Bossybabe Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 1 hour ago, billybong said: Even on the cycle path if they're on the nearside path in the pitch dark cycling in the opposite direction to the cars a full beam light up high on the top of the helmet can create a "What on earth" moment. The path is separated from the road by at least three field-widths. So you'd have to be very off course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 7 hours ago, Riedquat said: Having incredibly distracting and irritating almost strobe-like lights is not necessary for protecting yourself from crazy cars, and is more likely to have the opposite effect. What effect on safe driving would a car constantly flashing its headlights have on you? These lights are a bloody dangerous, irresponsible menace, bad enough that even with my fed-upness with rubbish done in the name of safety I think these things are dangerous enough to need removing and that anyone using them is behaving in a grossly irresponsible fashion. Not only do they completely screw around with everyone else's vision and distraction they make it rather harder to judge the position of the bike than a steady light. I don't like the strobe lights on the front*. They're far too bright for a modulated light, and, you're right in that, the strobe effect makes it more difficult to localise, which is a problem when the thing you should be worrying most about is cars not crashing into you. Should really be a steady bright (enough) lamp front and rear. [* actually, I don't like them at the rear either. It kind of works because it is a visually novel stimulus, marking the thing (bike) out as of interest amongst a sea of visual distractors, but if everyone uses them (which they do), then the visual novelty wears off and you're just left with a difficult-to-localise stimulus.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Bossybabe said: It so wouldn't be a problem if the cyclists would use the cycle path instead of insisting on riding in the road. They've got just as much right to be on the road as you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewingGrass Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Hard core after dark cyclists don't use flashing front lights, only begginers, tightwads and idiots do. The problem is that motorists cannot judge your speed of approach and if you are anywhere truly dark you can't see where you are going or get an epileptic fit/migraine. Same applies to the rear, the ideal solution is to have two, a steady red and a randomly pulsing one to add a little interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 7 hours ago, Riedquat said: Having incredibly distracting and irritating almost strobe-like lights is not necessary for protecting yourself from crazy cars, and is more likely to have the opposite effect. What effect on safe driving would a car constantly flashing its headlights have on you? These lights are a bloody dangerous, irresponsible menace, bad enough that even with my fed-upness with rubbish done in the name of safety I think these things are dangerous enough to need removing and that anyone using them is behaving in a grossly irresponsible fashion. I think another problem is that with most bike lights the beam isn't shaped so that the majority of the light falls on the road, and people mount them with the light coming out sort of horizontally. If you're cycling in the dark and someone comes at you with one of these things on it can be completely blinding. Many cars aren't much better these days though. It's not just the vehicles though. I was walking along a pavement in the dark a few weeks ago and I thought a train or something was approaching me: it turned out to be a runner with a light on his/her head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Scunnered said: I think another problem is that with most bike lights the beam isn't shaped so that the majority of the light falls on the road, and people mount them with the light coming out sort of horizontally. If you're cycling in the dark and someone comes at you with one of these things on it can be completely blinding. Many cars aren't much better these days though. It's not just the vehicles though. I was walking along a pavement in the dark a few weeks ago and I thought a train or something was approaching me: it turned out to be a runner with a light on his/her head. Probably best to turn down the wick when walking/running, as you want your eyes to adapt to the dark -- otherwise you're just running in a dark tunnel with a tiny illuminated patch. I run with a torch in my hand but with my fingers over the front to dim it -- sounds stupid, but it allows me to run fairly dark-adapted, but I can flick my fingers out of the way to give a brighter beam in an instant if I need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The XYY Man Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 As ever, I'll keep it simple. There are cyclists who use cycle lanes wherever possible, and cyclists who won't. The former are decent people - the latter are arrogant pricks with a penchant for appearing in public wearing tight Lycra who you obviously shouldn't let anywhere near your children. The North-East is particularly blessed with old railway lines that used to connect all the coal-mines to the ports. These are now part of the National Cycling Network. From the top of my street, you can join the N14 cycle-path and get to Hartlepool, Sunderland and Middlebrough using as little public road as is possible. You will be able to view lovely places along the way, and the camaraderie between cyclists, people on horses and pedestrians is a joy to behold. It is like stepping back into the 1950s, where if you come to any misfortune, a fellow traveler will quickly come to your aid. Even when you hit the towns, the Victorians built such wide pavements around here that they are now divided into pedestrian and cycle paths that keep vulnerable human-beings away from two-tonnes of metal traveling at high speed. But no, the "Lycra makes me invincible" brigade will still use roads where cars, lorries and buses legally travel at up to 60 miles-per-hour on routes with blind bends and summits. You Lycra pricks have had plenty of council-tax spent on giving you a safe environment in which to enjoy your hobby - and yet you little Englanders with the "I have just the same right as you to be on the road" attitude just won't use them. Some sort of pseudo-macho, Lycra thing going on there no doubt. You clearly are knob-heads - and if you happen to fall beneath the wheels of a lorry when you could have been safe and sound on the cycle-path, then you only have yourself to blame. Darwinism in Lycra... XYY The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-percent Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, The XYY Man said: As ever, I'll keep it simple. There are cyclists who use cycle lanes wherever possible, and cyclists who won't. The former are decent people - the latter are arrogant pricks with a penchant for appearing in public wearing tight Lycra who you obviously shouldn't let anywhere near your children. The North-East is particularly blessed with old railway lines that used to connect all the coal-mines to the ports. These are now part of the National Cycling Network. From the top of my street, you can join the N14 cycle-path and get to Hartlepool, Sunderland and Middlebrough using as little public road as is possible. You will be able to view lovely places along the way, and the camaraderie between cyclists, people on horses and pedestrians is a joy to behold. It is like stepping back into the 1950s, where if you come to any misfortune, a fellow traveler will quickly come to your aid. Even when you hit the towns, the Victorians built such wide pavements around here that they are now divided into pedestrian and cycle paths that keep vulnerable human-beings away from two-tonnes of metal traveling at high speed. But no, the "Lycra makes me invincible" brigade will still use roads where cars, lorries and buses legally travel at up to 60 miles-per-hour on routes with blind bends and summits. You Lycra pricks have had plenty of council-tax spent on giving you a safe environment in which to enjoy your hobby - and yet you little Englanders with the "I have just the same right as you to be on the road" attitude just won't use them. Some sort of pseudo-macho, Lycra thing going on there no doubt. You clearly are knob-heads - and if you happen to fall beneath the wheels of a lorry when you could have been safe and sound on the cycle-path, then you only have yourself to blame. Darwinism in Lycra... XYY The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb Why on earth would you wish to cycle to Middlesbrough? (Or get there by any other means?). You will find yourself sripped of that fancy Lycra and will be running around like an extra from the full monty. Meanwhile, whilst you are in cooplands purchasing your cheese straws, someone will be away with your bike wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Bossybabe said: The path is separated from the road by at least three field-widths. So you'd have to be very off course... Fair enough although there are a lot that are right next to the road which used to be wholly pedestrian and are now half and half - or they just ride on the pedestrian footpath next to the road - in the pitch black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Edit: not worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 other than a few fit burds that I know, some apparently in their 50s, no-one should be allowed to wear Lycra without a licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted February 17, 2017 Author Share Posted February 17, 2017 On 15/02/2017 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Banner said: I wouldn't be surprised if the French were to bring in a law requiring pedestrians to be licenced and insured lest they injure a cyclist. I'm not an Al Murray, Pub Landlord, fan but that does remind me of a funny routine: "Rules. Where would we be without rules?" <pause> "France." "But where would we be with too many rules?" <pause> "Germany." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Some cyclists can be very dangerous to pedestrians, because they have enough speed and mass to be dangerous, but are also comparatively silent next to motor vehicles (and I'll never forget one arrogant twit who cycled right through a pedestrian red light and nearly run me over - however he was a well known local idiot/maniac). And is it me or is it pairs of youths or young adults sharing a bike all uniformly annoying idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 8 hours ago, The XYY Man said: As ever, I'll keep it simple. There are cyclists who use cycle lanes wherever possible, and cyclists who won't. The former are decent people - the latter are arrogant pricks with a penchant for appearing in public wearing tight Lycra who you obviously shouldn't let anywhere near your children. The North-East is particularly blessed with old railway lines that used to connect all the coal-mines to the ports. These are now part of the National Cycling Network. From the top of my street, you can join the N14 cycle-path and get to Hartlepool, Sunderland and Middlebrough using as little public road as is possible. You will be able to view lovely places along the way, and the camaraderie between cyclists, people on horses and pedestrians is a joy to behold. It is like stepping back into the 1950s, where if you come to any misfortune, a fellow traveler will quickly come to your aid. Even when you hit the towns, the Victorians built such wide pavements around here that they are now divided into pedestrian and cycle paths that keep vulnerable human-beings away from two-tonnes of metal traveling at high speed. But no, the "Lycra makes me invincible" brigade will still use roads where cars, lorries and buses legally travel at up to 60 miles-per-hour on routes with blind bends and summits. You Lycra pricks have had plenty of council-tax spent on giving you a safe environment in which to enjoy your hobby - and yet you little Englanders with the "I have just the same right as you to be on the road" attitude just won't use them. Some sort of pseudo-macho, Lycra thing going on there no doubt. You clearly are knob-heads - and if you happen to fall beneath the wheels of a lorry when you could have been safe and sound on the cycle-path, then you only have yourself to blame. Darwinism in Lycra... XYY The dog's kennel is not the place to keep a sausage - Danish proverb That's like telling car drivers they have nice big shiny motorways to go on so they should never use back roads. Cycle paths are very useful but don't go everywhere. Same as motorways. Also when it comes to getting a long fast ride in - many cycle paths are just not up to scratch - you need a decent road for it. Not been on my bike for ages though. And no lycra for me !! I save that for the pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 3 hours ago, ccc said: That's like telling car drivers they have nice big shiny motorways to go on so they should never use back roads. Cycle paths are very useful but don't go everywhere. Same as motorways. Also when it comes to getting a long fast ride in - many cycle paths are just not up to scratch - you need a decent road for it. Not been on my bike for ages though. And no lycra for me !! I save that for the pool. If you've got to stop for every side street not many people will use a cycle path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Yes 'proper' cycle paths are required in this country not half arsed attempts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 The other day - one moment cyclists on the narrow footpath when there's a well defined cycling lane on the road - and then further on cyclists on the road (a dual carriageway) when there's a defined cycling lane on the footpath. Spend as much money as you like on making cycling provision. Not all but a lot of the eccentric cycling behaviour seems to be caused by the congestion all over the place - both road traffic and pedestrian. Congestion that gets worse by the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 1 hour ago, billybong said: The other day - one moment cyclists on the narrow footpath when there's a well defined cycling lane on the road - and then further on cyclists on the road (a dual carriageway) when there's a defined cycling lane on the footpath. What was the cycling lane on the road? A bit of paint slapped down on the edge of a road that's not particularly wide in the first place? Those only exist so that councils can say "look what we're doing for cycling provisions", they're of no practical difference than not doing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, Riedquat said: What was the cycling lane on the road? A bit of paint slapped down on the edge of a road that's not particularly wide in the first place? Those only exist so that councils can say "look what we're doing for cycling provisions", they're of no practical difference than not doing anything. Personally, I'm happier with cyclists using the footpath (ie, when it isn't a bridleway), so long as they slow right down when passing pedestrians. IMO the law should be more flexible in this regard (perhaps a max speed limit of 6mph for bikes on foothpaths, say). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 5 minutes ago, dgul said: Personally, I'm happier with cyclists using the footpath (ie, when it isn't a bridleway), so long as they slow right down when passing pedestrians. IMO the law should be more flexible in this regard (perhaps a max speed limit of 6mph for bikes on foothpaths, say). That sounds reasonable enough to me to be honest (although any sort of speed limit is problematic). Part of the problem with cycling provision is that there's a wide variety of cyclists, some who move more like pedestrians and some who move more like powered traffic, so what's suitable for one often won't be for the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 19 hours ago, Dorkins said: They've got just as much right to be on the road as you do. I'm not disputing that. I just don't see the point of riding on a main road, breathing in fumes and particulates, when they could be riding in clear air by the river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Riedquat said: What was the cycling lane on the road? A bit of paint slapped down on the edge of a road that's not particularly wide in the first place? Those only exist so that councils can say "look what we're doing for cycling provisions", they're of no practical difference than not doing anything. The bit in question has just been quite recently done on a reasonably wide and straight road with a low speed limit. I dare say they still didn't think it was adequate and if I was cycling along there I might agree with them - why take the risk - but it seems a waste of money and then pedestrians are still being effected. Maybe the idea is that at least some will use it. I can quite believe some of it is some councils trying to cover themselves from criticism. I'm not saying it's ideal or any of it is ideal as it's clearly not given the general congestion - but some cyclists do use it - but evidently not others. Why the other cyclists weren't using the freshly laid, decent and protected by railings cycleway rather than being on the busy main road is anyone's guess. I'd been reading this HPC thread that day and thought it a bit of a coincidence and thought it worth a mention if only for amusement's sake on a serious issue of safety for all concerned - cyclists, pedestrians and motorists et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byron Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 As an aside. What is the difference between a particle and a particulate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgul Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 31 minutes ago, billybong said: The bit in question has just been quite recently done on a reasonably wide and straight road with a low speed limit. I dare say they still didn't think it was adequate and if I was cycling along there I might agree with them - why take the risk - but it seems a waste of money and then pedestrians are still being effected. Maybe the idea is that at least some will use it. I can quite believe some of it is some councils trying to cover themselves from criticism. I'm not saying it's ideal or any of it is ideal as it's clearly not given the general congestion - but some cyclists do use it - but evidently not others. Why the other cyclists weren't using the freshly laid, decent and protected by railings cycleway rather than being on the busy main road is anyone's guess. I'd been reading this HPC thread that day and thought it a bit of a coincidence and thought it worth a mention if only for amusement's sake on a serious issue of safety for all concerned - cyclists, pedestrians and motorists et al. IMO there is a push to put in proper cycleways -- so the local council put them in wherever it is easy, as that is what they're good at, but leave the difficult bits alone. This gives the ridiculous situation of a lovely cyclepath running parallel to the nice wide road, then no cycleway (or just a narrow painted bit) going through the narrow junctions down the road, as there it would be 'difficult' to do properly. The reason why they're using the road along that stretch (and not the cycleway) is probably because they've been on the road for the last x miles and they might as well just keep going along it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.