cyclists at night

[Griffith4ever]

911hope said:

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.

I overtake cyclists exactly as I've always done, I give them plenty of room, but, I don't put myself on the other side of the road completely .

- I want to spend as little time as possible on the wrong side of the road.
- I don't want to add to the increasing amount of cars that I find coming head on at me overtaking a cyclist that is an absurd distance from the car. Totally unnecessary - that's "why I wouldn't". It's a bad habit to get into.
- There is oodles of room between you and the cyclist just by putting two wheels just over the central line, and easing off if necessary. If there isn't due to narrow roads, then you slow down accordingly.

Never had a cyclist wave his or her fist at me, never made one wobble, never felt "that was close!" - and I don't ever cross to the other side of the road to pass something that is a few feet wide. And I know what it's like to be passed close by someone going fast. I've ridden bikes, but more so, scooters and motorbike for decades.

I think overall most people are pretty good, but I do see the odd silly sod that must terrify cyclists, so I can see why the highway code was revised to recommend giving more space, but now, we end up with soooo many snail queues because someone won't overtake a cyclist doing 5mph up a hill until the road is totally clear and then can cross entirely to the other side, like the cyclist is a UXB.

I guess there will always be extremes. Some people just can't adjust "rules" to apply a bit of common sense - i.e. there is a world of difference passing a bike at 20mph to passing one at 50mph. The latter needing a lot more space.

[rxe]

Blib said:

Hmmm.... I appreciate your reply. But, I ain't buying it.

Yes. I've watched some cyclists look over their shoulder over the years. Most don't bother, others do and then destabilise themselves.

Often, it appears that they're unaware of my approach until I'm relatively close.

IME, vibration is not an issue as all that I need is confirmation that something is approaching. The mirror does that job perfectly well, in my experience.

It's the Tour de Francy thing really, isn't it?

When you’re driving a car, your head is in a pretty fixed position, so the mirrors work. On a bike, I might be on the centres of the handlebars, on the drops, or flat out on the tri bars. If you’re doing decent distances (say more than 30 miles) you’re going to need to move around to be comfortable. I’d be adjusting the mirrors every 10 seconds. I never had a problem looking over my shoulder.

[captain.scarlet]

Evanivitch said:

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

Erm okay if it makes you feel better. I can't be bothered setting it out all out for you again. So you can have that one based on a word I've accidentally omitted and acknowledged. But fortunately you're a bit special and are the exception rather than the norm.

[Gweeds]

I ride with a radar. So I know you’re behind me about 300m before you get to me.

I do this because some drivers are unable to place themselves properly and because it gives me fair warning.

[monthou]

captain.scarlet said:

Evanivitch said:

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

Erm okay if it makes you feel better. I can't be bothered setting it out all out for you again. So you can have that one based on a word I've accidentally omitted and acknowledged. But fortunately you're a bit special and are the exception rather than the norm.

Ad hominem doesn't make you right.

[Ardennes92]

VSKeith said:

Whats in a name said:

The trouble with the cycle lanes on pavements is that they often go past drives where the pavement dips down and you have to watch out for cars emerging, every time you get to a side road you have to stop and then cross where as if you are on the main carriageway you have right of way and finally pedestrians will often walk in the cycle lane so you are constantly slowing to ensure you pass them safely.

In relation to lights everyone should have them fitted and working you can by them for a couple of pounds on Amazon so there is really no excuse.

Yep, shared use 'cycle lanes' are wider pavements. Utterly useless for cycling on so don't shout at cyclists riding next to them on the road.

If that is the case, then why not remove them and make the road a more user friendly width?

[J4CKO]

Gweeds said:

I ride with a radar. So I know you’re behind me about 300m before you get to me.

I do this because some drivers are unable to place themselves properly and because it gives me fair warning.

Got a link ?

Sounds interesting, never heard of bike radars.

[ScotHill]

Ardennes92 said:

If that is the case, then why not remove them and make the road a more user friendly width?

Because shared paths are generally aimed at children, families and people who otherwise wouldn't cycle on the road, to encourage journeys by bike. Some are better than others, most ain't great.

[Gweeds]

J4CKO said:

Got a link ?

Sounds interesting, never heard of bike radars.

https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/698001

It pairs with my head unit (works with Garmin, Wahoo, Karoo etc). I get audible and visual alerts.

Bought one after being knocked off by a driver who couldn’t wait 3 seconds until after a bend to overtake.

[captain.scarlet]

monthou said:

captain.scarlet said:

Evanivitch said:

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

Erm okay if it makes you feel better. I can't be bothered setting it out all out for you again. So you can have that one based on a word I've accidentally omitted and acknowledged. But fortunately you're a bit special and are the exception rather than the norm.

Ad hominem doesn't make you right.

Give yourself a pat on the back, hun.

[monthou]

captain.scarlet said:

monthou said:

captain.scarlet said:

Evanivitch said:

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

Erm okay if it makes you feel better. I can't be bothered setting it out all out for you again. So you can have that one based on a word I've accidentally omitted and acknowledged. But fortunately you're a bit special and are the exception rather than the norm.

Ad hominem doesn't make you right.

Give yourself a pat on the back, hun.

You've come out with some utter (yes, utter) bks about the highway code.
You can't be bothered to explain, everyone else is special. Okay. Hun.

[captain.scarlet]

monthou said:

You've come out with some utter (yes, utter) bks about the highway code.
You can't be bothered to explain, everyone else is special. Okay. Hun.

Calm down, hun, it's only and utterly the internet.

What have I said that is wrong? Have you read my post properly in the context of what I was responding to?

Where am I wrong about cars having to keep left? Mr Utterly Butterly above thought I was talking about bicycles. I was not, I was referring to cars and so I clarified that point.

At that moment in time the discussion was touching upon the gaps between cycles in cycle lanes and cars, and my point was that cars must keep as far left as possible. I shouldn't need to spell out that that is subject to obstacles and hazards etc but given the 'utterly' irritable crusader types who are all over this forum and who love to waltz in and isolate single parts of entire posts within an ongoing thread, with hindsight I really ought to have done so.

I hope that clarifies matters for you.

[monthou]

captain.scarlet said:

monthou said:

You've come out with some utter (yes, utter) bks about the highway code.
You can't be bothered to explain, everyone else is special. Okay. Hun.

Calm down, hun, it's only and utterly the internet.

What have I said that is wrong? Have you read my post properly in the context of what I was responding to?

Where am I wrong about cars having to keep left? Mr Utterly Butterly above thought I was talking about bicycles. I was not, I was referring to cars and so I clarified that point.

At that moment in time the discussion was touching upon the gaps between cycles in cycle lanes and cars, and my point was that cars must keep as far left as possible. I shouldn't need to spell out that that is subject to obstacles and hazards etc but given the 'utterly' irritable crusader types who are all over this forum and who love to waltz in and isolate single parts of entire posts within an ongoing thread, with hindsight I really ought to have done so.

I hope that clarifies matters for you.

Where does the HC say cars should be 'as far left as possible'?

[Super Sonic]

Demhcs said:

Is odd the cycling vermin don’t seem to like using lights at night or even being seen. Only explanation I can think of is they must actually want to die, see also: red lights and undertaking left turning trucks…

Sui-cyclists then.

Dehumanising is where it starts. We all know where it ends.

[Gweeds]

Super Sonic said:

Dehumanising is where it starts. We all know where it ends.

Don’t feed the troll.

[ScotHill]

Super Sonic said:

Dehumanising is where it starts. We all know where it ends.

Horning, apparently.

[oldagepensioner]

VSKeith said:

Whats in a name said:

The trouble with the cycle lanes on pavements is that they often go past drives where the pavement dips down and you have to watch out for cars emerging, every time you get to a side road you have to stop and then cross where as if you are on the main carriageway you have right of way and finally pedestrians will often walk in the cycle lane so you are constantly slowing to ensure you pass them safely.

In relation to lights everyone should have them fitted and working you can by them for a couple of pounds on Amazon so there is really no excuse.

Yep, shared use 'cycle lanes' are wider pavements. Utterly useless for cycling on so don't shout at cyclists riding next to them on the road.

I must admit most of the shared cycle/pedestrian paths round our way seem to be fairly deserted and the LED street lamps being fitted seem to be very directional so whilst the illuminated area may be brighter it is also a lot smaller so not really much if any of an improvement.

[J4CKO]

Super Sonic said:

Demhcs said:

Is odd the cycling vermin don’t seem to like using lights at night or even being seen. Only explanation I can think of is they must actually want to die, see also: red lights and undertaking left turning trucks…

Sui-cyclists then.

Dehumanising is where it starts. We all know where it ends.

I appreciate there are some minor challenges and annoyances when sharing the road with fast metal big things and small, slow things but the anti rhetoric has really amped up recently. It seems disproportionate, I drive and cyclists are low grade minor interruptions compared to all the other stuff.

Is it because racism is no longer acceptable to just drop into the conversation, someone mentioned gingers earlier on a similar kind of point.

Calling people “Vermin” because they ride a bicycle ? That’s pretty weird, but cyclists seem to be the last bastion of folk you can call anything you like without any real consequence.

Need to have a look at your life if that’s how you think, and are prepared to post it to a public forum, that’s next level and I would think evidence of a disturbed individual who needs some help.

[Trif]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to use cycle tracks when time and time again they get the implementation so wrong. https://twitter.com/GiveMeSpace3/status/1553342203...

[Gary C]

SkodaIan said:

It's usually pretty easy to spot a cyclist with no lights, particularly within areas with street lights. Although annoying that they are breaking the rules, a bike with the minimum legal lighting really isn't that much more visible - a hi-vis jacket with reflective strips is far more effective.

The hi vis thing is true, but so many dont wear them

We have a young lad around us that wears black from head to foot, with a black face scarf on a matt black electric motorbike and rides like an absolute tt.

He has got away with it so far as he is young and his reactions are fast and to be fair, he is really skilful on it.

But it aint going to last, come to think of it, haven't seen him for about a month.........