Cycling: red lights

interstellaflyer

custardy wrote: »

also peds often are never sure if a cyclist is actually going to stop.
I have strong brakes,so i don't need to slow down much befoe stopping at lights
the amount of times I see peds who are hesitant,as the assume I won't stop

Maybe they have good reason to be hesitant, from what you are saying, you don't show any signs of slowing and stop at the last minute, maybe the pedestrian has had experience of some lycra clad moron charging through a red light and nearly taking him/her out. Like I have said, I've no real problem with a cyclist carefully and slowly going through a pedestrian crossing on a red light, but the way you describe approaching the crossing seems a little intimidating to me.

custardy

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Maybe they have good reason to be hesitant, from what you are saying, you don't show any signs of slowing and stop at the last minute, maybe the pedestrian has had experience of some lycra clad moron charging through a red light and nearly taking him/her out. Like I have said, I've no real problem with a cyclist carefully and slowly going through a pedestrian crossing on a red light, but the way you describe approaching the crossing seems a little intimidating to me.

not at all,I want to keep moving and try and plan to not stop at the lights at all by getting there on green.
however,I don't need to slow down massivly as someone with the likes of cantis would.

interstellaflyer

custardy wrote: »

not at all,I want to keep moving and try and plan to not stop at the lights at all by getting there on green.
however,I don't need to slow down massivly as someone with the likes of cantis would.

I don't know, if I saw a cyclist fast aproaching a crossing, I think I'd assume that they were not going to stop as 9times out of 10 round here they don't, but maybe that's just Oxford mentality for you, I guess people are a lot nicer in Auld Reekie.

custardy

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I don't know, if I saw a cyclist fast aproaching a crossing, I think I'd assume that they were not going to stop as 9times out of 10 round here they don't, but maybe that's just Oxford mentality for you, I guess people are a lot nicer in Auld Reekie.

well I can't be responsible for others
I stop at the lights,but the aim is to keep moving

Limey

thelawnet wrote: »

Indeed, it's a bit silly, hence I'm not going to make a big charade about it, just go straight through....

How about the poor HGV/4x4 driver who has to spend an evening jetwashing bits of you out of the front of their car?

Spare a thought for the poor traumatised sod. :rotfl:

Joe_Horner

bob_a_builder wrote: »

Rd Lights :

Aren't they something that should be used on the back of all bikes at night

If only !

Yep, that's the ones. And, cyclists please note, NOT flashing ones without another showing a steady light.

It's distracting and makes it more difficult to judge closing speed / distance, both of which are bad for safety (yours and other peoples) which is why it's also illegal. An "extra" steady light costs all of about 99p in Wilco so there really is no excuse :mad:

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Yep, that's the ones. And, cyclists please note, NOT flashing ones without another showing a steady light.

It's distracting and makes it more difficult to judge closing speed / distance, both of which are bad for safety (yours and other peoples) which is why it's also illegal. An "extra" steady light costs all of about 99p in Wilco so there really is no excuse :mad:

nope,not illegal
though you are right. I run steady and flsh.front & rear

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

nope,not illegal
though you are right. I run steady and flsh.front & rear

Err, yes they are. Not that the law applies to cyclists (again)*:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/13/made

RVLR_1989 wrote:

Lamps to show a steady light

13.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which automatically emits a flashing light.

(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply in respect of–

(a)a direction indicator;
(b)a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle;
(c)a warning beacon or special warning lamp;
(d)a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes;
(e)a green warning lamp used as an anti-lock brake ndicator; or
(f)lamps forming part of a traffic sign.

Personally I have nothing against flashing lights on bikes - they do help draw attention - BUT not without a steady one as well!





* actually this one does, hence specifying optional pedal cycle lights in schedule 1. But, as with most laws, it never seems to be enforced where our pedaling friends are concerned.

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Err, yes they are. Not that the law applies to cyclists (again)*:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/13/made



Personally I have nothing against flashing lights on bikes - they do help draw attention - BUT not without a steady one as well!





* actually this one does, hence specifying optional pedal cycle lights in schedule 1. But, as with most laws, it never seems to be enforced where our pedaling friends are concerned.

1989,nice
I'll see your 1989,and raise you a 2005

Thanks to the 2005 RVLR amendment on 23rd October of that year it finally became legal to have a flashing light on a pedal cycle, provided it flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1 – 4Hz). Even better: it became possible for a flashing light to be approved, meaning no other light would be needed in that position.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2559/contents/made

discplayer

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Err, yes they are. Not that the law applies to cyclists (again)*:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/13/made



Personally I have nothing against flashing lights on bikes - they do help draw attention - BUT not without a steady one as well!

That's the link to the original law. It's been updated several times something that is a pain to follow due to the way the original is displayed simply with a note about amendments - "relevant amending instruments are S.I. 1994/2280 and 2567, 1996/3016, 2001/560, 2004/3168, 2005/2559, 2929 and 3169, 2006/594 and 1914 and S.S.I 2005/344 and 2006/129."

Anyway, the amendment on rear cycle lights means that: One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard. If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

Having pondered this whilst driving, I now use flashing lights on my bike where there's lots going on - so heavy traffic or just in town with all sorts of other lights - but on quieter roads I have them on steady.