Why do some cyclists use the entire lane, use fog horns, and flashing lights?????????

trinidadone

wealdroam wrote: »

I assume you mean Prowla's quote from the Highway Code... "Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.".

I'm just puzzled about how you can leap from a recommendation about a front cycle light, to a command that (all) flashing lights on bikes are banned.

i said it was interesting, i did not type in that message it was banned, although my honest opinon is that bikes should have flashing fights. a good quality light can be just as good. seeing them things falshing on and off in a drivers mirror, must be very off putting, and good old fashion white light, and a good fashion red light, job done

trinidadone

wealdroam wrote: »

Your confusion seems to be with your understanding of 'lane' and 'highway'. Those words are not interchangeable.

do explain further, this confusion you have identified

frisbeej

prowla wrote: »

So, we have the law(s) of the road, we have the Highway Code which is the de-facto manual for all road users and includes "musts" and "shoulds" (and you can fail your driving test on the "shoulds"), and we have a different set of recommendations which are being communicated to cyclists under a different scheme but are not law and are not being communicated to other road users.

In effect we have cyclists using the road to a different set of (unofficial) rules to those which motorists are governed by.
If that's not a recipe for confusion, then I don't know what is!
I suppose it does help explain how some of the accidents happen.

So are you driving around in a 1950s car that conforms to the braking distances in the highway code?


Does your car have airbags and all other other modern safety features?


Rear seatbelts?

wealdroam

trinidadone wrote: »

i said it was interesting, i did not type in that message it was banned...

But you did say:

trinidadone wrote: »

Seems like flashing lights on peddal power cant be used...

...which is the same thing.

trinidadone wrote: »

...although my honest opinon is that bikes should have flashing fights. a good quality light can be just as good. seeing them things falshing on and off in a drivers mirror, must be very off putting, and good old fashion white light, and a good fashion red light, job done

You'll be suggesting next that there should be a man in front of all motor vehicles with a red flag, after all, isn't that the good old fashioned way?

The passage of time has advanced lighting technology, and man's understanding of it, such that a flashing light is now considered 'better'.

But as you say "my honest opinon is that bikes should have flashing fights." I'm beginning to wonder what you do actually want.

trinidadone

wealdroam wrote: »

But you did say:

...which is the same thing.



You'll be suggesting next that there should be a man in front of all motor vehicles with a red flag, after all, isn't that the good old fashioned way?

The passage of time has advanced lighting technology, and man's understanding of it, such that a flashing light is now considered 'better'.

But as you say "my honest opinon is that bikes should have flashing fights." I'm beginning to wonder what you do actually want.

its not the same thing, you know that!!

we dont need people with red flags in front of moter vehicles, because we now have modern peddal cycles doing that that job for us, with flashing moern lights to match LOL LOL LOL

in regards for what i want, kind of a strange question, perhaps you should look at the thread for that answer............. theres alot of work happening in London providing seperate cycle lanes, away from other motorists. Even more less space for other moterists, who i am sure have paid a small forune to use our roads, but hopefully the cycling deaths on london streets may reduce

frisbeej

trinidadone wrote: »

its not the same thing, you know that!!

we dont need people with red flags in front of moter vehicles, because we now have modern peddal cycles doing that that job for us, with flashing moern lights to match LOL LOL LOL

So basically you want all cyclists to drive cars?


Are you happy to patiently sit in all the extra congestion that will cause?


Or is there some other point to your random nitpicking?

trinidadone

frisbeej wrote: »

So basically you want all cyclists to drive cars?


Are you happy to patiently sit in all the extra congestion that will cause?


Or is there some other point to your random nitpicking?

no, i dont want cyclists to drive cars.

actually it is not a random nitpicking, i responded to a question related to red flags, please scroll up, and you will see it does flow

brat

trinidadone wrote: »

I am seeing confusion here. drivers are told to drive left, and stay left, and to over tack on the right, yet cyclecraft give advice for cycles to cycle in the middle of the lane, which is described as the primary position. is this not where the tension is between cycles and moterists???

No confusion. Cyclists and motorists are entitled to use the lane they are established in. This lane will be on the left side of the road. They should drive in the leftmost lane if more than one lane. Advice to motorists is to drive in the centre of the lane.
Advice to cyclists is similar. They are advised to take a primary position in their lane (just like a motorist) unless they have a safe opportunity to move to the near side secondary position.
In practice, the cyclist's positioning doesn't affect the motorist's normal safe progress. If a cyclist is in a primary lane position with a motorist behind, the cyclist will only be in that position because s/he doesn't want the motorist to overtake unless they can do so safely by using the opposite lane. If there are no safety implications for the cyclist, they will adopt a secondary position to allow the motorist to overtake.
The vast majority of motorists understand this. They realise my primary road position allows them to see me easily, and recognise that they shouldn't be overtaking at this location, unless they can complete the manoeuvre in a different lane.

Hedgehog99

Re fog horns: as a now ex-cyclist (who gave up because it just got too damn nasty out there), I fitted a fog horn as a last resort. I had a bell too of course. FH was reserved for necessary occasions only, such as needing to be heard by a bus or lorry driver or by a pedestrian using headphones, or for covering the expletives of teenagers (their response to my polite "excuse me, please" or one ding of bell) and taking them by surprise with it so they shut up and stop being obstructive for long enough to let me pass.

trinidadone

brat wrote: »

No confusion. Cyclists and motorists are entitled to use the lane they are established in. This lane will be on the left side of the road. They should drive in the leftmost lane if more than one lane. Advice to motorists is to drive in the centre of the lane.
Advice to cyclists is similar. They are advised to take a primary position in their lane (just like a motorist) unless they have a safe opportunity to move to the near side secondary position.
In practice, the cyclist's positioning doesn't affect the motorist's normal safe progress. If a cyclist is in a primary lane position with a motorist behind, the cyclist will only be in that position because s/he doesn't want the motorist to overtake unless they can do so safely by using the opposite lane. If there are no safety implications for the cyclist, they will adopt a secondary position to allow the motorist to overtake.
The vast majority of motorists understand this. They realise my primary road position allows them to see me easily, and recognise that they shouldn't be overtaking at this location, unless they can complete the manoeuvre in a different lane.

there are a number of things i see floors with, regarding your last message.

firstly, there is confusion, you are not me, and therefore if i feel there is confusion, i am entitled to say so. the part about moterists using the "centre" of a lane. i have never seen two cars share a lane. when a vehicle is in a lane, they are in a lane. they are not positioned, left, right or centred, like a bike is, they are simple in a lane. hense confusion for me there. sure a vehicle can wonder over lines, but they are in a lane, not a centre part of the lane, or left part or right part, there simnple is no room. the lanes of traffic are designed for the average car. theres alot of london buses who cant fit in the lanes because the lanes are too small.

The only reason i have heard why cyclist cycle in the centre of a lane is to be visable and to avoid car doors. i assume with red flashing lights and a road with no doors, cycles can stay in the left part of the lane. I am not sure if cyclists should decide if they do not want to be overtaken. if its a one lane traffic, fine, but two lanes, no parked cars, well lit, blar blar. Have you ever thought, some cyclist may cycle in the middle part of the lane may cycle in the middle part of the lane other than visability issues or park car problems which will affect the progress/speed of other road users?

I dont agree the average moterist understands the positioning of cycles at all. While this maybe made aware to cycle users, i dont think the average driver who passed there test previousely has any knowledge of cycle positioning. i know i never, but then i am not a cyclist, so why would i??? Lastly, i think positioning creates vast tension with other road users.