That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

[bmwmike]

Schmed said:

You want full beam ? Then you'll get full beam... Why constantly exacerbate these situations ? As the vunerable road user I'd be looking to defuse the tension, but who needs self preservation.

You sound like an aggressive driver tbh. Nobody is exacerbating anything by putting lights on their bike.

Edit to add. Perhaps I'm being unfair to you here and you meant full beams can help cyclists be seen? Go ahead and stick them on full I really can't tell the difference between full and dip on some modern cars anyway. No odds to me at night either way, light up the road is better than dark..

Edited by bmwmike on Wednesday 16th January 17:43

[bmwmike]

F4R said:

1000 lumens is far too bright to be used on the road. A lot of these new bike lights/torches are noticeably brighter than a dipped beam on a car and the beam pattern is not regulated. Dazzling oncoming drivers with your silly lights isn't particularly safe is it...

By your reckoning, do you think it's ok to drive around in your car with your main beam directed towards oncoming traffic then? Why should cyclists be allowed different rules to the rest of us?

Car lights are way brighter than 1000 lumens. And I already said I ride with my lights dipped physically and in power level unless warranted otherwise. There is a particular stretch near me which is a long uphill climb and minimal streetlights. It's a two way road, and if very busy the oncoming headlights drown out cycle lights to the point where cyclists are just silhouettes against the oncoming traffic. That's when you need more light. And potentially rapid strobe. I've been seen plenty of times by police cars and never stopped. Better to be seen than not.

[anonymous-user]

mehmehmeh said:

AllyBassman said:

I am normally one to defend cyclists on the roads, but last night tipped me over the edge.

There is a main road that I use every day, it's on a hill and it is quite narrow for the volume of traffic it carries. It has a path on the side of the road going down the hill.

Naturally, when a cyclists decides to take this route (going up the hill) it causes massive hold ups becuase:

- The cyclist isn't as fit as they think they are, so start flagging half way up the road and go at a near crawl
- As the road is narrow and normally busy in both directions, traffic cannot safely pass, so quite rightly does not.

Recently, the council has put in a lovely wide path/cycle path so that cyclists can use that to go up, rather than using the busy and dangerous road. So it's now got a small path on the side of the road going down the hill (not suitable for cyclists) and a lovely wide one on the side of the road going up.

Have I seen any cyclists use it? Nope.

Was I stuck behind a massive throbber going up the road instead of the cycle path causing hold-ups behind? Yes.

Rant over, cool story bro etc, etc!

Thanks for reading.

A road I frequent has cycle lanes on BOTH SIDES of the road and the cyclists all cycle on the road instead, in both directions, holding everyone up.



Here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.

No helmet of course

those sealand road lanes just randomly stop and dump cyclists staight into traffic, cue motorists complaining of cyclists just "jumping out in front of them", secondl as you can see, they also pass in front of car showrooms, industrial units etc, from which vehicels randomly pull out and then abuse the cyclists for riding on the pavement.

Just can't win so its safer to not use them

[walm]

F4R said:

Why should cyclists be allowed different rules to the rest of us?

Well I suspect mostly because they aren't piloting a tonne or so of metal capable of doing 100mph so they are of almost zero danger to other road users, who are usually ensconced in a steel cage.

Hence different rules, no compulsory insurance and no licence required.

It's a little bit like why hang gliders have different rules to 747 pilots.

[bmwmike]

keirik said:

those sealand road lanes just randomly stop and dump cyclists staight into traffic, cue motorists complaining of cyclists just "jumping out in front of them", secondl as you can see, they also pass in front of car showrooms, industrial units etc, from which vehicels randomly pull out and then abuse the cyclists for riding on the pavement.

Just can't win so its safer to not use them

They are only there to make up the numbers rather than be placed for any actual usefulness. My local council does it too, and with bus lanes which have been so poorly placed the buses rarely use them.

[walm]

Schmed said:

You want full beam ? Then you'll get full beam... Why constantly exacerbate these situations ?

Saved in case I need yet another example of hypocrisy and irony rolled into one.

[walm]

mehmehmeh said:

Here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.

There is no right way or wrong way on that cycle path or any cycle path I have seen.
(Yet another reason why you have to go slower than you would on the road.)

[Graveworm]

walm said:

Well I suspect mostly because they aren't piloting a tonne or so of metal capable of doing 100mph so they are of almost zero danger to other road users, who are usually ensconced in a steel cage.

Hence different rules, no compulsory insurance and no licence required.

It's a little bit like why hang gliders have different rules to 747 pilots.

Just when it went quiet I am about to be branded the cycle hater again,
Cyclists are less likely to kill or injure other roads users by a fair margin no matter how you measure it mostly because most of them have metal boxes. But in terms of pedestrians just for fairness they are as likely to cause serious injuries as any other road user in fact nearly twice as likely in terms of the distance travelled. But they are on average also less likely to be fatal.
I am wincing as I type already over the reaction.
Over the 5 years 2011 to 2016 cycling accounted for about 1 percent of journeys by distances but 2 percent of serious injuries to pedestrians wheras for cars it was 78% and 81% respectively. It was though only 0.8% of fatalities .(4 a year on average) cars are also marginally safer in respect to pedestrian fatalities, than road users overall in terms of deaths per mile driven by about the same proportion (66% vs 78% of journeys) If Eu standards are to mean anything this should fall further.
Cyclists in no way need the same regulation as motorists. Not least because less cyclists is not a good thing.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 16th January 19:10

[Antony Moxey]

F4R said:

Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.

Just trying to keep up with today’s ridiculously bright car lights I’d imagine.

[frisbee]

Schmed said:

I seriously can't believe cyclists are arguing on here against wearing helmets.

Anybody I know who competes either off or on road wears a helmet. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one, cycling is dangerous ; fall off even at 0 mph it's going to hurt. Anyone who argues against one must already be brain damaged.

I take it you wear one putting on your pants then?

[Graveworm]

frisbee said:

I take it you wear one putting on your pants then?

He may not, I usually do but she heard your key in the door and I had to leave in hurry ...

[swisstoni]

I’m all for bike lights. I’d rather be a bit dazzled than not see the person at all.

[hyphen]

Antony Moxey said:

F4R said:

Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.

Just trying to keep up with today’s ridiculously bright car lights I’d imagine.

So bike lights self level? And are checked in annual Bike Mot's...

Haven't come across any super bright lights on cycles myself though.

[SVS]

What do you think is the best front/rear light brightness and flash/pulse/steady for cyclists to maximise their safety?

Personally, I decided that 1000 Lumen would be far too dazzling. I figured 1000 Lumen would be counter-productive - blinding car drivers wouldn’t help my safety. (I went for 400 Lumen on the front, with a pulse mode, which has been good.)

I also think those 100+ Lumen rear lights are counter-productive. In some circumstances, they can be blindingly bright, such that it’s sometimes harder to see if it’s a cyclist or motorcyclist ahead.

[hyphen]

I though the flash/pulse was to extend battery life rather than increase safety? Is it shown to be safer?

[Antony Moxey]

hyphen said:

Antony Moxey said:

F4R said:

Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.

Just trying to keep up with today’s ridiculously bright car lights I’d imagine.

So bike lights self level? And are checked in annual Bike Mot's...

Haven't come across any super bright lights on cycles myself though.

Why does keeping up with the ridiculous race to produce ever more bright lights on cars have anything to do with self leveling or MOTs?

[swisstoni]

hyphen said:

I though the flash/pulse was to extend battery life rather than increase safety? Is it shown to be safer?

I have a slight problem with the flashing ones; it is possible to glance towards a cyclist who’s light is in the off phase and not see them. I’d prefer there to be some residual light all the time.

[RobM77]

swisstoni said:

hyphen said:

I though the flash/pulse was to extend battery life rather than increase safety? Is it shown to be safer?

I have a slight problem with the flashing ones; it is possible to glance towards a cyclist who’s light is in the off phase and not see them. I’d prefer there to be some residual light all the time.

It's not legal as a sole source of illumination at night.

[Master Bean]

RobM77 said:

swisstoni said:

hyphen said:

I though the flash/pulse was to extend battery life rather than increase safety? Is it shown to be safer?

I have a slight problem with the flashing ones; it is possible to glance towards a cyclist who’s light is in the off phase and not see them. I’d prefer there to be some residual light all the time.

It's not legal as a sole source of illumination at night.

Perfectly fine to just have flashing lights.

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/bike-l...

[thiscocks]

mehmehmeh said:

AllyBassman said:

I am normally one to defend cyclists on the roads, but last night tipped me over the edge.

There is a main road that I use every day, it's on a hill and it is quite narrow for the volume of traffic it carries. It has a path on the side of the road going down the hill.

Naturally, when a cyclists decides to take this route (going up the hill) it causes massive hold ups becuase:

- The cyclist isn't as fit as they think they are, so start flagging half way up the road and go at a near crawl
- As the road is narrow and normally busy in both directions, traffic cannot safely pass, so quite rightly does not.

Recently, the council has put in a lovely wide path/cycle path so that cyclists can use that to go up, rather than using the busy and dangerous road. So it's now got a small path on the side of the road going down the hill (not suitable for cyclists) and a lovely wide one on the side of the road going up.

Have I seen any cyclists use it? Nope.

Was I stuck behind a massive throbber going up the road instead of the cycle path causing hold-ups behind? Yes.

Rant over, cool story bro etc, etc!

Thanks for reading.

A road I frequent has cycle lanes on BOTH SIDES of the road and the cyclists all cycle on the road instead, in both directions, holding everyone up.



Here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.

No helmet of course

That's less of a dedicated cycle lane and more of two white line painted on a path. By the looks of it the cycle lane meets side roads and driveways so for the cyclist who actually wants to get a move on that requires constant stopping and giving way to cars, pretty much negating the point of the cycle lane. Have you ever actually been to Belgium or Holland and used a bike there? Id recommend it. It might open your eyes a bit.