Suicidal Cyclist

Norman_Castle

Well I'm sorry but roads are indeed designed for motor vehicles.
A speed that is 'safe' for 'others' if 'others' may be anyone and anything is probably 15mph.

It is not reasonable for cyclists (or pedestrians) to be in the middle of the lane on a national speed limit road.

Apart from motorways roads are designed for all road users, not just motor vehicles. A safe speed is one that allows you to react to changing situations which includes meeting slower vehicles.
A speed limit is a maximum in ideal conditions. It is not a guarantee of free passage or an instruction of how fast to drive.

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

Clearly you didn't read my previous post.

I pointed out that most cars are fitted with fixed headlights (meaning they point straight ahead).

Most vehicles headlights in the UK are set up in a way so that the beams point slightly to the left btw. It makes it easier to see cyclists sticking to the left, pedestrians and prevents you blinding traffic with glare in the oncoming direction.

Tilt wrote: »

So when you come to a bend and there is an un-lit cyclist ahead, you may not see him/her until they are illuminated by the beam of your head lights AFTER negotiating a bend in the road. That obviously means that their red reflector/pedal reflectors are quite useless on their own (that's if they have them fitted in the first place) unless perhaps they are riding on a road with no bends in it.

I don't cycle at night without the legal requirements and i don't recommend people do it either, but if you're traveling at such as speed where you can't clearly see the road ahead you are probably traveling too fast. As previously mentioned if there was a parked / broken down car on the road, fallen tree then you might struggle to stop in time

When i'm driving i always drive to the conditions and make sure i can my stopping distance matches my viability of the road ahead.

almillar wrote: »

Amen! Or just sidelights, or just DRLs, or one light missing!

Sidelights or DRL's are fine in 30mph limits with street lights. That's all the law requires IIRC.

Tilt

Retrogamer wrote: »

Most vehicles headlights in the UK are set up in a way so that the beams point slightly to the left btw. It makes it easier to see cyclists sticking to the left, pedestrians and prevents you blinding traffic with glare in the oncoming direction.

I live in a rural area and there is a main road with a 50 mph speed limit not far from me which has no street lighting what so ever. It does have a few sharp bends on it and is mainly tree-lined. So there aren't many pedestrians that use it but there are the occasional idiot on a bike that rides along there with not so much as a shiny button on. Until your headlights "capture" him, you simply cannot see him.

Retrogamer wrote: »

I don't cycle at night without the legal requirements and i don't recommend people do it either, but if you're traveling at such as speed where you can't clearly see the road ahead you are probably traveling too fast. As previously mentioned if there was a parked / broken down car on the road, fallen tree then you might struggle to stop in time

I find it slightly amusing that you seem determined to defend the irresponsible cyclist by shifting the responsibility to the motorist to see them when they themselves can't be bothered with taking a few simple basic safety measures for their own protection as they are vulnerable in the first place.

In 30+ years of driving (both cars and coaches/buses), I can't recall coming across a fallen tree or a broken down vehicle (the latter would probably have some kind of lights on) that I have almost hit. The last time I checked, there is no legal requirement for a fallen tree to be fitted with lights as opposed to a cyclist. Also in the unlikely event of coming across such a tree and colliding with it, I think the tree would be relatively unharmed as opposed to the driver who didn't see it. But I'm not sure a cyclist riding without lights on a road like I described above would be quite so lucky.

Retrogamer wrote: »

When i'm driving i always drive to the conditions and make sure i can my stopping distance matches my viability of the road ahead.

Glad to hear it, so do I. But all road users have a responsibility for the way they use the road don't they?

Retrogamer wrote: »

Sidelights or DRL's are fine in 30mph limits with street lights. That's all the law requires IIRC.

Not at night they're not. DRL's are only fitted to the front of cars (AFAIK) and are intended for daytime use only. Personally I think they were invented simply for the less competent driver who dosn't know how to use the lights he/she has already fitted to the vehicle. See, I agree that there are some incompetent drivers as well!

Tobster86

jjlandlord wrote: »

If you are slower than others, stay as much on the side as possible, and/or make it easy for others to overtake you.

Anyone reading this, who is either new to or considering starting driving or cycling; please disregard the absolute dangerous nonsense that this man is spouting.

Highway code rule 126: "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

The reason for this is common sense really; you can't possibly know what is beyond that. If the next blind corner has someone lying passed out in the middle of the road, you are quite reasonably required not to run them over.

Highway code rule 163: "Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car."

By this rule, it effectively doesn't matter where the cyclist is in their lane. You should not overtake them unless the lane is wide enough to safely accomodate both of you, or the oncoming lane is clear.
Cyclists and motorcyclists have to avoid ironworks and potholes and may swerve unexpectedly. They are not required to (and should not) ride in the gutter! Keeping too close to the side only encourages stupid overtakes.

Retrogamer

Tilt wrote: »

I find it slightly amusing that you seem determined to defend the irresponsible cyclist by shifting the responsibility to the motorist to see them when they themselves can't be bothered with taking a few simple basic safety measures for their own protection as they are vulnerable in the first place.

Did you miss the part where i clearly said cycling at night without lights is not a good idea?
I would in no way condone doing it. The same way i wouldn't condone driving in a way where you can't stop in the distance you can see.
I've met a few cyclists, at night who are cycling with no lights but i always manage to see them in time and haven't came close to running any of them over yet.

I'd never do it because it's dangerous. I like to be seen at night as best as possible. But i think asking for lights, reflective / bright clothing on bright days is expecting a bit too much

Tilt wrote: »

In 30+ years of driving (both cars and coaches/buses), I can't recall coming across a fallen tree or a broken down vehicle (the latter would probably have some kind of lights on) that I have almost hit. The last time I checked, there is no legal requirement for a fallen tree to be fitted with lights as opposed to a cyclist. Also in the unlikely event of coming across such a tree and colliding with it, I think the tree would be relatively unharmed as opposed to the driver who didn't see it. But I'm not sure a cyclist riding without lights on a road like I described above would be quite so lucky.

That's all interesting, but i was merely making the point that unlit cyclists aren't the only possible unlit object that drivers might hit when traveling at speed in the dark. If anything, this thread is evidence that some drivers need to be reminded of that.

Tilt wrote: »

Glad to hear it, so do I. But all road users have a responsibility for the way they use the road don't they?

They sure do. I meet lots of road users who could do with a Highway code refresher.
Pedestrians, cyclists, bikers, & motorists all alike.

Tilt wrote: »

Not at night they're not. DRL's are only fitted to the front of cars (AFAIK) and are intended for daytime use only. Personally I think they were invented simply for the less competent driver who dosn't know how to use the lights he/she has already fitted to the vehicle. See, I agree that there are some incompetent drivers as well!

That's a good point with the DRL's. I forgot the rear lights are off with them on. They were introduced to help make vehicles more visible in day time as it's mandatory in a few EU countries for headlights (or now DRL's) to be on all the time.

RichardD1970

Tilt wrote: »

I live in a rural area and there is a main road with a 50 mph speed limit not far from me which has no street lighting what so ever. It does have a few sharp bends on it and is mainly tree-lined. So there aren't many pedestrians that use it but there are the occasional idiot on a bike that rides along there with not so much as a shiny button on. Until your headlights "capture" him, you simply cannot see him.



I find it slightly amusing that you seem determined to defend the irresponsible cyclist by shifting the responsibility to the motorist to see them when they themselves can't be bothered with taking a few simple basic safety measures for their own protection as they are vulnerable in the first place.

In 30+ years of driving (both cars and coaches/buses), I can't recall coming across a fallen tree or a broken down vehicle (the latter would probably have some kind of lights on) that I have almost hit. The last time I checked, there is no legal requirement for a fallen tree to be fitted with lights as opposed to a cyclist. Also in the unlikely event of coming across such a tree and colliding with it, I think the tree would be relatively unharmed as opposed to the driver who didn't see it. But I'm not sure a cyclist riding without lights on a road like I described above would be quite so lucky.

The point regarding fallen trees etc was originally raised in response to

jjlandlord wrote: »

Let me tell you that no matter how high-viz their clothes might be, or how many lights they might install on their bike on quite a few portions of the road any car going at 45-50 will not see them in time.

So nothing at all to do with UNLIT cyclists.

brat

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is the arrogance and righteousness that gives some cyclists a bad name.

"Righteousness" is the sarcastic term often used when admitting the other person is right.

No-one wants to deny cyclists the use of the road.

Yet in a previous post you wrote that despite lights and hi vis a cyclist would not be seen in time by a motorist doing 45-50mph, and that the motorist shouldn't have to slow down for the cyclist.
That's effectively saying "this is a road for cars, not bikes. If you come on this road you will be mown down. Don't say we didn't warn you."
You want to deny cyclists the use of that road.

However, roads do not belong to cyclists and no-one (cyclists, cars, pedestrians) should be inconsiderate and hog roads because they are "entitled" to use them.

If you are slower than others, stay as much on the side as possible, and/or make it easy for others to overtake you.

That's not good advice. The primary position is often essential for cyclist safety. You should also stay well out from the verge when cycling round blind left handlers.

This...

you should be extra careful instead of repeating ad nauseam that you are "entitled" to be there (meaning everyone should stop and make way for your highness).

...and this...

inconsiderate cyclists also think that the pavement belong to them and that pedestrians should make way.

...further evidences, (if evidence were needed, given your other comments) your desperate anti cyclist bias.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I find it slightly amusing that you seem determined to defend the irresponsible cyclist by shifting the responsibility to the motorist to see them when they themselves can't be bothered with taking a few simple basic safety measures for their own protection as they are vulnerable in the first place.

We all have to defend and protect the dark clothed daytime cyclist as much as the colourfully clothed cyclist, because, while we might choose to dress ourselves more visibly, they are legally entitled to be on the road.

In 30+ years of driving (both cars and coaches/buses), I can't recall coming across a fallen tree or a broken down vehicle (the latter would probably have some kind of lights on) that I have almost hit. The last time I checked, there is no legal requirement for a fallen tree to be fitted with lights as opposed to a cyclist. Also in the unlikely event of coming across such a tree and colliding with it, I think the tree would be relatively unharmed as opposed to the driver who didn't see it. But I'm not sure a cyclist riding without lights on a road like I described above would be quite so lucky.

Can we establish that no-one here is defending unlit cyclists in hours of darkness. It's illegal and silly, and may well make them much harder to see. Can we put this point to bed as a point of general agreement?

adouglasmhor

zaax wrote: »

hi viz vest are only £2 on ebay they also come in quiet a lot of colours as well., and they make cyclist much more visable even in bright sun light I always wear one when I cycle so why can the rest?

You can get them out of the pound shop for a pound!

JustinR1979

I remember years ago people practiced self preservation.
Now people want strangers to look after them rather than look out for themselves.
Sounds !!!!!! to me.