Fed up of cyclists not wearing hi viz clothing and no lights on bikes

[Jdot]

Yesterday about this time I saw about this time 10 cyclists including food couriers on bikes with no lights and no hi viz clothing. Black clothing

This really makes me cross. If car drivers hit cyclists that are not visible, drivers should not be punished for this

Blimey, there are some people who will find an excuse to argue with anything.

’it’s a bad idea to wear all black with no lights when you’re using the road’

How can anyone argue with that?

But like the reflective clothing now - looks normal colours until a light is directed at them. It wouldn’t change the appearance of the bike in daylight and it would be highly visible in car headlights

Do you drive?

Because I don’t know why you’re annoyed at my comment, I’m just telling you the reality of the situation.

If you’re driving on an unlit road, unless you have your fog lights on, you can only see whats in the range of you main beams.

Urban driving is different, as you should be able to spot a cyclist in time, even wearing all black. Still not easily visible.

Totally agree. Time law is set that they have to wear hi viz and helmets, and pay a small Road tax, they can have a disc on the bike

The highway code says to pedestrians on shared paths: "Cyclists should respect your safety (see Rule 62) but you should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them. "

It's the responsibility of ALL road users to be visible and alert. Cyclists should make themselves visible in the dark and obey the Highway Code; car drivers should concentrate and be driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions so that they can avoid a collision.

For what it's worth, I get frustrated with car drivers who don't use their lights in poor visibility - just appearing out of the gloom on motorways at high speed.

Same for dog licenses please.

I remember reading of a case where a cyclist slammed into the side of a large truck which was turning across his path. When the case went to court, the judge threw it out and said to the cyclist "You had plenty of time to slow down and take avoiding action, why didn't you?" The cyclist reportedly replied "Well, I had right of way." Somebody commented that there was no point a cyclist having that comment on his tombstone.

If the truck is turning right and the cyclist attempts to overtake, the cyclist is wrong. The lorry has the right to turn if signalling and is waiting for the road to clear. I saw a cyclist slam into a van because everyone had stopped to let it out of a side road - we were crawling anyway. Cyclist overtook all the stationery cars and slammed into the side of the van. Almost certainly the van driver couldn’t see the cyclist who was riding at speed. It was the fault of the cyclist. There’s a huge disregard for road conditions by cyclists and they need to ride with much more caution. Read the road - the traffic had stopped. There’s a side road. What might happen?

What I find odd is that when you’re banned from
driving the ban includes e-bikes…. But it’s perfectly legal to ride one without a licence or insurance at all.

Make that make sense

Yeah, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I've thought recently, as I'm seeing a lot more bikes in complicated road traffic, that maybe there needs to be some capacity to licence bike drivers, at least for some kinds of driving, in a way that includes a course on safe bike driving in traffic.

Because I think there are actually quite a few people who don't understand all the safety things they should do when driving with traffic. Who end up under vehicles and such, there was a terrible accident near me a year ago where a young woman went under a lorry that was making a right turn.

And just recently I say a man biking with his young son, of maybe 6 or 7, who was on his own bike, in a bike lane. Well and good in a quiet area, but it was one of the busy arteries of the city, at rush hour, in an area where there were a lot of breaks in the bike lane for turns. And this little boy on his short bike who never in a million years should have been in that kind of complex traffic situation.

The city likes to promote its bike network as being "for all" but just maybe young kids aren't allowed to drive cars for good reasons that are not just about being too small?

@TempestTost I agree that there does need to be licensing, it’s fairly normal practice for drivers in near stationary traffic to let someone out of a side road. No other road user was overtaking at speed. I agree about dc too. There does need to be much stronger emphasis on riding safely paying attention to traffic. Although I expect there would be howls of protest. My bugbear is cyclists not using cycle paths when they are provided because they are seen as less convenient. Holding up traffic and brinkmanship is preferred.

I regularly follow a cyclist home from work, after 5pm, so it’s dark. He’s in dark clothing but has one of those mega bright flashing red led rear lights, perfectly at driver eye height. It just completely blocks out all your field of vision and you can’t see any oncoming traffic (relatively narrow country lanes) or get any perspective of distance. It’s just as dangerous as not seeing him at all!

Darwinism at its finest...

gah. Another big bear is drivers who ‘let people out’. I hate it as a driver and a cyclist. I’m pretty sure it’s against the Highway Code, and the driver doing the letting out almost always hasn’t considered the cyclist in the cycle lane to the left of them that they are imploring a car - who often cannot see the cyclist - to plough into.

Follow the rules of the road. Don’t ‘let anyone out’. Let them wait their turn. Then everyone can predict what the traffic is going to do.

If it is daytime then lights are not needed.

High Vis is advisable but not a must either: it is drivers' responsibility to be aware of who is on the road. I say that as a driver and a cyclist.

Not having lights on in the dark is foolish.

I always wear high Vis and have lights, but I have still been hit by cars so it doesn't always help: if people aren't watching the road carefully then it doesn't matter if you are lit up like a Christmas tree..

The cyclist or biker is breaking the highway code if they are not using lights in low light conditions and not wearing visible clothing.

"Rule 59 of the Code states that cyclists should 'wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light.’"

When I was a regular cyclist I always had functioning lights, flourescent strips and I also had insurance.

Isnt 'road tax' calculated on co2 emissions?

Yes, we have hi-vis jackets kept in both our cars.
I also belong to a small local walking group - the walk leader and back markers both wear hi-vis if we have to walk along a road with no pavement (in daylight, we don't walk after dark 😁)
Whatever happened to the little public information films that used to be on the telly - wear white at night etc.?

If just one bicycle equates to 'a huge disregard for road conditions by cyclists', what does that say about the carnsge on the roads caused by motor vehicles?

Millions??
🙄

Exaggeration only allowed on one side of the debate?

Idiots. A kid shot out across the road on one in front of me yesterday and I had to slam on the breaks. He had no helmet, no lights or reflectives and dark clothing, and he wasn’t looking where he was going. Brilliant.

Kids eh!