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

Cycrow

Sometimes theres reason to ride in Primary on very wide roads too,

Theres this one road i go down thats pretty wide, and theres plenty of space for a car to overtake me safety if im in secondary position.

However, most drivers dont seem to use that space and i've had some many close passes there i've lost count, even been clipped several times by their wing mirrors, and been taken out completely once

I can only assume they do so deliberately because they have a good metre between them and the central line as they do the over take so they have plenty of room to move over without needed to go into the oncoming lane, and there isn't usually any cars coming the other way either

If there are no cyclists about, most cars seem to hug the central line, but if overtaking cyclists they move further towards the left.

So now i always ride right out in the road, i do get alot of drivers shouting abuse at me, but i get less dangerous passes, and havn't been hit at all, unlike when keeping to the left.

id rather have abuse that be run down

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

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


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.

Generally. I'd have to agree. From what I've read here; I'd assume that you know what you're doing and if you think it's not safe to overtake, there's probably a good reason. But there seem to be a minority of cyclists who believe in taking primary as a matter of course in order to make a point or are just totally unaware of other road users around them (like the guy I saw on Saturday - he wasn't avoiding potholes or drains, he was too busy texting) and some drivers see this as arrogance.

Retrogamer

NBLondon wrote: »

Generally. I'd have to agree. From what I've read here; I'd assume that you know what you're doing and if you think it's not safe to overtake, there's probably a good reason. But there seem to be a minority of cyclists who believe in taking primary as a matter of course in order to make a point or are just totally unaware of other road users around them (like the guy I saw on Saturday - he wasn't avoiding potholes or drains, he was too busy texting) and some drivers see this as arrogance.

Thankfully the result of this inconsiderate cycling is the motorist is help up by a few moments whilst there is a break in traffic and they can pass safely on the other side of the road.

My friend was out cycling the other day on the road. Experienced mountain biker and driver but a bit new to road cycling.
Pinch point came and he didn't take primary position and a motorist sped by him about 60mph in a 40 zone, at the pinch point leaving less than a meters gap.
He got quite the scare but when a motorist doesn't drive safely the results can be much worse for the cyclist than a cyclist holding up traffic.

Neither are right, but sadly the latter with motorists is a lot more common than it should be.

Tilt

JP08 wrote: »

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.

No? Hmm.... well it did in this case!

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/death_of_welwyn_garden_city_violinist_a_tragic_accident_says_coroner_1_1115588

Happened on a sweeping left curve on and elevated, unlit section of the A10. The police deduced that the headlights may not have "picked up" the cyclist due to the curve.

I can't think of a justified reason for anyone to ride a cycle in the dark without lights, can you? Surely the cyclist should make every effort to make him/herself as visible as possible to other road users?

JP08

Tilt wrote: »

No? Hmm.... well it did in this case!

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/death_of_welwyn_garden_city_violinist_a_tragic_accident_says_coroner_1_1115588
Happened on a sweeping left curve on and elevated, unlit section of the A10. The police deduced that the headlights may not have "picked up" the cyclist due to the curve.

I find that quite incredible to be honest. If I rounded a corner (and for headlights not to pick up the verge side it is a corner and not a curve - they are biased that way) and hit a person (I'm not going to limit this to cyclists) in the road I'd certainly consider myself at fault. Wouldn't you ?

Tilt wrote: »

I can't think of a justified reason for anyone to ride a cycle in the dark without lights, can you? Surely the cyclist should make every effort to make him/herself as visible as possible to other road users?

Almost no reason, anyhow. The only one that has caught me out in the past is the expiry of battery on the rear light during the journey and, it being behind my backside, me not noticing (have also had it happen due to a switch fault with both rear lights on a Mini Van many years ago). And yes, in retrospect, having two rear lights on a bike would have mitigated against this, but at the time, no, I didn't have two lights. And, to reiterate the point - why only expect it of cyclists ?

Tilt

JP08 wrote: »

I find that quite incredible to be honest. If I rounded a corner (and for headlights not to pick up the verge side it is a corner and not a curve - they are biased that way) and hit a person (I'm not going to limit this to cyclists) in the road I'd certainly consider myself at fault. Wouldn't you ?

Well clearly in this case, as the motorist was not charged with any offence, the law thought differently. The cycle involved hadn't got any lights fitted (or reflectors) that could of "failed".

JP08 wrote: »

And yes, in retrospect, having two rear lights on a bike would have mitigated against this, but at the time, no, I didn't have two lights. And, to reiterate the point - why only expect it of cyclists ?

Self preservation I would of thought. Cyclist is too venerable and susceptible to serious injury thus should make sure he/she is as visible as possible, not the other way round.

JP08

Tilt wrote: »

Self preservation I would of thought. Cyclist is too venerable and susceptible to serious injury thus should make sure he/she is as visible as possible, not the other way round.

Oh, I agree with making yourself visible. But the only referred to it only seeming to be expected of cyclists to be carrying enough lights and wearing enough fluorescent clothing to look like Radioactive Man going to a fancy dress party as a Christmas tree. Pedestrians seem to be able to walk along unlit country roads without attracting such opprobrium or people blaming them for being mown down by the careless ...

brat

JP08 wrote: »

I find that quite incredible to be honest. If I rounded a corner (and for headlights not to pick up the verge side it is a corner and not a curve - they are biased that way) and hit a person (I'm not going to limit this to cyclists) in the road I'd certainly consider myself at fault. Wouldn't you ?

Of course you would and rightly so. But that's from the viewpoint of a caring responsible person who would look for fault in their actions, even if they were not deemed negligent enough to prosecute.

The Highway Code advises that you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Despite that, I've had many cases where dark objects (animate and inanimate) have been hit on the dark unlit carriageway, and prosecution of the driver is not by any means certain.
One involved a drunk staggering on a 60mph 'A' road which did not cater for pedestrians. He was hit by a taxi in the middle of the straight road in the early hours. Taxi driver doing ~50mph didn't see him until too late. Turns out her headlight levellers were set for a heavy payload, and the extent of the dipped beam was insufficient for her to have time to see him and react to his presence in the road.
Despite this, she wasn't prosecuted for death by careless driving.

Civil court may well take a different view on liabilities, but cyclist and pedestrians need to take full care of themselves in the dark and make themselves very visible in these vulnerable locations, because the criminal law won't offer much protection via fear of prosecution.

Tilt

JP08 wrote: »

Oh, I agree with making yourself visible. But the only referred to it only seeming to be expected of cyclists to be carrying enough lights and wearing enough fluorescent clothing to look like Radioactive Man going to a fancy dress party as a Christmas tree. Pedestrians seem to be able to walk along unlit country roads without attracting such opprobrium or people blaming them for being mown down by the careless ...

Firstly there wasn't a pedestrian, only a cyclist who had no lights on what-so-ever and was wearing dark clothing.

Secondly AFAIK there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to have lights on during the hours of darkness so I would of thought hitting one without lights would have a totally different legal outcome for a driver to that of hitting a cyclist without lights.

Of course those responsible people who venture out on foot on an unlit road at night, will be wearing bright clothing carrying a torch and will be walking against the flow of traffic.

JP08

Tilt wrote: »

Firstly there wasn't a pedestrian, only a cyclist who had no lights on what-so-ever and was wearing dark clothing.

I got that, but I really don't see (from a drivers perspective) what difference it makes. If you'd have hit one, you'd have hit the other !

Tilt wrote: »

Secondly AFAIK there is no legal requirement for a pedestrian to have lights on during the hours of darkness so I would of thought hitting one without lights would have a totally different legal outcome for a driver to that of hitting a cyclist without lights.

Why? I really don't see (from a drivers perspective) what difference it makes. If you'd have hit one, you'd have hit the other. And both would be hit because fundamentally you'd have been driving too fast to stop within the range of your headlights.

Tilt wrote: »

Of course those responsible people who venture out on foot on an unlit road at night, will be wearing bright clothing carrying a torch and will be walking against the flow of traffic.

Yes - see my last comment about visibility - agreeing with you.

And please - when I say "you'd" I don't mean you personally ! After all in your original comment re the unlit cyclist you (personally) didn't hit him !