On 20 Apr 2016 at 9:03pm Mr Grumpy wrote:
To the curly haired man who I nearly killed tonight.....
You are not a child, take some responsibility and do not cycle at night without lights. You were just passing the Ellie at 8.35. The reason you are still alive is I saw a reflection off your wheel from the pub lights just as I pulled out.. You lucky man..
On 20 Apr 2016 at 11:12pm menthal wrote:
try Brighton. It's like skittles over there! its seems that Brightons cyclists are having a competition to see who can become the most invisible at night, by not having lights, reflectors and covering themselves in as much black clothing as they can handle. I can't remember the last cyclist in Brighton I saw who actually had lights.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 1:36am Cyclist wrote:
Some nutter in a car pulled out in front of me tonight. I was just going past the Elly at about 8.35. I had my lights on but still the idiot didn't see me until it was nearly too late. I wonder how some people pass their driving test.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 6:11am Bert wrote:
How dare you cyclist! Didn't you know it is always the fault of the cyclist? As soon as they get in their cars drivers are all seeing and all knowing.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 8:03am Convenient wrote:
To save reading any more of this thread please just assume that it's a thumb count exercise only .
Thumbs up = cyclists
Thumbs down = car drivers
On 21 Apr 2016 at 12:06pm Just me wrote:
I always wonder why bike lights have the flashing lights on them. I always find these quite dangerous
On 21 Apr 2016 at 2:39pm joining in wrote:
flashing bike lights are not legal but hey who give a hoot these days as someone said before brighton is terrible for it .
On 21 Apr 2016 at 5:40pm Cyclist 1 wrote:
Flashing lights are perfectly legal as long as you have static lights as well. They do make cyclists more visible. I have no sympathy for cyclists or motorists who drive at night without lights, or who jump red lights.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 5:44pm Ticket master wrote:
The flashing lights always make it harder to judge the distance of a cyclist. Hi viz stripes and static lights are much better for motorists. Or at least ones that actually look
On 21 Apr 2016 at 9:54pm MiddleAgedMan wrote:
Pretty sure random flashing lights are not legal on the ROAD, just as they are not permitted on cars. "Joining in" and I may need to look at our highway code and compare notes.
But, I don't object; and even support the flashing lights if they increase safety. I want to see the cyclist and I am sure he wants me to see him/her.
The only lights I object to is when cyclists have their main forward light in my eyes. New LED lights are getting pretty bright and present a real road danger as they can constrict pupils when rounding bends etc.
Basically, I want to see cyclists however they choose to illuminate themselves, but please don't do it by torching my eyes - that is just rude.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 10:42pm ar10642 wrote:
Flashing lights are legal on their own of they are not capable of displaying a steady light and are capable of at least 4 candela. In practice, nobody is ever going to pulled over by the police to make sure their flashing light is only capable of flashing mode, so it's all a bit of a nonsense. In effect, they are legal.
This thread is pointless. The person who was riding the bike should have had lights, yes, but is unlikely to read it. This is just an excuse for yet another bike hating back slapping session for the usual petrolheads. Bonus points for someone who mentions one way streets or pavements or whatever.
On 21 Apr 2016 at 11:16pm John wrote:
"ar10642" I smell DFL.....................
On 21 Apr 2016 at 11:57pm Mr Grumpy wrote:
Far from being anti cycling, I am a cycle commuter for two days a week and recreational cyclist. That's why I hate idiots who drag down the image of cycling by behaving irresponsibly. There seem to be more every year....
On 22 Apr 2016 at 12:53am ar10642 wrote:
The post is still pretty pointless. The only thing that will stop it is police booking a few people doing it.
John, I don't care what you smell, I'm not from London, and what the hell would it matter if I was? Let me guess, you're "born and bred" or a "true Lewesian", "lived here all your life"? News flash: nobody cares.
On 22 Apr 2016 at 6:54am Cycling Teacher wrote:
I like my pupils constricted when I meet them in the bike sheds. Kind regards.
On 22 Apr 2016 at 8:32am Mrs Grumpy wrote:
I keep saying it, to no avail: All bikes should have bells, and cyclists should show consideration to pedestrians by ringing their bells to warn of their approach. They should also be required to carry insurance.
On 22 Apr 2016 at 10:47am ar10642 wrote:
Neither bells nor insurance are currently legal requirements. Bikes have to be *sold* with bells, but there's no requirement to keep them on the bike once sold. Some bikes are sold with just a bell rattling round in the box.
For what it's worth, I have both. The bell is useful on shared paths, people usually appreciate hearing it. They don't work very well in the rain, though. All you get is a muted "dink" sound.
My insurance is something like £9 per month, includes theft, third-party liability and a rescue service, so pretty good value.
You *could* try to make both of these legal requirements, but I can't see any of it being enforced very well without some massive, costly registration and and policing scheme.
And at that point you've really got to ask whether you'll get any real world benefits from doing any of this - KSI figures caused by cyclists are very low already. Or whether it's just a revenge policy for motorists who think it's all so unfair.
On 25 Apr 2016 at 11:29am Cyclist are like Marmite wrote:
They should have bells, lights and insurance.
I say go the whole hog and charge them to use the road too, one time fee and for that they get a license plate on their bike and at least when they're being a suicidal (no lights), or aggressive (riding triple file and then hurling abuse if you try to overtake them) you can report them to the police.
Plus it would stop so much of the anti bike hate (as they are then paying to use the road).
Personally I do cycle, I wouldn't cycle of the roads though (taking your life in your own hands there) and always give extra consideration to cyclists, what a shame they don't return the favour (I will give a cyclist 1 to 2 metres room overtaking them, they will give 6" room undertaking me).
On 26 Apr 2016 at 10:31pm Common decency wrote:
There aren't enough bike lanes!! Having grown up in Holland I can honestly say we are completely backwards here with regards to creating safe shared road space!! If there were more bike lanes cyclists and motorists would have a harmonious relationship, I would never cycle on the roads here it's far too dangerous, but what I don't understand is even when I have seen bike lanes I still see cyclists riding on the road it's quite baffling.
On 27 Apr 2016 at 10:16am ar10642 wrote:
Marmite - Literally everything you said was anti-cycling, and you don't cycle on the road so I'm not sure your opinion is entirely balanced. I'm a driver too. Yes, some cyclists can be aggressive but I see *far* more dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour from drivers when driving and cycling. And remember only drivers are in charge of over a ton of metal which can kill people very easily.
"Decency" - Some of the cycle infrastructure in the UK is so poor as to be completely useless. Other bits are incomplete. If you build a poor quality thing, people won't use it. By contrast, NL and northern Belgium have excellent facilities and cycling is more commonplace as a result.