Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

sillywilly

Dan_Gleebitz wrote: »

And as a fellow cyclist. It really annoys me when I see people cycling without wearing a helmet. You can afford the bike so you can afford a helmet.
It creases me how you will see a family cycling, say two adults and two children.
Children wearing helmets, got to look after their skulls.
One or both adults not wearing helmets, have a fall crack their skulls open, then their in trouble. Possible long term medical problems, including financial loss.
Do the right thing. Wear helmets.
Dan

Yes but wearing a helmet is not a law and it affects no other road users nor does it potentially cause an accident. Cycling without lights on the road, at night is an offence and could potentially cause an accident.

sillywilly

Bunting wrote: »

What annoys me is that bikes have to be sold with a bell (it's the law apparantly) but can be sold without lights.

LOL -That law about the bell is a complete load of nannying BS. Why do you even need a bell unless you are illegally riding on the pavement getting people to get out the way?

I don't think it should be the law to sell a bike with lights either - just that people who can spend £1-2000 on a bike can't be arsed to spend a tenner on some lights.

scooby088

cyclists who use those flashing lights annoy me

aheaton46

Pound wrote: »

Did you know more pedestrians are admitted to hospital with head injuries than cyclists? Should pedestrians wear helmets then?

With a post like that you're surely up for some sort of award for abuse of statistics. Of course more pedestrians are - there are many more of them.

Desperado99

sillywilly wrote: »

LOL -That law about the bell is a complete load of nannying BS. Why do you even need a bell unless you are illegally riding on the pavement getting people to get out the way?

I don't think it should be the law to sell a bike with lights either - just that people who can spend £1-2000 on a bike can't be arsed to spend a tenner on some lights.

We have paths in our town that are split into cycle/pedestrian paths. Sometimes, a bell does come in useful.

I guess I just don't understand people who would buy a bike and not put lights on it. In reply to esuhl - most car journeys are in daylight, but you can't buy a car without lights!!:D

moneyuser

sillywilly wrote: »

Why do you even need a bell unless you are illegally riding on the pavement getting people to get out the way?

You can get shared cycle/pedestrian lanes so a bell is essential to warn walkers you're approaching.

scooby088 wrote: »

cyclists who use those flashing lights annoy me

I think it is easier to see a flashing light at distance than a constant one.

Having said that I'm going to stop using flashing lights now as I've just read that it is possible they could cause someone to have an epileptic fit, which tbh I hadn't even thought about before.

Harry_Flashman

I have little liking for cyclists, but I can understand why they prefer not to wear helmets - it's because they look ludicrous

Rotor

moneyuser wrote: »

You can get shared cycle/pedestrian lanes so a bell is essential to warn walkers you're approaching.

I think it is easier to see a flashing light at distance than a constant one.

Having said that I'm going to stop using flashing lights now as I've just read that it is possible they could cause someone to have an epileptic fit, which tbh I hadn't even thought about before.

yes bells are essential..................OR...... you could use your voice to shout a cheery "excuse me"

eyeinthesky

scooby088 wrote: »

cyclists who use those flashing lights annoy me

I somehow have the idea that flashing front lights are not legal, anyone know?

Pound

eyeinthesky wrote: »

I somehow have the idea that flashing front lights are not legal, anyone know?

It has been legal since 2005 for a bicycle to use flashing rear and front lights.