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

RichardD1970

prowla wrote: »

I don't recall saying it should only apply to cyclist, in fact I think I said it should (and does) apply to all road users; that's what all-encompassing means.

Apart from motorcyclists who would fail their test if they did so.

Ok, not specifically cyclists only, but any traffic moving slower and inconveniencing other road users otherwise you can use any position on the road you like.

If you are driving to the speed of the traffic, then you are not inconveniencing the other road users, so there isn't a particular issue regarding whether you keep to the left or not.

brat

Cyclists are in the fortunate position of not having to listen to Prowla's confused interpretation of the HC. We can generally keep to the left of the road, while maintaining a safe position, using primary and secondary, and Prowla will put up with it gracefully, and pass when the cyclist's road position permits.

Assertive cyclists can and should make best use of primary and secondary positions for safety, as shown by Cyclecraft, Bikeability, and fully endorsed by Roadcraft and IAM. They should not be put off by huffy motorists who (wrongly) see its use as a tool for cyclists to exacerbate impatient motorists.

If primary is used correctly, no considerate motorist will ever be held up by it. Some motorists find this quite hard to grasp.

There will be one or two road users who not only fail to understand why cyclists use primary, but will develop frustration through this ignorance. I've had one or two motorists blast their horn at me and try to bully their way past me in a place which (because I'm in primary) I've deemed unsafe. In those circumstances, I'll pull over and let them pass them, but it has the potential to cost them their licence. Generally, motorists are quite happy to have their overtaking controlled by a cyclist who knows what s/he's doing, and will pass by mutual agreement, with a nod and a wave.

Norman_Castle

brat wrote: »

Generally, motorists are quite happy to have their overtaking controlled by a cyclist who knows what s/he's doing, and will pass by mutual agreement, with a nod and a wave.

Generally, but not always.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Generally, but not always.

The cyclist was not controlling the traffic. This is a good example of why a proper primary position may prevent dangerous overtakes.

prowla

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Ok, not specifically cyclists only, but any traffic moving slower and inconveniencing other road users otherwise you can use any position on the road you like.

Sure - though still technically wrong, it wouldn't really matter because it doesn't affect anybody.

Tilt

On the subject of flashing lights... they're surely better than no lights at all like the lunatic cyclist I encountered tonight on a 50mph stretch of road out in the sticks without so much as a shiny button on him to make him visible. Fortunately I encountered him on a straight stretch of road so my head lights picked him out sufficiently enough for me to see him in time.

Are a set of lights so expensive these days or something? :mad:

brat

prowla wrote: »

Sure - though still technically wrong, it wouldn't really matter because it doesn't affect anybody.

In order to cling to your ridiculously tight interpretation of "Keep to the left" you have to look at many good driving practices as "technically wrong"

Good practices such as movement within the available road space for safety, view and smoothness. These are vital primary attributes of good driving. It would be lunatic to dismiss them as "technically wrong" as per your interpretation.

Why not just accept that your interpretation IS wrong, and, as Marco and armyknife suggest, stop the feeble attempts at trolling and get part of your life back.

prowla

Tilt wrote: »

On the subject of flashing lights... they're surely better than no lights at all like the lunatic cyclist I encountered tonight on a 50mph stretch of road out in the sticks without so much as a shiny button on him to make him visible. Fortunately I encountered him on a straight stretch of road so my head lights picked him out sufficiently enough for me to see him in time.

Are a set of lights so expensive these days or something? :mad:

Wow - another cyclist who needs to read the Highway Code:

60

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Law RVLR regs 13, 18 & 24

brat

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Tilt wrote: »

Are a set of lights so expensive these days or something? :mad:

They can be, although they don't need to be.
Speedos come free in all cars, yet many motorists don't use them properly either.
I'm guessing Tilt, that you would be just as critical of those motorists who exceed speed limits thus automatically reducing their time to react to unforseen circumstances. When something goes wrong such as a cyclist whose rear light has failed, or a motorist on the motorway who moves lane believing it's free, it's often the momentum of a speeding motorist, and his lack of time to react to the unforseen that lawlessly introduce extra forces into the collision.

How odd it would be for someone who admits to breaking road traffic laws to come on to a cycling thread and lecture the cyclists on that forum who break no cycling laws. That would be an untenable position, don't you think?

JP08

Tilt wrote: »

On the subject of flashing lights... they're surely better than no lights at all like the lunatic cyclist I encountered tonight on a 50mph stretch of road out in the sticks without so much as a shiny button on him to make him visible. Fortunately I encountered him on a straight stretch of road so my head lights picked him out sufficiently enough for me to see him in time.

Are a set of lights so expensive these days or something? :mad:

Of course, as a responsible, law and rule abiding motorist you picked him up in time. You were, of course, driving at a speed such that you would be able to take appropriate and safe action on encountering an obstacle, as per the Highway Code.

And as such, it would not have made any difference where you encountered this cyclist. On the straight or in the twisty bits. After all it could just as easily have been an inconsiderately unlit pedestrian who had tripped and fallen in the road ...

However you slice it, whatever laws the other person is obeying or not obeying (unless they are behaving in a completely unpredictable manner), it will be your fault if you hit them from behind.