Cycling: red lights

Joe_Horner

Okies, I stand corrected. Bloody stupid amendment to allow them though - especially out in the lanes round here.

"flash" "where'd he go?" "flash" "where'd he go?" "flash" "where'd he.... oh b*gger!!!!"

custardy

discplayer wrote: »

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.

the Smart R2 is a good choice for a flasher

http://www.tredz.co.uk/.Smart-Lunar-R2-Rear-Light_39274.htm

I run one for (crazy random)flash,one for solid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KdrETID9Co

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Okies, I stand corrected. Bloody stupid amendment to allow them though - especially out in the lanes round here.

"flash" "where'd he go?" "flash" "where'd he go?" "flash" "where'd he.... oh b*gger!!!!"

well if you look at the R2 on crazy random
it doesnt actually go out
regardless i have the solid as well

Mrs_Arcanum

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.

There seems to be a switch that disengages the brains of cyclists around Oxford. :eek:

mazza111

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

There seems to be a switch that disengages the brains of cyclists around Oxford. :eek:

Same in Brighton. My niece's wee lad got knocked down by a cyclist jumping a red light last year. Broken tib and fib. 2 lots of surgery. 6 months of frames and plastering. A shark fin shaped scar on his leg from the bones coming through, months of physio. Scarred for life and all because a cyclist was in a hurry.

Please think of the pedestrians when you're contemplating breaking the law this way. Remember the youngsters usually have their brains engaged elsewhere and may think you are going to stop, as you should.

thelawnet

Limey wrote: »

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:

Next time I see one crossing at a pelican crossing, I will.

Sounds like a joke.

Why did the HGV cross the road?

thelawnet

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

In all this no one has considered the pedestrian who may be crossing the road because all the traffic is stopped by lights.

They didn't?

I certainly did. As I specified in my OP, I waited until they were all clear.

thelawnet

mazza111 wrote: »

Same in Brighton. My niece's wee lad got knocked down by a cyclist jumping a red light last year. Broken tib and fib. 2 lots of surgery. 6 months of frames and plastering. A shark fin shaped scar on his leg from the bones coming through, months of physio. Scarred for life and all because a cyclist was in a hurry.

Please think of the pedestrians when you're contemplating breaking the law this way. Remember the youngsters usually have their brains engaged elsewhere and may think you are going to stop, as you should.

I think one of the problems is that bicycles are nearly silent.

I was riding along my road the other day, well away from the kerb as any sensible cyclist does partly because of incidents like this, and a pedestrian stepped into the road, to cross. She didn't look, I saw her, and stopped on a six pence in front of her.

She apologised, but basically she didn't check before looking and relied on her hearing, not her sight, which was a mistake.

Here's a cyclist doing what hundreds of thousands of motorists do every day, and going through a light two seconds after it has gone red. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0JYOIDmJvQ

The pedestrian is watching the red light, NOT the green man, and goes before the green man and the cyclist (who should not have gone through this light, since there were pedestrians waiting to cross, who should have priority) ends up swerving around her. She hasn't seen or heard him, and this obviously hasn't gone through the cyclist's mind.

Ironically if a car had done the same thing through that light, it is very unlikely that she would have crossed - cars are more visible and more noisy than bkes.


I try and practise common sense, and if that means for instance assuming the pedestrian who has stepped out into the road isn't looking where she's going, then I will do that, even if the legal priority is mine, but on the other hand I'm not going to stand there at a deserted pelican crossing waiting for the light to change.

thelawnet

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:

My rear light cost about £40, but I do run it on flashing. The flashing red light is as clear an indicator of a bicycle as a flashing blue is of an emergency vehicle, and this has safety value, to warn of a vulnerable road user. My experience tells me that my hi-viz jacket does a perfect job of making me visible in the dark anyway (I did laugh the other day, when I saw a black cyclist, wearing black clothes, on a dark bike with no lights).

mikey72

thelawnet wrote: »

..............(I did laugh the other day, when I saw a black cyclist, wearing black clothes, on a dark bike with no lights).

I didn't.
Cost me the price of the plastic trim on the bumper, and the scratches the bike made when he bounced off the front and the bike went under.
He wasn't insured either.