A Crash Course in Cycling (or, why everyone should be a cyclist)

[Denzark]

This is what I saw on the way to work this morning. This was northwest up the A17, a sh*t road at the best of times, between 0539 and 0659 when I arrived.

Cyclist 1. No rear light, dark clothing, on main road.

Cyclist 2. Flashy red rear light, dark clothing, glaring halogen/LED light on front. Proper dazzling.

Cyclist 3. Back road, dark clothes, luminous helmet. No rear light, massive glaring LED light on front again.

Cyclist 4. On pavement in village. Dark clothes, no lights, helmet.


Of particular concern to me in my current hairdressers car is the glaring LED lights. Properly offputting in your rear view mirror (I am quite low down), and just as bad to the front. Idiots on pavements, par for the course of the lycra entitled clan. No rear lights, asking to become pavement jam.

I noticed in the press the other day that there is to be a clamp down on mobility scooters because some of them pass the threshold for when they should be licensed as a vehicle.

It occurs to me that until cyclists have some form of road mandatory standards that they are held to and enforced, they will not be taken seriously by other road users - particularly where they are quick to berate the government for cycle friendly roads and other considerations, but oh-so-slow to make their own cycling world act as responsible, sensible and considerate road users.

My car lights have to be set to a certain standard so as not to dazzle anyone, but bike lights don't?

Pshaw.

[Wolfshade]

One week after a “continental geometry roundabout” designed to protect cyclists opened in Cambridge, a 12-year-old boy was injured last Wednesday evening when he was knocked off his bike there in a hit-and-run incident.

Despite claiming to be "dutch" the roundabout fails to have a single dedicated cycle lane, or indeed look anything like a mixed modal roundabout used in holland. Local users have expressed dismay as the layout is confusing for pedestrians and cyclists, who are now forced to share the same peice of tarmac, and the width reduction on the roadabout restricts the flow rate of motorised vehicles around it.

[Psychosplodge]

I agree with the lights issue. They seem to be non existent or over bright

[Wolfshade]

I noticed in the press the other day that there is to be a clamp down on mobility scooters because some of them pass the threshold for when they should be licensed as a vehicle.

It occurs to me that until cyclists have some form of road mandatory standards that they are held to and enforced, they will not be taken seriously by other road users - particularly where they are quick to berate the government for cycle friendly roads and other considerations, but oh-so-slow to make their own cycling world act as responsible, sensible and considerate road users.

My car lights have to be set to a certain standard so as not to dazzle anyone, but bike lights don't?

Pshaw.

Mobility scooters are treated as vehicles above a certain speed, I forget which, at which point they may not use pavements.
Similiarly, electric bikes, are legal, up to 12mph, above that they count as a motorcycle and fail the road worthy tests for motorbikes/scooters.

In terms of lights there are legal requirements.

Firstly, anyone cycling in the hours of darkness [Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).] They require as a minimum:

Front Lamp

One is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside, up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light, it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard.

If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

Rear Lamp

One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard.

If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.

Rear Reflector

One is required, coloured red, marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned centrally or offside, between 250mm and 900mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind.

Pedal Reflectors

Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.

So there we have it. Now the front lamp requirements change given the age of the bike. Also, strangely, there is no requirements for lights in poor visibility, unlike cars etc.

The law only defines a legal minimum standard, so unfortunately you can have anything as long as it is red on the back and white on the front.

You can have flashes as long as they are between 1 and 4 Hz, quicker or slower is prohibited.

Indeed, it is one of the most common cause of being pulled over on a bike, though police schemes that I have seen is that you get a fine, and if you prove you have brought lights within a week (reciept) then you get it commuted.

Lights are a particular concern, too bright and it dazzles, like motorbikes on high beam, too dim and you can be seen (or see).

But the issue of lights are not just a uniquely bicycle issue, the number of cars with mis-aligned headlights, or bulbs that are broken. Then even if they are working the jerks who don't drop the high beam when coming in the opposite direction.

[Denzark]

Wow I never knew that. Now we need decent enforcement - on cars as well. This links to the earlier incident you described above when I said the Police who must be held to account.

[Mr Mystery]

But the issue of lights are not just a uniquely bicycle issue, the number of cars with mis-aligned headlights, or bulbs that are broken. Then even if they are working the jerks who don't drop the high beam when coming in the opposite direction.

And don't forget the thoughtful individuals pulling up on the right hand side of the road, who then leave their lights. Because that doesn't dazzle anyone

[Wolfshade]

I think the issues that gripe people about cyclists are issues that aren't just cyclist related, they occur across a wide spectra of motorists. It isn't the mode of transport that makes the idiot.

- - - Updated - - -

I still can't understand why people would cycle at night without lights. Pedal reflectors, on the other hand...

[Wolfshade]

Chief Superintendent Colin Kennedy said police would take a zero-tolerance approach to those driving or riding through red lights.

"We are not anti-cycling or anti-motorist,” he explained. “However, safety must always come first.

"Officers will have discretion in assessing pavement* cycling but there will be zero tolerance of anyone, including motorists, who chooses to ignore a red light.

“An offence will result in a £100 fine and three points on a driving licence or a £50 fine for cyclists," he added.

*Pavement cycling is not a clear cut black and white offence as some like to portray,

[Morgrim]

There are calls here for new laws stating cars must leave at least 1m clearance when overtaking cyclists, after several have been killed in hit and run accidents. Unsurprisingly there are a lot of motorists vehemently protesting the idea of having to share roads with bikes and saying it must be the cyclists at fault. Because according to them a cyclist with decades of experience who has represented his country internationally is more likely to have caused the car to run him over than the bad driving from the motorist.

[Wolfshade]

Well there is also the case of the NYC woman who drives over a cyclist making them a paralysed for life is now suing the cyclist for damage to her bike.