Cycle Lanes - really safe?

RMS2

I find cycle lanes really safe, because they (cyclists) just tend to bounce off of my car when I hit them.


I think they should all be kept together, as it is a target rich environment and the kill zone is pretty good.

mcpitman

I thought there was something in law about cycle lights weren't aloud to flash, and if cylists have a flashing light they must also have a constant light.

I have no issues with cyclists, treat them like you would horses, plenty of room and don't make them jump.

What I do not like is cyclists jumping red lights or ignoring other road rules/regulations/laws, but not all cyclists are the same.

Could someone clarify the legal stance on flashing lights?

Mr_Toad

mcpitman wrote: »

I thought there was something in law about cycle lights weren't aloud to flash, and if cylists have a flashing light they must also have a constant light.

I have no issues with cyclists, treat them like you would horses, plenty of room and don't make them jump.

What I do not like is cyclists jumping red lights or ignoring other road rules/regulations/laws, but not all cyclists are the same.

Could someone clarify the legal stance on flashing lights?

Flashing lights became legal in 2005 and there is no need for an additional constant light as long as the flashing light is bright enough.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Joe_Horner

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Flashing lights became legal in 2005 and there is no need for an additional constant light as long as the flashing light is bright enough.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

That's a big part of the problem. A truly idiotic rule designed to save cyclists all of £1.99 for getting an additional light. In fact, manufacturers could easily build both into the same unit, especially now they're all LED.

It's much harder to judge speed and disance of an intermittent light than it is for a steady one. Also, as previously noted, the human brain is wired to pay attention to movement, so they also pull your attention away from the surroundings.

When that's happening for maybe 4 or 5 flashing lights, all out of sync, all flashing at different rates, and all moving at different speeds, it takes your concentration away from other hazards.

Having a steady light in conjunction with the flash reduces that effect considerably, while still making the cyclist stand out as a cyclist.

Strider590

I think the rear reflector covers any need for a constant rear light. At the end of the day, if your headed toward the cyclist, your going to get a reflection back that's brighter in most cases than any LED light.

I've got red retro reflective tape on the rear seat stays, white on the front forks and yellow down the sides. I'm like a bloody Christmas tree

I once had a woman in a car stop me one evening to ask me where she could get my rear flashing light from (a Smart Lunar R2), her son had been mowed down 6 months previous by someone who claimed not to have seen him and he was just starting to get back on his bike.

sh0597

I'm not a massive fan of lights in the dark you only need sidelights on a road with street lighting. Makes it harder to spot other hazards.

Strider590

sh0597 wrote: »

I'm not a massive fan of lights in the dark you only need sidelights on a road with street lighting. Makes it harder to spot other hazards.

.....................

I hope that's a joke!

It's not about what you can see, it's about being seen. Those pathetic 5w sidelights are less useful than a tea light in a jam jar.
For everyone's safety it should be headlights as soon as the street lights come on (at the very latest).

The problem is, people take this attitude onto the roads in fog and snow, where they become practically invisible to other road users, but it's "ok", at least THEY can see.

sh0597

On a lit road you can see fine though. If you can't see a large object that you are looking for on a lit road at night then you shouldn't be driving.

mjoneseyjones

Some London cycle lanes are excellent (The new, segregated style), unfortunately they abruptly end and then start again, meaning cyclists and cars are routinely seperated and then thrown together again.

The wider London policy towards cycling is so half hearted and box tick-y, as opposed to a genuine effort to make cycling a real transport option, its unreal.

Strider590

sh0597 wrote: »

On a lit road you can see fine though. If you can't see a large object that you are looking for on a lit road at night then you shouldn't be driving.

But people can't see you, in the dark, street lights or none, if a car has only it's side/parking lights on, then it makes them harder to see and much harder to judge their speed.
Worse is that most people will not then turn on the headlights when they leave the street lit area, at least not until they come out of lala land for long enough to realise everyone is flashing them.

IMO the law should be clear that in reduced visibility headlights MUST be used.

To be fair the real gripe is with those who do it in fog, they can see fine and they think that's all that matters. So you go to overtake an obstruction in the road, you wait for the oncoming headlights to pass, you pull out and lo and behold out of the fog comes a white Nissan Micra with two f**king tealights stuck to the bonnet!!! :mad:

:rotfl:

But hey "i'm alright jack"......