Man of Honour
That is happening with the cycle defect rectification scheme. Basically they're given a £30 ticket and told if they buy lights and bring the receipt to the police station, the ticket will be cancelled.
Cyclists two abreast on busy 'A' road, selfish?
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
That is happening with the cycle defect rectification scheme. Basically they're given a £30 ticket and told if they buy lights and bring the receipt to the police station, the ticket will be cancelled.
Man of Honour
To me, that says it's fine on anything but busy roads, not necessarily quiet ones. I'm thinking duel carriageways and busy A roads, with speed limits in excess of 40mph.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
You are reading it wrong then. It's an instruction not to ride more than two abreast and then a recommendation to ride single file when it's bust.
Why would you need to crack down on cyclists with no helmets or hi-viz? Neither of these are a legal requirement. I won't get into the helmet effectiveness debate here but rest assured my cycle helmet, jerseys, shorts, gillets and winter jacket are black.
I don't overtake cyclists that close,I however take issue with what is seemingly an arbitrary measure of a safe distance inasmuch as if it is arbitrary it therefore has no validity as an absolute.
And you CAN overtake a single cyclist giving him/her the same space as you would a car IF the carriageway is wide enough whereas on the self same carriageway if two abreast you cant.
[DOD]Asprilla;24680653 said:
Because it's inconsiderate, shows a lack of respect for other road users and their ability to see you.
Whilst it might not be a legal requirement, it is recommended in the highway code, the same highway code many cyclists are quick to turn to in order to demonstrate how many rights they have a cyclist.
59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
Soldato
Theoretically the cyclist should be 3' from the kerb and the overtaking car should give 3' clearance. Of course this a fantasy. I generally ride about 2' from the kerb but the clearance from an overtaking vehicle depends on the size and speed.
Soldato
[DOD]Asprilla;24680687 said:
I prefer cyclists who do their utmost to make themselves safe and visible on the road. Hi-visibility clothing is infinitely easier to see than a cyclist in dark clothing is.
Much like cyclists probably prefer motorists who give them plenty of room when overtaking for example, even though both are only a 'should do' level of importance in the highway code and thus not a legal requirement.
It's a two way street, neither group should expect the other to be making all the allowances for their preferred road use with no consideration in return.
Man of Honour
You're welcome.
Man of Honour
Obviously, this is much less important in the daylight, but yes, I think cyclists need to be very aware of how hard they are to be seen at night.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
If a driver can't see me when I'm cycling and wearing normal clothing then they shouldn't be driving and they should go and get an eyesight test.
And I've a 110 lumen rear light - hi-vis is insignificant compared to that.
Last edited by a moderator:
[DOD]Asprilla;24680685 said:
Sounds reasonable enough, BUT that's the thing, I feel I am reasonable when overtaking cyclists, factoring in if they suddenly veer right or hit a pothole and fall off/wobble etc, gives me a margin of safety etc, however I feel some cyclists display an astonishing lack of consideration for other road users, they knowingly cause other road users hassles when at no real great cost to themselves they could make things a lot easier for everyone.
IMHO if your indulging yourself in your hobby then the burden of your indulgence shouldn't rest on others.
This is the sort of self-righteous arrogance that makes many detest cyclists.
'The highway code says we can do this, the highway code says you must do this to account for us'
"The highway code says wear clothing to make yourself more visible"
'No, you shouldn't drive if you can't see me anyway!!'
Like I said before:
It's a two way street, neither group should expect the other to be making all the allowances for their preferred road use with no consideration in return
Great, you'd be significantly in the minority around my local area. I'd estimate that on my commute to work, more than half the cyclists I encounter have no form of lighting, or hi-vis at all. During the summer this isn't the end of the world, middle of December though and they're still at it, and much harder to see than other road users.
Last edited:
Soldato
Do you think you will see my hi-viz if you can't see the 400 lumen flashing light on my bike?
Soldato
Do you feel that about other road users as well?
[DOD]Asprilla;24680749 said:
Depends if your light faces forwards, backwards and to the sides as well.
Don't forget to consider, many cyclists do not ride with lights too. You may well do but don't assume that this is a universal thing. Much as I give cyclists room when I overtake, I don't assume this applies to everyone else. Hell, even some of those that do have lights seem to have deliberately gone on a mission to find the dimmest light they possibly can before pointing it at the floor so the only time you'd see it is if they were riding the bike over the top of your car
Last edited:
Man of Honour
[DOD]Asprilla;24680749 said:
Lights are only really visible front and back. High vis makes you visible side on.
Deleted member 66701
D