Back down the beach for the usual Wednesday morning run this morning. Although this week's version was slightly shorter than normal due to this week being a lighter week. We had some rain last night though, and between that and the typical winter grumpy ocean, the beach was an interesting place in the early hours of this morning. Lots of wash aways etc, it made for an interesting running experience in total darkness. I managed to pass through unscathed though, so all good there.
The ride last night was good. Nice and fast. There was a bit of wind and the sky looked a bit threatening, but the rain held off, which was appreciated. Referring to yesterday's post about clearing your nose, there was one person was drafting behind me down the freeway last night who was very lucky that I am a nice person.
I have been having a few confusing moments concerning head torches on my rides recently. You know those times when somebody is riding towards you wearing a head torch and no other front lights and all you see is this really high light heading towards you. No matter how many times it happens, my first thought is always that it is a normal bike light and so I think, 'wow that bike is really tall, the person riding that must be huge', then I realise it is a head torch. Does that happen to anyone else? No. Just me then.
As winter has been rolling in and it has been getting darker earlier down here in Perth, there has been a bit of debate recently about whether walkers should wear lights when out walking in the dark. Really the discussion is talking about walkers on the shared cycleways, as far as I am aware bikes aren't allowed on footpaths in Perth. The two sides of the argument are, cyclists saying that walkers are invisible on unlit stretches of cycleway (of which there are many) and are therefore in danger of being hit by cyclists. Cyclists also tend to use the argument that they have to carry lights, so why shouldn't walkers. The walker argument goes that they are not the ones bowling along at great speed on near silent machines, if cyclists are worried about hitting walkers they should slow down. I can see both sides of the argument and in the end both groups have every right to be there. Being a cyclist I have to say I fall on the cyclist side of the argument. There are some section of cycleway I just won't ride down, the chance of hitting somebody walking is simply to great. Other sections you don't have a lot of choice, and so it can really be a bit of a heart in mouth exercise, riding along, peering into the gloom. I know if I was a walker, there are some sections of cycleway I wouldn't walk down, or if I didn't have a choice, I would take a light in the name of self preservation.
In the end there are some bits of cycleway that have a real pedestrian bias and others which are more frequented by cyclists. I am not saying that walkers shouldn't be on bits of path with lots of cyclists, or vice versa, but I think that if you do find yourself in that situation, taking precautions to keep yourself safe is just common sense. If you are a cyclist on a path with lots of walkers, that might mean slowing down, if you are a walker on a path with lots of cyclists, that might mean carrying a light.
I missed out on the priority entry period for the Mandurah 70.3 yesterday. When I say I missed out, it would be more correct to say that I forgot that priority entries for Mandurah 70.3 opened yesterday. By the time I remembered, they were sold out. The general entries open tomorrow. I will not be forgetting that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment