Bealach na Ba - now in fluo yellow

[amaferanga]

IMO this is a cynical attempt by the Applecross CC nimby members (advised by the famous and highly-decorated audax champion (allegedly turned recluse) Tim Daplyn) to put cyclists off doing the event.  Looking at the entry list so far though it has clearly failed.  This has nothing to do with rider safety.

However, given that the Bealach is so often shrouded in cloud (well it has been both times I've been over) then I actually think a rear light may actually be a good idea.

Why? If you need a cyclist to have a rear light in order to see them then you are driving far too fast for the conditions (and on a closed road) anyhow.

..d

It shouldn't be necessary, I was just suggesting it might be a good idea.  Only the Bealach is closed anyway, but if a rider had a crash on the descent then an ambulance may need to use the road.

[phil d]

IMO this is a cynical attempt by the Applecross CC nimby members (advised by the famous and highly-decorated audax champion (allegedly turned recluse) Tim Daplyn) to put cyclists off doing the event.  Looking at the entry list so far though it has clearly failed.  This has nothing to do with rider safety.

However, given that the Bealach is so often shrouded in cloud (well it has been both times I've been over) then I actually think a rear light may actually be a good idea.

Why? If you need a cyclist to have a rear light in order to see them then you are driving far too fast for the conditions (and on a closed road) anyhow.

..d

Normally I'd see this (and my about-to-be reply) as off topic, but given that the discussion is about the imposition of a flouro jacket on an event, I guess it's not much of a digression.

This comment worries me a little.  Actually, more than a little.  While I agree in a perfect world all motorists would drive in a way that a cyclist's use of a rear light would be irrelevant, that's not how it is in reality.  Surely any little thing we can add to the mix that might help avoid us being another statistic is worthwhile?  Until (as if ever!) we live in that perfect world, part of the onus remains on us to make ourselves as visible as possible.  Even if it is unlikely that a car will be on the same road.

Sorry David.  Not trying to get at you, but your comment seemed unusually aggressive.

BTW, to my surprise I did not hear much (if any) complaint about the requirement that LEL riders wear an ankle band.

[nic]

BTW, to my surprise I did not hear much (if any) complaint about the requirement that LEL riders wear an ankle band.

Oops I used mine on my saddlebag.

[Frenchie]

Entries for the 2010 Bealach na Ba challenge open in about an hour. Apparently next year you have to wear a fluorescent bib on the ride 

I am sure it will please some...

[mattc]

BTW, to my surprise I did not hear much (if any) complaint about the requirement that LEL riders wear an ankle band.

I think this was because many riders came via/from PBP, where a flippin' vest (or Sam Brown) was required at night.

The ankle bands were a MUCH better solution! (and they were thrown in free)

[simonp]

In poor visibility if you have lights fitted you're required to use 'em. This is the same as required of motorists.

[nuttycyclist]

...
This comment worries me a little.  Actually, more than a little.  While I agree in a perfect world all motorists would drive in a way that a cyclist's use of a rear light would be irrelevant, that's not how it is in reality.  Surely any little thing we can add to the mix that might help avoid us being another statistic is worthwhile?  Until (as if ever!) we live in that perfect world, part of the onus remains on us to make ourselves as visible as possible.  Even if it is unlikely that a car will be on the same road.

...

BTW, to my surprise I did not hear much (if any) complaint about the requirement that LEL riders wear an ankle band.

I agree that we should make ourselves as visible as possible; but at the same time we need to be careful not to get onto the neverending cycle of increasing our visibility (lights/reflectors/hi-viz) against that of the motorist (with ever increasing light brightness and lack of attention).

By objecting to hi-viz/etc I'd hope to lob the ball back into the motorist's court and get them to learn to drive properly.  When was the last hi-viz car you saw?


IMHO, based also on experience, black clothing with tiny reflective piping coupled with decent bike lights is just as visible as a cyclist in full hi-viz costume.  To become more visible you need to position the bike sensibly*so that you are identified by the other road users.



As for LEL - I wasn't planning on taking part and hadn't spotted the reference to an ankle band.  If I had I would have commented adversely.  The PBP reflective lark was one of the reasons I didn't take part (I hate how hi-viz vests flutter over my normal cycle clothing) so the same criteria would have applied to LEL.  On the plus side though the ankle band does at least imply "cyclist" and isn't as uncomfortable to wear. 










* on the motorbike on Friday I managed to get spotted in another biker's mirrors so he pulled over to let us filter past, even though the rider ahead of me had been tailgating him for ages.  I put the bike in a sensible place, the other rider hadn't.

[MSeries]

nuttycyclist. I agree with most of your points. We must not be made to feel bad or wrong for not wearing hi-viz.

On PBP one wasn't forced to wear a hi-viz vest. A Sam Browne or similar type of belt was OK, mine didn't flap at all and didn't mask my club colours much. Me & Jim Churton on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Sigurd Mudtracker]

Don't think I'll be riding this year, then.  It's not just about fluorescent tabards (I tend to veer towards the red or yellow end of the spectrum anyway), it's the whole organised nature of the thing.  But then I'm probably not part of the target audience anyway.  I may pop over sometime and ride it myself beofre the actual event (it's only a couple of hours from here).

Rear lights are definitely required, IMHO.  Even in the relatively good conditions in 2008 when I rode (I wimped out at Achnasheen on the way there last year) the cloud cover on the Bealach was enough for a rear light to be required as per Highway Code.  I put mine on, not so much because I was afraid of being run over by a motorist, but to warn other cyclists descending faster than me,

[David Martin]

Don't think I'll be riding this year, then.  It's not just about fluorescent tabards (I tend to veer towards the red or yellow end of the spectrum anyway), it's the whole organised nature of the thing.  But then I'm probably not part of the target audience anyway.  I may pop over sometime and ride it myself beofre the actual event (it's only a couple of hours from here).

Rear lights are definitely required, IMHO.  Even in the relatively good conditions in 2008 when I rode (I wimped out at Achnasheen on the way there last year) the cloud cover on the Bealach was enough for a rear light to be required as per Highway Code.  I put mine on, not so much because I was afraid of being run over by a motorist, but to warn other cyclists descending faster than me,

Having ridden it last year in what can only be described as very much less than clement weather, there was absolutely no problem seeing other riders. Seeing the edge of the road was far more problematic.

Rear lights aren't necessary unless you are riding faster than you can actually see where the road goes.
And willing to make the presumption that the road goes in a direct line between you and the red lights you can see. A very dangerous presumption.

..d