cyclists at night

[CheesecakeRunner]

captain.scarlet said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Then you get cycle lanes like the one I rode on this morning.



It’s a 40 limit road. That marked lane is 1m wide, so for a cyclist riding safely in primary position, you’re actually on the white line.

But you see the position of the cars? That’s where everyone drives, because they assume a marked cycle lane means they’ve given enough room. So you have cars squeezing past you, at 40, rather than giving you the metre or so space they should.

The road would actually be safer without the cycle lane.

I'm sure the Highway Code rule is to keep as far left as possible, which the facing away from the camera is doing.

Put a bicycle in the picture riding on the white line. Then where do you think the car should be?

[smn159]

Sausage roll said:

After all these pages of the usual pointless back and forward, with the usual car driver sneers at ‘mamils’, ‘tour de Francers’, etc,

It's an out-group thing I suspect. The typical powerfully built PH road warrior doesn't like to be reminded that other people get regular exercise.

You rarely see the same level of vitriol directed at horse riders, demanding that horses should be fitted with mirrors, lights and number plates

[J4CKO]

Sausage roll said:

After all these pages of the usual pointless back and forward, with the usual car driver sneers at ‘mamils’, ‘tour de Francers’, etc, I would like to ask the OP who these ‘cyclists’ he saw without lights actually were.?

The term ‘cyclist’ covers a very broad church in the same way the term ‘motorist’ does. So the ‘cyclists’ without lights could be 16 year old inner-city teenagers on their mountain bikes doing drug deals, people cycling to or from a night shift, right across to recreational cyclists on high-end expensive road bikes. So given all the different characteristics, attitudes and circumstances that ‘cyclists’ can have, any post that asks ‘why don’t cyclists……’ is as ridiculous as classifying all motorists in the same box and asking ‘why don’t motorists do such and such..’

Yes, this !

[captain.scarlet]

James6112 said:

Mirrors are rubbish on bikes, a waste of time.
Not many bikes have bars wide enough to take them, plus the vibration makes them pointless.
I’ve tried

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Arkham-Mirror-Bicycle-Motorcycle-square/dp/B08FMMPXYL/ref=mp_s_a_1_1_sspa?c=ts&keywords=Bike+Mirrors&qid=1659267924&s=cycling&sr=1-1-spons&ts_id=458329031&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUE1T1dRODhKT0JEUU8mZW5jcnlwdGVkSWQ9QTA0NDI5NTVQRldMRDdSS0FPN00mZW5jcnlwdGVkQWRJZD1BMDg4MTU0OTJWVjVKWUw1UldGOTYmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9waG9uZV9zZWFyY2hfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div

The Amazon reviews of this very basic set of mirrors are generally good.

Main gripes seem to be about pricing, damaged packaging and product build quality.

[J4CKO]

I have mirrors on my bikes, when I returned to cycling years ago it’s one thing I missed from years of driving a car.

I don’t think making them mandatory is necessary or going to happen but there should perhaps be some promotion to encourage their use.

Mine on the road bike is a little bar end one, I find it invaluable, still obviously look over my shoulder but it means I am much more aware of what is coming up and can plan better.

Mine works fine, can see enough to help, doesn’t vibrate much.

[_Hoppers]

VSKeith said:

Yep, shared use 'cycle lanes' are wider pavements.

Not necessarily, this one runs along the racecourse in York. I gets narrower further along!

[PH User]

Dingu said:

Skeptisk said:

monthou said:

Skeptisk said:

I think bikes should have to have functioning lights and you should be fined if you don’t have them fixed (and they obviously should be used at night).

You'd fine people cycling at midday for not having functioning lights?
You sound fun.

Why not? Your car has to have a certain depth of tread on its tyres. If you get caught on a dry day it is no defence to point out that you don’t need the tread because it isn’t raining.

Maybe it would be better to make lights compulsory for daytime running too (like motorbikes) as anything that increases the likelihood of you being seen can’t hurt.

Someone will correct me I’m sure, but you can legally drive a car without lights in day time can’t you? Obviously not brake lights but most others.

Yes that's correct.

[VSKeith]

James6112 said:

Mirrors are rubbish on bikes, a waste of time.
Not many bikes have bars wide enough to take them, plus the vibration makes them pointless.
I’ve tried

+1

They also make your bars effectively wider, so more awkward

[ScotHill]

I wish we were still allowed to have a go at gingers, at least it took some of the heat off of cyclists.

[Gweeds]

Draxindustries1 said:

There's a dedicated very well paved newish cycle track which runs from Wroxham (,Norfolk) to Horning , around 5 miles. Its a B road and very twisty. Its used at weekends by the tour de France leftovers who seem to refuse the cycle track but use the pot holed road instead.
The amount of cyclists I have to shout at out the n/s window to use the firkin cycle track is unreal...

Not all heroes wear capes eh.

[CheesecakeRunner]

Gweeds said:

Not all heroes wear capes eh.

But superheroes always wear Lycra.

[Gweeds]

CheesecakeRunner said:

But superheroes always wear Lycra.

Can I get an ‘Amen’.

[PH User]

CheesecakeRunner said:

Gweeds said:

Not all heroes wear capes eh.

But superheroes always wear Lycra.

Very true

[Gweeds]

Sausage roll said:

After all these pages of the usual pointless back and forward, with the usual car driver sneers at ‘mamils’, ‘tour de Francers’, etc, I would like to ask the OP who these ‘cyclists’ he saw without lights actually were.?

The term ‘cyclist’ covers a very broad church in the same way the term ‘motorist’ does. So the ‘cyclists’ without lights could be 16 year old inner-city teenagers on their mountain bikes doing drug deals, people cycling to or from a night shift, right across to recreational cyclists on high-end expensive road bikes. So given all the different characteristics, attitudes and circumstances that ‘cyclists’ can have, any post that asks ‘why don’t cyclists……’ is as ridiculous as classifying all motorists in the same box and asking ‘why don’t motorists do such and such..’

The social psychology term for this bias is "fundamental attribution error": the tendency to attribute the actions of others to their inherent nature rather than their situation, and the less we sympathize with their situation, the greater the bias. A 2002 study from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory found that it plays a starring role in our perceptions of traffic behavior, with drivers far more likely to see a cyclist's infraction as stemming from ineptitude or recklessness than an identical one committed by another driver.

[J4CKO]

VSKeith said:

James6112 said:

Mirrors are rubbish on bikes, a waste of time.
Not many bikes have bars wide enough to take them, plus the vibration makes them pointless.
I’ve tried

+1

They also make your bars effectively wider, so more awkward

They can, but the one I have goes on the end of the drops on my road bike, the increase in width is marginal, maybe a centimetre.

https://www.cyclesuk.com/accessories/lights/cateye...

[Evanivitch]

captain.scarlet said:

Evanivitch said:

captain.scarlet said:

I'm sure the Highway Code rule is to keep as far left as possible, which the facing away from the camera is doing.
.

It's amazing how the highway code is free to access on the internet and yet people still get it completely and utterly ******* wrong.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists...

It utterly amazes me how the words utter and utterly are being used to death by certain utter types who are utterly unable to express themselves otherwise.

Remind us what the Highway Code says about cars and keeping left, which is what my post was referring to (looks like the quote from my post omits the word 'car', so if I omitted it then fair enough, I'd have thought that nothing else was keeping left and facing away from the camera other than the car).

Then re-read my post again without utterly trying to overreact and overreact your utter frustration.

Edited by captain.scarlet on Sunday 31st July 11:48

It doesn't say that for cars either. You utter plank

[Griffith4ever]

VSKeith said:

James6112 said:

Mirrors are rubbish on bikes, a waste of time.
Not many bikes have bars wide enough to take them, plus the vibration makes them pointless.
I’ve tried

+1

They also make your bars effectively wider, so more awkward

All of the above does really read like excuses tbh.

Lots of us use these on enduro bikes, and the point downwards below your wrist, or upwards, above it - so the don't make anything wider, and, contrary to the opinions above that they "dont' work" and are a "waste of time", are very popular with ride leaders, and I can assure you most definitely do work and are very useful.



If you won't want to use one, bully for you, but, don't claim they are useless and don't work, when, they clearly do, or, I'm a massive liar with pants well on fire.

[911hope]

Blib said:

I suppose I'm thinking of the many tens of thousands of cyclists that I've driven past over the last 45 years who didn't look over their shoulder. Those cyclists.

At least a mandatory mirror would encourage some of those to take a glance.

Are you saying they should constantly look over their shoulder to see what you are up to?


Or can they just do it when the upcoming change of line merits it?

I do hope you haven't had 10's of thousands of near misses.

[monthou]

911hope said:

Blib said:

I suppose I'm thinking of the many tens of thousands of cyclists that I've driven past over the last 45 years who didn't look over their shoulder. Those cyclists.

At least a mandatory mirror would encourage some of those to take a glance.

Are you saying they should constantly look over their shoulder to see what you are up to?


Or can they just do it when the upcoming change of line merits it?

I do hope you haven't had 10's of thousands of near misses.

Must admit I was wondering how many of those tens of thousands he'd driven into.
Hopefully just a few.

[911hope]

CheesecakeRunner said:

captain.scarlet said:

CheesecakeRunner said:

Then you get cycle lanes like the one I rode on this morning.



It’s a 40 limit road. That marked lane is 1m wide, so for a cyclist riding safely in primary position, you’re actually on the white line.

But you see the position of the cars? That’s where everyone drives, because they assume a marked cycle lane means they’ve given enough room. So you have cars squeezing past you, at 40, rather than giving you the metre or so space they should.

The road would actually be safer without the cycle lane.

I'm sure the Highway Code rule is to keep as far left as possible, which the facing away from the camera is doing.

Put a bicycle in the picture riding on the white line. Then where do you think the car should be?

That cycle lane looks unusually wide in total, with a central line I would cycle on, so give the cyclist about 2m space absolute minimum.

If an oncoming car would make this impossible don't overtake.

Safest practice for overtaking is to cross the road totally (if it is clear then why wouldn't you?)
Do it quickly to minimise the risk time.
Pull back in inly after you have seen the cycle in your rear view mirror,

A minority of people do this.

It's amazing how often people pull in immediately their eyes are past the cyclist. They forget the back of the car exists and that the bike is moving.