NO...Cyclists don't ride on pavements or jump red lights at all.

thelawnet

JQ. wrote: »

I have 4 very powerfull lights on my bike 2 at the front 2 at the rear, one static, one pulsing. The lights are turned on day and night no matter what the conditions. Gives people less of an excuse to ignore you.

I change the batteries regularly, in fact I changed them last night. We do bulk buys of batteries at Costco, which make it a bit more cost effective.

Truly powerful bike lights run off rechargeable batteries - AAs just don't have enough power compared with lithium-ion rechargeables.

jago25_98

I'm cycling the wrong way up a one way street when I see 4 policeman ahead of me.

I smile and wave. They smile and wave back `Pocito bici!` they laugh.
This is Buenos Aires.

In the 2 months I was there I saw no one wear a crash helmet, no one seems to follow rules and... I didn't see anyone get hurt in 2 months. I was told I was insane to ride without a helmet between 5 tonne busses, and fair enough, seeing as my brother put his head through a car window in the UK (he was following the rules cycling everyday to work)... I thought it was crazy at first.

In a sense there a no rules feeling. But here's the thing - people are courteous. It's only the skin of a car that changes this because people can't communicate. People are careful.
Over here people need rules. People are dependent on rules.

Over there cars used to stop at red lights just like in the UK. But then they had a massive economic crisis and everyone became scared to stop for fear of being robbed and killed. The interesting thing is that at first the police still tried to get people to stop and took people to jail for it. It didn't work! People still chose to run the lights.

What I'm saying is that it is recognise the flow. If there's a problem don't be anal about it and try to fight it - but you can steer it. If people want to cycle on the pavement because they don't feel save on the roads tell pedestrians to look out and remind cyclists that they won't stand a chance in a courtcase - but don't try to go against the tide by outlawing whatever the problem is.

Trying to be pragmatic here - we know it's a very heavy penalty to creep across a red light, yet we still do it the world over. That's not to be ignored. That action is louder than any words and the driving force behind it will remain regardless.

In the case of the bicycle it's great because you feel you can go anywhere. Unlike a car. Surely the single greatest thing about a bicycle. Long distance runners I'm sure you'll identify.
That can all change if another baby gets run over and it hits the news.

birkee

Strider590 wrote: »

I seriously don't think anyone would believe the cyclist was a Police officer, I personally think the effect is on a subconscious level.....
They see "Polite", their brain thinks "Police" and this little reminder makes them kurb their bad driving. It would be interesting to see if they continue to drive more considerately once they round the next bend. I actually think they will...... In just the same way that most people slow down for a good few minutes after they've gone past a speed camera.

I agree with YOU up to a point, but I think the real difference is, that the cyclist is drawn to the attention of the motorist as being different, and needs to be evaluated as to why he's different.
Hence paying more attention to the cyclist, instead of treating him like wallpaper.

I think you may well get the same response from motorists if you wore a tabard with Ronald McDonald on it.

JQ.

birkee wrote: »

I agree with YOU up to a point, but I think the real difference is, that the cyclist is drawn to the attention of the motorist as being different, and needs to be evaluated as to why he's different.
Hence paying more attention to the cyclist, instead of treating him like wallpaper.

Surely that's the whole point of of why cyclists get so irate - they don't want to be treated like wallpaper, they want drivers to show some consideration.

birkee

Instead of reading that as an indictment against cyclists, read my post again.

One of the things that keep getting thrown at motorists though, is that cyclists feel threatened by cars behavng badly, and their potential for causing injury. Does it not occur that this is because motorists are paying more attention to other vehicles for the very same reasons? They can't be watching out for other vehicles, and at the same time be condemned for being caught unawares by cyclist's doing the most extraordinary things, like jumping red lights, leaping on and off pavements, overtaking on the inside etc.

ALL road users have the same duty of care. The unexpected is nearly always from cyclists though, so it's not surprising if they get caught out more often than other road users.
I was caught out last week, by some teenager leaping off the pavement crossing the road, right in front of me. Being on the ball, I managed to stop five feet from him. If I HAD hit him though, I certainly wouldn't have lost any sleep. My Wife has had two major heart operations, I would have been more concerned that she wasn't given a heart attack because of his stupid behaviour.
(Oh, and the lad he was racing, just managed to stop before he leapt onto the road, because he fortunately realised that HE wouldn't have made it.)

Strider590

birkee wrote: »

I was caught out last week, by some teenager leaping off the pavement crossing the road, right in front of me. Being on the ball, I managed to stop five feet from him. If I HAD hit him though, I certainly wouldn't have lost any sleep. My Wife has had two major heart operations, I would have been more concerned that she wasn't given a heart attack because of his stupid behaviour.
(Oh, and the lad he was racing, just managed to stop before he leapt onto the road, because he fortunately realised that HE wouldn't have made it.)

That's pretty disgusting behaviour.... BUT.... Had the two lads been on foot and jumped into the road, would that be a reason slam all pedestrians?

What we're doing here is pigeon holing people based on their mode of transport. If we took all the silly things that drivers do (all sexes and age ranges) we would have a list so big that if you tied one end to a cross Altlantic cargo ship and one end to a random rock at landsend we could wage war on America with a army of highly trained SAS fighting ants.

The above really is indicative of how the bad riding of kids and teenagers affects the way we view all cyclists.

mikey72

Strider590 wrote: »

That's pretty disgusting behaviour.... BUT.... Had the two lads been on foot and jumped into the road, would that be a reason slam all pedestrians?

What we're doing here is pigeon holing people based on their mode of transport. If we took all the silly things that drivers do (all sexes and age ranges) we would have a list so big that if you tied one end to a cross Altlantic cargo ship and one end to a random rock at landsend we could wage war on America with a army of highly trained SAS fighting ants.

The above really is indicative of how the bad riding of kids and teenagers affects the way we view all cyclists.

So, these two are reason to say kids and teenagers affect the way we view all cyclists.
Bit of pigeon holing to make them a reason to slam all
kids and teenagers?

birkee

mikey72 wrote: »

So, these two are reason to say kids and teenagers affect the way we view all cyclists.
Bit of pigeon holing to make them a reason to slam all
kids and teenagers?

What needs to be born in mind, is that we know where trouble is LIKELY to occur, so we pidgeon hole them as a risk until we know better.

To my knowledge, I have never caused a problem for a cyclist, but plenty of cyclists have caused ME problems, therefore all cyclist are a hazzard. If the likely event doesn't occur, then we forget about it and carry on with our journey.
The same is true of cyclists, with their view of motorists, hence the views expressed preceeding this.

The 'pidgeon holing' remark is not worth considering, for the following reason. If a five year old gets his hands on a gun, we know he doesn't want to kill his parent or sibling but the risk is there. Do we not pidgeon hole all five year olds with a gun as dangerous, because most of them will not fire it?
If a motorist / or cyclist uses the roads like a five year old, how are we supposed to know that's going to happen, untill they demonstrate it by silly actions?

So,..... all motorists are dangerous to cyclists, and all cyclists are dangerous to motorists......until we have safely passed each other.
THAT, is the only safe way to behave and think.

(No, I don't want to know how motorists can do more damage to a cyclist, that's irrelevant to the CAUSE of the accident.)

rev_henry

mikey72 wrote: »

So, these two are reason to say kids and teenagers affect the way we view all cyclists.
Bit of pigeon holing to make them a reason to slam all
kids and teenagers?

Well insurance companies do it to teenage drivers.

Strider590

birkee wrote: »

So,..... all motorists are dangerous to cyclists, and all cyclists are dangerous to motorists......until we have safely passed each other.
THAT, is the only safe way to behave and think.

Prepare for the worst, I agree.....

But what's happening is many drivers look upon every cyclist as a nuisance and will attack cyclists in any way possible, with very little provocation.
This is a word apart from simply being more aware and accounting for the possibility of the cyclist doing something silly.