blog

Louise Gagnon writes…

Whether it’s for a good cup of Java, a spare tube or an impromptu bike repair, Dave and his wife await you in their new and very welcoming cafe, located close to Box Hill and Polesden Lacy, at West Humble’s historical Grade II listed former station. 

• An ideal alternative to the Polesden Lacy coffee stop  
• Helmets, shorts, waterproofs, spare parts such as chains, cables, inner tubes, tyres and more
• Their open fire, known to have thawed out frozen cyclists, will be kept burning through the winter Or drop in for a refreshing ice cream on a hot summer afternoon!
• Sandwiches and tea cakes are on offer as well as home made cakes, flap jacks, cookies, fruit and crisps
• If you plan on dropping in with a group of more than 6, please call in advance. Group bookings for lunch during the week are always welcome.

Pilgrim Cycles Ltd

The Old Booking Hall
Box Hill & Westhumble Station
Westhumble Street
Westhumble
Surrey  RH5 6BT
 
Tel 01306 886958
www.pilgrim-cycles.co.uk

Pilgrims is located where the blue dot is.

From Chris Jeggo

I read John Murdoch’s reply with great interest, and it is very useful to have this debate.

I agree with much of what he says.  In his second paragraph he talks about “very different conclusions”.  My conclusion was that there is no point in using a normal intensity rear lamp in fog, while his was that it is sensible to use only high-intensity rear lamps in fog.  Is there any incompatibility there?  In fact, last Wednesday I noted what high-intensity lamps Louise and Nick were using with the intention of buying one myself, to supplement my existing lamp and for use only in fog.

They do dazzle, and I used that specific word, not ‘distract’ or ‘inconvenience’.  The problem with dazzle lies in the way the human eye works;  it adjusts its sensitivity to compensate for the bright object in the scene with the result that less bright objects (potholes?) become more difficult to discern.  It’s not a problem in daylight but it certainly is at night.  Fog lamps should only be used in poor visibility.  Oh, and if you are using a bright rear lamp why would you want to be anywhere else than at the back of the group, because otherwise a following rider will obscure it and annul its effectiveness.

So how bad was the visibility last Wednesday?  I estimated it to be about 100m, give or take a physicist’s margin of error, 25% say.  And of course it varied a bit from place to place.  From time to time I asked myself ‘What is the furthest object I can see?’ and ‘Roughly how far away is it?’  Now 100m is a borderline case in two senses.  Firstly, if visibility is below 100m cars MUST use headlamps;  if it is above 100m they MUST NOT use fog lamps.

Secondly, let’s try and be a bit more precise regarding John’s conclusion that if the motorist behind sees the cyclist before his lamp then it is probably too late.  According to ‘The Highway Code’ the typical stopping distance for a car travelling at 70mph is just under 100m (including the “thinking distance”), so I would substitute ‘sometimes’ for ‘probably’.

I would not call 100m visibility “extremely foggy” or “truly poor”.  I remember cycling round in my teens on foggy nights in an industrial town fuelled universally by coal.  Visibility down to 20m, 10m, less … it was difficult to pick out the kerbs sometimes.  Cyclists would catch up with motorists because they could see better, they didn’t have six feet of foggy dead space in front of them (a typical car bonnet length in those days, before the Mini).

So the extent of my disagreement with John is just the extent to which he overstated his case!

There was an amazing turn-out of people, especially considering it was a nasty damp, if mild, Sunday. Personally it’s the kind of weather I like, although a light drizzle is about all I want to have to deal with; on this occasion, the drizzle became rain and then stopped, only to start again a few minutes later and so it went on – never the same for more than a couple of minutes, so it was eminently easy to put up with. However, it was all made up for by the ride being along familiar, but beautiful lanes, between Godalming and Chiddingfold, where we enjoyed our coffee and cakes.

Merry Christmas, the Wayfarers!

From John Murdoch

Anyway, it is amazing how the same visual evidence can lead two people to come up with very different conclusions! Having followed a cyclist down the Vokes road who had no rear lights on at all despite the truly poor visibility, and then also seen how difficult it was to see some of our riders who had rear lights, but of poor intensity (I am sure I fell into that latter category!) my own conclusion was that it was sensible to use only lights with sufficient brightness.

I then considered Chris’ views about these being distracting to other road users. I am sure that they would need to be ridiculously bright to be distracting to car drivers, which means that they are suitable for solo riders. But what about group riding, which is what we do? I tend to be at the front of the group most of the time (not my superior pace, just that I happen to be a leader) so would be interested in views from further back in the peleton, but my limited experience does not support the view that the danger of a bright light to a rider behind outweighs the reduced danger through being more visible to other road users; we must distinguish between “danger”, which we must avoid, and “mild inconvenience”.