Cycling: red lights

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Yep, that works for visibility




As a driver, trust me, it doesn't where there's no street lighting and a flow of cars coming towards you so that I'm behind you, on dipped beam, and have all those lights (including badly set HID ones :mad: ) in my face. In those conditions, only the light will show up and a flashing light is almost impossible to keep track of in those conditions!

In fact, even without the cars coming the other way, the flashing light can become distracting long before any hi-vis shows up against the hedges round here!

also wear one of these on the commute



plus rear light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT35mCuZS8I

which hangs off the jacket(thats light number 3 on the rear,soon to be 4 when my pannier rack light arrives)

my main front light is a CREE light. super bright
however I still have cars pull out in front off me,stop dead,open doors etc

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

my main front light is a CREE light. super bright
however I still have cars pull out in front off me,stop dead,open doors etc

Sadly, bad / inconsiderate cyclists are like bad drivers. They exist, and they tend to get all the others tarred with the same brush.

The part that always puzzles me, though, is that I can understand (though not agree with) why some drivers, feeling nice and safe in their steel boxes, might be less than attentive but I honestly don't understand why anyone on a bike would even think of taking risks or "asserting their rights" if the cars are behaving badly given that they must realise who's going to come off worse!

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Sadly, bad / inconsiderate cyclists are like bad drivers. They exist, and they tend to get all the others tarred with the same brush.

The part that always puzzles me, though, is that I can understand (though not agree with) why some drivers, feeling nice and safe in their steel boxes, might be less than attentive but I honestly don't understand why anyone on a bike would even think of taking risks or "asserting their rights" if the cars are behaving badly given that they must realise who's going to come off worse!

sometimes the safest method is an assertive one
riding in the gutter for example
just encourages some drivers to pass close or squeeze through traffic.

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

sometimes the safest method is an assertive one
riding in the gutter for example
just encourages some drivers to pass close or squeeze through traffic.

Agree again, but some go far further than that (just as some car drivers pass too close given a chance).

To me, whether it's a car driver or a cyclist, the sort of mentality that "asserts their right" to do something regardless of the circumstances or likely consequences, is a menace on the roads.

Regardless of how many laws are passed, the single biggest lifesaver on the roads is the simple. old fashioned, common sense to realise it's a bad idea to get yourself in a situation where you hit something (or get hit) regardless of "right".

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agree again, but some go far further than that (just as some car drivers pass too close given a chance).

To me, whether it's a car driver or a cyclist, the sort of mentality that "asserts their right" to do something regardless of the circumstances or likely consequences, is a menace on the roads.

Regardless of how many laws are passed, the single biggest lifesaver on the roads is the simple. old fashioned, common sense to realise it's a bad idea to get yourself in a situation where you hit something (or get hit) regardless of "right".

belive me
I have no desire to get hurt or damage the bike
sadly many drivers/cyclists lack comon sense
Im still recovering from being forced of the road by a taxi at Christmas
3 months+,then cost of bike repairs and lost/broken items

mazza111

thelawnet wrote: »

I agree with that. I follow the rules of the road just the same as every other person, that is to say - mostly, but not entirey.

I don't claim 100% compliance with the law in my car and I don't on my bike either.

I drove my car yesterday, about 50 miles, I'm sure I broke a rule or two. And then?

Then why the OP with regards to whether it's ok to go through a red light even if there's no pedestrians. You may assume it's safe, but what the guy who gestured at you for was probably because you were breaking the law. I'm sure if you had done something like going through a roundabout in your car in wrong lane, you would have got more of the same.



No I don't think I have any more rights. If the police caught me going through a red light, which is possible, but not particularly likely, I'd accept their penalty.

Likewise, if I got caught speeding in my car, something that hasn't happened so far, but might in the future, I'd accept the penalty for that.

You asked. Go ahead and break every rule in the book as far as I'm concerned, just don't expect to get away with it.

I've got insurance.

Note, as a matter of public policy, that the public liability risk created by cyclists is tiny and could easily be assumed by the MIB or similar, assuming it's desirable to do so.

Good for you having insurance. Whether it is tiny or not I don't know. But when a cyclist came up my inside when I was turned left and crashed into my passenger door, I know who had to pay for the damage. Why should the MIB cover cyclists? Who do you think pays for MIB? The tooth fairy?

I think the liability caused by pedestrians is probably greater however, but there's no insurance for them, so if they run out in front of you, drunk, you are SOL.

Pedestrians are #1. End of. Regardless if it's their fault or not. Someone steps in front of my car, it's my responsibility. Whether it be on a crossing or not. Pedestrians don't NEED to follow the same rules as us with vehicles.

Joe_Horner

thelawnet wrote: »

Note, as a matter of public policy, that the public liability risk created by cyclists is tiny and could easily be assumed by the MIB or similar.

So car drivers who pay for the MIB through their insurance could easily cover the cost of insuring for dodgy cyclists as well just because the risk isn't very big?

On that way of thinking:

With over 25 years driving, during which I've never caused any damage to anything, my risk is minuscule. So I shouldn't need insurance and should have others covering that risk for me. I don't think so somehow!

Although the suggestion does make the OP's attitude towards "anything but cyclists" pretty clear :mad:

thelawnet

Joe_Horner wrote: »

So car drivers who pay for the MIB through their insurance could easily cover the cost of insuring for dodgy cyclists as well just because the risk isn't very big?

Well not necessarily, as I said, I'm not sure it's desirable to do so.

That said, you are already paying for the uninsured 17-year-olds, the Polish drivers, etc., through the MIB, so if you are so worried about bicycles I daresay you could add another item to the list.

With over 25 years driving, during which I've never caused any damage to anything, my risk is minuscule. So I shouldn't need insurance and should have others covering that risk for me. I don't think so somehow!

Myopic car-centric thinking again I see.

Just because your multitonne, 120mph vehicle is dangerous, and could wipe out a bus full of school children, plough into the front of a row of shops, or write off someone's £1million Bugatti Veyron, doesn't mean that the same standards, or risks, apply to everything in the world.

You might as well say that 'because I need to pay car insurance for my BMW X5, you should have to get insurance for your labrador dog'.

(Just on this point, my mother was crippled for life when a dog knocked her down, no compensation for her, and the owner left the scene without stopping.)

A dog has third party risk, so does a bicycle, so does a car, but the risks are not the same, and it's just jingoistic nonsense to say that because one has a mandatory insurance requirement the others must too.

Anecdotes about people causing £500 of damage to your bumper, or whatever, don't really help the case. Insurance is designed to cover catastrophic damage, and a bit of minor panel damage does not fall into that category.

Although the suggestion does make the OP's attitude towards "anything but cyclists" pretty clear :mad:

Really? Like I said, I am insured. My bicycles cost quite a lot of money and I cover quite a lot of miles.

I don't however see a general need for third party bicycle insurance, any more than I see a general need for third party dog insurance, although as a matter of general principle I think mandatory dog insurance would make more sense, since dogs are essentially wild animals whose behaviour we can not entirely predict or control.

FWIW, the only country that had a mandatory insurance requirement, Switzerland, abolished it this year.

So it's clearly not very popular, except among foaming-at-the-mouth cycle haters.

thelawnet

mazza111 wrote: »

Good for you having insurance. Whether it is tiny or not I don't know. But when a cyclist came up my inside when I was turned left and crashed into my passenger door, I know who had to pay for the damage.

Someone dented my car in the supermarket car park. Who paid for that?

Why should the MIB cover cyclists? Who do you think pays for MIB? The tooth fairy?

I didn't say it should, but if you're so worried about cyclists denting your precious car, then that would be a route you could go down. You raised the subject, I offered a solution, you don't like it, so whose problem is that????

I pay for the MIB. Most 'cyclists' also own a car and pay 'road tax' (VED), petrol tax, insurance, etc. on that. I know I do. There's no point in trying to separate 'cyclists' from 'motorists' financially because while most motorists do not cycle, most cyclists do drive.

If my car is sitting in my driveway and I'm out cycling on the road instead of driving, while you are busy driving everywhere, by my reckoning I'm subsidising you.

Mrs_Arcanum

Of the three groups of road users there are those who make mistakes or choose to take the law into their own hands in every group. Thankfully the majority of Drivers, Cyclists and pedestrians pay attention and keep within the law.

Regardless of which method of transportation you use, ignoring a red light is wrong. NO EXCUSES.