cyclists at night

[ScotHill]

Blib said:

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?

Because a rider can generally hear what's coming behind them and can look over their shoulder, neither of which a driver can do. Bicycle mirrors also move around and vibrate a lot, they're just not very good.

[captain.scarlet]

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.

I speak for myself and still allow sufficient space between myself and cyclists, and adjust / pass safely according to road width and any forthcoming obstructions or oncoming traffic.

[Blib]

ScotHill said:

Blib said:

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?

Because a rider can generally hear what's coming behind them and can look over their shoulder, neither of which a driver can do. Bicycle mirrors also move around and vibrate a lot, they're just not very good.

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?

[ScotHill]

No it's fking not. I ride perfectly well without a mirror, I'm not sure what else it would add. There's Garmin's Varia radar if a rider wants total oversight of what's behind them. The problem isn't generally riders not knowing what's behind them, it's drivers not caring what's in front of them.

[captain.scarlet]

ScotHill said:

No it's fking not. I ride perfectly well without a mirror, I'm not sure what else it would add. There's Garmin's Varia radar if a rider wants total oversight of what's behind them. The problem isn't generally riders not knowing what's behind them, it's drivers not caring what's in front of them.

Well I must be coming across a bad bunch because I have forgotten the last time I have seen a cyclist (other than myself on occasion) using their arms to indicate. Also a complacency amongst many to simply cycle in front of the path of a car approaching from behind and taking it wide and assuming the motorist has to just deal with it.

I don't buy 'ears only' as an excuse by another PHer for not utilising mirrors on bicycles. Very odd to suggest wingmirrors exist primarily because of audibility. I wonder whether we can do away with them on convertibles or EVs.

Using the road safely is about using all your senses (apart from taste maybe), and definitely your eyes and ears.

If mopeds and motorbikes have mirrors then there's no reason why users of bicycles and even scooters should not utilise them, too.

[monthou]

captain.scarlet said:

If mopeds and motorbikes have mirrors then there's no reason why users of bicycles and even scooters should not utilise them, too.

Mopeds and motorcycles don't need mirrors either.

[Evanivitch]

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...

[911hope]

So for safety on your bike......

lights on bikes at night - you would be stupid not to. Also wear light colours.

Assume all drivers can make mistakes or drive badly. Here are the common issues.

Overtake too closely..... Solution for cyclist (hope your luck holds)
Pull back in too quickly after overtake..... Solution for cyclist (hope your luck holds)
Overtake when dangerous (narrow road or,bridge, pedestrian islands) .... Solution for cyclist (ride in centre and take the decision away from the driver)
If a car overtakes approaching a bend and something comes the other way, the driver will pull in and crush the cyclist. Cyclist get ready to dive to safety.
In a line of overtaking cars, each car will be closer to the bike than the one in front. This is nearly always the case.
Overtake then stop in front of cyclist, or turn left.
Pull off without looking.
Reverse into road without looking.
There are even cases when people look before moving but are looking for cars and don't recognise the bike 15ft away. Cyclist look for eye contact from the driver.

Most of these issues are just errors or frustration.
Worse is the miniscule minority who are actually aggressive.

They are at their most dangerous when they have just been made to look stupid.

Some of the self preservation behaviour of cyclists can enrage these people, such is preventing the dangerous overtake or not riding in the gutter, or riding 2-abreast.

Now many cyclists are also morons. No lights dark clothes, on/off pavements, run red lights, undertake waiting traffic at junctions, not occupying the road properly, wrong side of road, not indicating, moving without making sure it is safe (right turn for example)

Now, councils and cycle lanes.....

How many are wide enough to make the cyclist safe? In reality the 1m cycle lane is merely an instruction on how close to ride to a cyclist. Far too close...

[gazza285]

captain.scarlet 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?

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.

Non of that would happen, because I, like most cyclists, would not use such a st cycle path, we would be on the road, and the question of priority would be resolved, as would the danger of high vegetation. Safer for everyone involved.

[monthou]

911hope said:

Now many cyclists are also morons... undertake waiting traffic at junctions...

Come again?

[captain.scarlet]

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

[911hope]

captain.scarlet said:

Well I must be coming across a bad bunch because I have forgotten the last time I have seen a cyclist (other than myself on occasion) using their arms to indicate. Also a complacency amongst many to simply cycle in front of the path of a car approaching from behind and taking it wide and assuming the motorist has to just deal with it.

I don't buy 'ears only' as an excuse by another PHer for not utilising mirrors on bicycles. Very odd to suggest wingmirrors exist primarily because of audibility. I wonder whether we can do away with them on convertibles or EVs.

Using the road safely is about using all your senses (apart from taste maybe), and definitely your eyes and ears.

If mopeds and motorbikes have mirrors then there's no reason why users of bicycles and even scooters should not utilise them, too.

Don't forget it is your responsibility to give people space. The cyclist in front can't do much about a car's actions, even if they so see it coming.

[Draxindustries1]

smn159 said:

Draxindustries1 said:

The amount of cyclists I have to shout at out the n/s window to use the firkin cycle track is unreal...

Jesus wept

Hopefully your inevitable accident won't be too serious for the other road user

Hook line and sinker...

[911hope]

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.

The cycle lane at 1m is just an instruction on how close to drive to cyclists.

Obviously this is stupid by the council and means the cyclist is less safe.

[monthou]

Draxindustries1 said:

smn159 said:

Draxindustries1 said:

The amount of cyclists I have to shout at out the n/s window to use the firkin cycle track is unreal...

Jesus wept

Hopefully your inevitable accident won't be too serious for the other road user

Hook line and sinker...

Except there are people who do that.
Hilarious that you pretend to be one of them.

[911hope]

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...

Did you get nice and close to make your point?

[Skeptisk]

captain.scarlet said:

My experience of them has been that they are exactly that and achieve that. Not the same levels of light pollution as before because the light is directed downwards unless adjusted otherwise. The older types would throw light everywhere by default.

I thought I'd taken more photos that had the new streetlights in my local area. These were actually taken early in January 2021 to report the shoddy road surface at a crossroads and the flooding whenever it was a bit wet...and the potholes on top of the speed table. A traffic-calming measure within a traffic-calming measure.

You can see the difference in light output and visibility.





Fair enough that we may have differing views on this topic, but I think a combination of DRLs, brighter street lighting, complacency on the part of some (but not all) cyclists and general absent-mindedness are factors in road users not switching on their lights.

Blimey. Is that really the state of roads in the UK? I’ve seen better in the third world.

[captain.scarlet]

911hope said:

captain.scarlet said:

Well I must be coming across a bad bunch because I have forgotten the last time I have seen a cyclist (other than myself on occasion) using their arms to indicate. Also a complacency amongst many to simply cycle in front of the path of a car approaching from behind and taking it wide and assuming the motorist has to just deal with it.

I don't buy 'ears only' as an excuse by another PHer for not utilising mirrors on bicycles. Very odd to suggest wingmirrors exist primarily because of audibility. I wonder whether we can do away with them on convertibles or EVs.

Using the road safely is about using all your senses (apart from taste maybe), and definitely your eyes and ears.

If mopeds and motorbikes have mirrors then there's no reason why users of bicycles and even scooters should not utilise them, too.

Don't forget it is your responsibility to give people space. The cyclist in front can't do much about a car's actions, even if they so see it coming.

Completely agree, but there is an onus on cyclists as with any user of the public highway to check their surroundings which I am struggling to see.

As someone who covers large distances on foot as well, I have lost count of the number of cyclists violating the red lights at pedestrian crossings where it is green for pedestrians. I have had my fair share of near collisions by cyclists who think that the rules only apply to motor vehicles.

And that's before we get started on delivery riders.

Although there are many courteous, speed-aware and safe cyclists, unfortunately there are many who are no less smug and arrogant than certain types of motorist and who could probably do with the imposition of things like lights, mirrors and reduced priority for the benefit of their and everyone else's safety.

[monthou]

captain.scarlet said:

Although there are many courteous, speed-aware and safe cyclists, unfortunately there are many who are no less smug and arrogant than certain types of motorist and who could probably do with the imposition of things like lights, mirrors and reduced priority for the benefit of their and everyone else's safety.

You'd impose mirrors because smug arrogant st unsafe cyclists.
And you'd expect them to use these mirrors?

[Skeptisk]

I was just wondering last week why new bikes don’t come automatically with front and rear lights. I would think that with modern LED lights that don’t need as much power you could have a built in dynamo that didn’t use up much of the cyclists energy, or could be run off the battery if an E-bike. Seems a cheek to me also that you pay £1000+ for a bike and it doesn’t come with essentials like lights. Imagining buying a car and having to pay separately for lights, indicators etc.

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).