cyclists at night

[saaby93]

Evanivitch said:

gazza285 said:

ScotHill said:

So Wroxam to Horning is about 3 miles, not 5 miles, the cycle track probably runs for less than that, and this is an example of part of it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.712169,1.4235681,3...

If I was riding with my young son I would use it, no question. If I was on my own travelling at 20-25mph I wouldn't use it, no question.

Cycling infrastructure is built for the safety and convenience of cyclists, not the convenience of motorists.

And there you have it. Why would anyone with a choice want to use a cycle path without priority at side roads?

Let's not pretend it's something it isn't. It's just a pavement with a dash of paint.

The strange thing is that pedestrians are ok not having priority at side roads
Except they do, but they dont always choose to use it
Surely it's best to walk and cycle in the road and do away with pavements

[gazza285]

Evanivitch said:

Let's not pretend it's something it isn't. It's just a pavement with a dash of paint.

You mean it’s not a dedicated very well paved newish cycle track which runs from Wroxham (,Norfolk) to Horning, around 5 miles in length at all?

Colour me surprised.

[Evanivitch]

saaby93 said:

The strange thing is that pedestrians are ok not having priority at side roads
Except they do, but they dont always choose to use it
Surely it's best to walk and cycle in the road and do away with pavements

A pedestrian exercising their priority at a side road would barely need to break pace.

A cyclist exercising their priority on that cycle path without yielding would very soon be hearing SMIDSY.

And the pavement markings make clear the cyclist doesn't have priority.

[captain.scarlet]

gazza285 said:

And there you have it. Why would anyone with a choice want to use a cycle path without priority at side roads?

Because it's not the Tour De France and it would probably be safer for everyone, especially the cyclist, for that arrangement, which I'm sure the people who implemented it gave consideration to.

Everyone at some point has to yield to other traffic. Cyclists are no different.

It looks like it's not a two-way side road anyway.

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed


It is also safer than to cause the motorist to have reduced visibility of the junction by having to be further back in order to avoid blocking the cycle way when wanting to manoeuvre/ peep and creep onto the main road (otherwise there would no shortage of cyclist anger and "you're on youtube, mate" there).

[CheesecakeRunner]

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.

[gazza285]

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

So it’s safer because motorists shouldn’t have to be aware of their surroundings or, heaven forbid, slow down at junctions?

[NotDMike]

ScotHill said:

I would also request that any driver who has any one of a brake light, rear light, DRL or headlight not working does not drive after dusk. Thank you.

And also that they use B roads instead motorways, even if they are slower.

[Evanivitch]

captain.scarlet said:

Because it's not the Tour De France and it would probably be safer for everyone, especially the cyclist, for that arrangement, which I'm sure the people who implemented it gave consideration to.

You think it's safer for a cyclist to ride amongst pedestrians, dog walkers and scooters?

captain.scarlet said:

Everyone at some point has to yield to other traffic. Cyclists are no different.

You've missed the point by literally a country mile.

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

Why would the motorist slam on? They should be yielding anyway. Are these teleporting cyclists now that appear in thin air?

[PH User]

gazza285 said:

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

So it’s safer because motorists shouldn’t have to be aware of their surroundings or, heaven forbid, slow down at junctions?

It would seem that slowing down at these junctions is probably the main issue.

[NotDMike]

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...

What happens if you don’t shout at them?

Acceptable/legal/normal reasons for not using a cycle lane:

- it’s covered in debris, detritus and rubbish (e.g. thorny hedge clippings)
- it’s icy and not been gritted (in winter)
- it’s shared with pedestrians and you want to ride faster than would be considerate near pedestrians
- it crosses multiple roads (like a a pavement crossing side roads) and you have to stop/give way at each crossing
- you just don’t fancy it.

Motorists don’t HAVE to use motorways, cyclists don’t HAVE to use cycle lanes.

[gazza285]

PH User said:

gazza285 said:

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

So it’s safer because motorists shouldn’t have to be aware of their surroundings or, heaven forbid, slow down at junctions?

It would seem that slowing down at these junctions is probably the main issue.

Crap road design is the main issue.

[saaby93]

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.

maybe so - are there any stats?

[NotDMike]

GranpaB said:

Southerner said:

captain.scarlet said:

However, without wishing to justify it or offer any excuse, the increasing prevalence of quote white LED street lighting does now mean that the roads are very well-illuminated, almost floodlight effect in places? So those more absent-minded drivers are going to be more easily tricked into forgetting to switch their headlights on.

Got to object to that; all the new LED streetlights that I've encountered are utter sh*te, you drive down most side streets at night now and you can see naff all! They seem to simply 'light up' rather than actually throwing any illumination over the surrounding area, resulting in it actually being harder to see the road as your eyes are fighting to see past the pointless balls of white light floating at lamppost height.

When they were starting to replace all our street lamps with the LEDs i read up somewhere about them being better as they were anti-glare, and emitted less light pollution (ie crap).

Ironically they also produce more light pollution in a rather critical way. While there is less light emitted upwards, the light is broad spectrum (the old sodium lamps emitted light of a very specific wavelengths - 589-590 nm) which means anyone who wants to astronomy near a built up area cannot easily filter out the stray light anymore.

[PH User]

gazza285 said:

PH User said:

gazza285 said:

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

So it’s safer because motorists shouldn’t have to be aware of their surroundings or, heaven forbid, slow down at junctions?

It would seem that slowing down at these junctions is probably the main issue.

Crap road design is the main issue.

It's not great that's for sure, if you started from scratch then it could be designed very differently.

People don't seem to want to slow down at junctions though and this is still an issue.

[NotDMike]

saaby93 said:

The strange thing is that pedestrians are ok not having priority at side roads
Except they do, but they dont always choose to use it
Surely it's best to walk and cycle in the road and do away with pavements

Pedestrians have less momentum than cyclists and much less inertia. It costs them (us) less energy to stop and start, They have shorted stopping distances and much much quicker acceleration to top/cruising speed.

Imagine a journey in your car where you have to give way to everything at every side road. Would you want to do that?

[Blib]

I often ride my bicycle through the quiet, Suffolk lanes. I'm out and about on my bicycle all summer long. Only when it's sunny mind. Im not mad.

My bicycle is fitted with a battery which means that I can wizz along up hill and down dale. Which is nice.

But, enough about me. I have a question.

What I want to ask is why aren't offside mirrors mandatory on bicycles?

They're a godsend to me, as I can tell what's driving up behind me and respond accordingly. It has added immeasurably to my cycling enjoyment.

I'd wager 99% of cyclists don't use one.

My theory is that they don't look 'cool' or 'Tour de Francy' enough. But, what the heck do I know?

[rxe]

Cycle lanes are crap, I never used them. The biggest issue is that while they are fine for casual cycling, if you’re going remotely quickly, then both the surface and the design are entirely inappropriate. Fast in those days was anything between 25 and 40 mph.

Cycling without lights at light is moronic. Despite being a cyclist, I’d be quite happy if the blame was entirely reversed - any incident would be assumed to be the cyclists fault if they had no lights. Sure, 40 years ago when you had st lights with D-cells, they were a bit hopeless. But now you can get something brighter than the sun for about £20 with batteries that last for 6 months.

[captain.scarlet]

gazza285 said:

captain.scarlet said:

However, on a country road it's going to be a lot safer for a cyclist to manoeuvre across a junction like that with that arrangement, than to make motorists have to slam on the brakes at a cyclist that appears out of nowhere and at speed

So it’s safer because motorists shouldn’t have to be aware of their surroundings or, heaven forbid, slow down at junctions?

Motorists absolutely need to be aware of their surroundings and slow down, but so too do cyclists.

In a scenario whereby a cycle with priority is bezzing down a lane and appears out of nowhere at the junction where there's already high vegetation and is either struck by a car who at a point in time had a clear passage, or the cyclist fails to see the car and goes flying into the brambles (or worse), it would simply have been safer (as I assume the local authority will have considered in this instance) and more appropriate for the cyclist as the more vulnerable road user to have yielded.

Here with the arrangement in the screenshot above, cyclists, motorists and pedestrians would all have to slow down / stop / check surroundings.

Much safer.

Also, chances are if you're a cyclist or pedestrian wishing to cross that tiny section of road, a motorist would out of courtesy stop and let you past anyway as they're going to be checking for a safe exit and even that could take time and inconvenience someone waiting to cross.

[NotDMike]

Blib, i would guess the it’s same reason that so much that is mandatory for motor vehicles (insurance, safety inspections, licensing vehiucle, licensing drivers) isn’t for cyclists…

I think this is the simple reason:

Cyclists and cycling has attracted less legislative attention that motorists and motoring because when/if you tt into a house or whatever on your bike (even your fancy e-bike) the house will almost certainly be ok. If you do the same in a car/lorry/tank, it won’t.

[PH User]

rxe said:

Cycle lanes are crap, I never used them. The biggest issue is that while they are fine for casual cycling, if you’re going remotely quickly, then both the surface and the design are entirely inappropriate. Fast in those days was anything between 25 and 40 mph.

Cycling without lights at light is moronic. Despite being a cyclist, I’d be quite happy if the blame was entirely reversed - any incident would be assumed to be the cyclists fault if they had no lights. Sure, 40 years ago when you had st lights with D-cells, they were a bit hopeless. But now you can get something brighter than the sun for about £20 with batteries that last for 6 months.

Change that to cycling or driving at night without lights and I would agree.