? I can see a sampling
problem for this statistic though!

;)

Roland Perry

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:31:40 AM12/7/11
to
In message <6e70de3d52....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, at
13:24:22 on Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Mike Clark <mrc7...@cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>[snip]
>> I see more and more cyclists with flashing white LED front lamps.
>[snip]
>
>It's the ones you don't see that are the real problem, but how many of
>them have flashing versus steady lights on them? I can see a sampling
>problem for this statistic though!

Next time I'm out after dark I'll try to survey this (I think I do
eventually see all the cycles, but the question is how far away they are
when first identified as such).
--
Roland Perry

nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:40:50 AM12/7/11
to
In article <PFi*tM...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <jbnlib$upd$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
>Ben Harris <bj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>I think what he means is "incapable of being used without causing undue
>>dazzle or discomfort to other road users". Causing undue dazzle or
>>discomfort is outlawed by regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles Lighting
>>Regulations 1989.
>
>Yes, I suppose that's a plausible interpretation. I rarely meet any
>of those but I guess conditions vary - I'm rarely on the southern
>section.

From my trips across it, it's little used - just as we predicted!

The section between Addenbrookes and Hobson's Ditch is used as a
replacement for the old permitted cyclepath across the level crossing,
which is due to be closed (at least officially) sometime, but not by
everybody. And a few people use it from the Park and Ride to
Addenbrookes or from Trumpington to the Railway Station, but not
a huge number, judging from how few I have seen (and other data).

If and when it becomes accessible from Shelford Road, I may start
using it, but currently the only routes to it are either round the
mulberry bush or dangerous, or both.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Alan Braggins

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:43:29 AM12/7/11
to
In article <jbnn7q$17f$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>In article <GMB*Rr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>In article <3nnsd7pfjuc2a9280...@4ax.com>,
>>Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>It is probably fair to say that you and I are probably in a minority
>>>though - most of the bright cycle lights you see are clearly not road
>>>legal, and most of the cheapy ones are inadequate for unlit areas.
>>
>>If by "clearly not road legal" you mean that they are too bright:
>>I wasn't aware of any maximum brightness restriction in the UK
>>regulations.
>
>I believe that there have been none, at least since the post-Maastricht
>changes, and possibly since the post-EC-joining ones. As I said,
>there were, once, but they were in terms of requiring a specific
>voltage and current and an incandescent bulb.

A light can (and could) be both legal to use and not meet the requirements
for a legally required light.

Patrick Gosling

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:49:12 AM12/7/11
to
In article <ymIVLnlR...@perry.co.uk>,
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>I see more and more cyclists with flashing white LED front lamps. In a
>busy urban streetscape (which is where I typically drive) they are
>probably harder to identify and track than a much weaker but steady
>light.

I'm in favour of having both flashing and steady lamps at front and
rear; the former attract attention, while the latter provide something
you can track and thus get a good estimate of position/velocity from.

I'm particularly unimpressed by slow rate flashing lights; I've
recently seen a cyclist whose front light was off for a significant
proportion of a second at a time. The "off" period was longer than
the entire time that I was scanning that side of the roundabout that
I was about to enter on both the occasions that I did so. I only
realised he had a front light at all when it flashed on again as he
passed in front of me. [ Fortunately, I also expect unlit cyclists,
so wasn't taken by surprise, but it did make him much less visible than
I suspect he realised ]

-patrick.

Alan Braggins

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 8:56:08 AM12/7/11
to
In article <GMB*Rr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>In article <3nnsd7pfjuc2a9280...@4ax.com>,
>Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>It can be difficult to persuade a casual cyclist that it is worth
>>paying the premium price for good quality cycle lights, when for less
>>than half the money they can buy a much more powerful light - still
>>marketed as a cycle light but not legal - from somewhere in the far
>>east selling over the internet.
>
>I was under the impression that the brighter lights are generally more
>expensive, being designed for gearhead night MTBers.

At the top end, yes, but something like
https://www.dealextreme.com/p/ssc-p7-3-mode-900-lumen-led-headlamp-bike-light-set-4-18650-50947
is probably brighter (even allowing for "900 lumen" probably being a
massive exaggeration) and cheaper than your IQ Cyo, but doesn't have a
beam pattern designed for road use.

And these are cheaper and brighter than BS kitemarked lights:
https://www.dealextreme.com/p/untrafire-cree-q3-wc-6-mode-110-lumen-led-flashlight-with-bike-mount-3-aaa-26340
https://www.dealextreme.com/p/xc-997b-cree-3w-200lm-3-mode-white-led-bicycle-bike-light-4-x-aa-108640

The XC-997B does look a bit as if someone has cloned the IQ reflector design
though. I wonder if that's purely cosmetic, and if not how effective it is.
At that price I'm tempted to buy one just to find out....

Roland Perry

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 9:01:42 AM12/7/11
to
In message <W4C*2U...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 13:49:12 on Wed,
7 Dec 2011, Patrick Gosling <jp...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>
>I'm particularly unimpressed by slow rate flashing lights; I've
>recently seen a cyclist whose front light was off for a significant
>proportion of a second at a time. The "off" period was longer than
>the entire time that I was scanning that side of the roundabout that
>I was about to enter on both the occasions that I did so. I only
>realised he had a front light at all when it flashed on again as he
>passed in front of me. [ Fortunately, I also expect unlit cyclists,
>so wasn't taken by surprise, but it did make him much less visible than
>I suspect he realised ]

Those are exactly the ones I'm concerned about.
--
Roland Perry

Alan Braggins

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 9:06:43 AM12/7/11
to
In article <slrnjdus3...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins wrote:
>In article <GMB*Rr...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>I was under the impression that the brighter lights are generally more
>>expensive, being designed for gearhead night MTBers.
[...]
>The XC-997B does look a bit as if someone has cloned the IQ reflector design
>though. I wonder if that's purely cosmetic, and if not how effective it is.
>At that price I'm tempted to buy one just to find out....

https://www.dealextreme.com/feedbacks/browseCustomerPhotos.dx/sku.82138~id.125956
shows the internals. Maybe not as nice as the Cyo, but plausible.
(The XC-997A appears to be the same as the XC-997B but bundled with
rechargeable batteries and a charger.)

Uitlander

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 9:51:35 AM12/7/11
to Ian Jackson
On 07/12/2011 13:12, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article<jbnlib$upd$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>,
> Ben Harris<bj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I think what he means is "incapable of being used without causing undue
>> dazzle or discomfort to other road users". Causing undue dazzle or
>> discomfort is outlawed by regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles Lighting
>> Regulations 1989.
>
> Yes, I suppose that's a plausible interpretation. I rarely meet any
> of those but I guess conditions vary - I'm rarely on the southern
> section.

I fairly regularly meet 1 or 2 when I cycle home on the Northern Section
between 5 and 6 pm north of Histon. Being blinded by the light of
something coming towards me is very unpleasant and causes me to stop and
wait for the thing to pass. Its usually unclear until they pass whether
its a bike, motorbike or car with a dodgy headlight on the track, but so
far they have all been bikes whose riders seem oblivious to the effect
of their over-bright lights on others.

Jim Chisholm

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 11:33:08 AM12/7/11
to
On 07/12/2011 13:40, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>> Yes, I suppose that's a plausible interpretation. I rarely meet any
>> of those but I guess conditions vary - I'm rarely on the southern
>> section.
>
> From my trips across it, it's little used - just as we predicted!
>
> The section between Addenbrookes and Hobson's Ditch is used as a
> replacement for the old permitted cyclepath across the level crossing,
> which is due to be closed (at least officially) sometime, but not by
> everybody. And a few people use it from the Park and Ride to
> Addenbrookes or from Trumpington to the Railway Station, but not
> a huge number, judging from how few I have seen (and other data).

Again we have to question either Nick's eyesight or my counting...

A couple of weeks ago I counted just over 140 pedestrians and cyclists
at the junction of the CGB path near Hobson's Brook in just one hour.
That was in the dark between 16:30 and 17:30.
Such counts included those going from Addenbrooke's to Trumpington, the
P&R,and towards the station, as well as a few in reverse directions etc
(ie all movements at that junction). The vast majority were from Addeys.

OK it is an order of magnitude lower than those over Hills Road Bridge
at a similar time, but if all those were queuing in cars it would be
getting on for a mile long!

Jim

nm...@cam.ac.uk

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 12:33:20 PM12/7/11
to
In article <jbo4g5$cc5$1...@dont-email.me>,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> From my trips across it, it's little used - just as we predicted!
>>
>> The section between Addenbrookes and Hobson's Ditch is used as a
>> replacement for the old permitted cyclepath across the level crossing,
>> which is due to be closed (at least officially) sometime, but not by
>> everybody. And a few people use it from the Park and Ride to
>> Addenbrookes or from Trumpington to the Railway Station, but not
>> a huge number, judging from how few I have seen (and other data).
>
>Again we have to question either Nick's eyesight or my counting...
>
>A couple of weeks ago I counted just over 140 pedestrians and cyclists
>at the junction of the CGB path near Hobson's Brook in just one hour.
>That was in the dark between 16:30 and 17:30.
>Such counts included those going from Addenbrooke's to Trumpington, the
>P&R,and towards the station, as well as a few in reverse directions etc
>(ie all movements at that junction). The vast majority were from Addeys.

You seem to be suffering from other problems, too, such as either
lack of comprehension or MGB-worship.

About half of the permissive cycle path from Trumpington to
Addenbrookes has been replaced by the MGB spur, which has also
made the old route significantly less convenient. It is due to
be closed, both as a footpath and cyclepath, anyway, and may
even have been. To describe the large number of people who use
that route as users of the MGB southern section is polemic, at
best.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Roland Perry

unread,
Dec 7, 2011, 12:36:49 PM12/7/11
to
In message <22DU$Jm8q2...@perry.co.uk>, at 13:31:40 on Wed, 7 Dec
2011, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>[snip]
>>> I see more and more cyclists with flashing white LED front lamps.
>>[snip]
>>
>>It's the ones you don't see that are the real problem, but how many of
>>them have flashing versus steady lights on them? I can see a sampling
>>problem for this statistic though!
>
>Next time I'm out after dark I'll try to survey this

The weather seems to be keeping most cyclists off the road here in
Nottingum. But the most visible were those with ~3cps flashing front
lights (compared to slower flashing). Only saw one with a steady light.
--
Roland Perry