inadequately lit cyclists?

[MipMipMip]

Seriously, I'm getting fed up of people dressed in dark clothes. If they do have lights it's usually just a small one that can be easily hidden. The other day there was a woman dressed in black, no rear light and a dark child's seat (fortunately no child). Would it be so hard to wear a reflective top and put some reflectors on the back of the child seat?

If you get hit by a car even if you're badly dressed it will be the driver's fault. They should of course be looking out but you can make it easier for them. And you'll be the one in pain - surely people want to avoid that?!

Don't even get me started on the inability to use bells when someone is in front of cyclists on a path - pedestrians aren't psychic!

[Unescorted]

Sometimes it is not enough to light up like a Christmas tree. My Ds (10) was hit by a driver despite him having 2 rear facing lights ( one static one flashing) 2 front facing (again one flashing one static). flourescent jacket with refelctive stripes and reflectors on his legs. It was 4pm on a Sunday afternoon.

I am sure the driver had some excuse. If you can't stop in the length you can see please slow down.

[auldfuckingspinster]

I'm not a cyclist but as a pedestrian I have clip on lights and hi viz bands after witnessing people almost being run over because they're invisible in low lights.

[engineersthumb]

What really annoys me is cyclists notusing oprovided cycle paths. There is a narrow section of road near me with an almost parallel cycle path (tarmac ) separated by a hedge. But no they have toslow the whole road down to there pace till it wide enough to overtake. About time cyclists were licensed!

[Starlingsintheslipstream]

Has the title been edited? I didn't click when I saw it first time because it seemed deliberately inflammatory and I couldn't be arsed with it. Don't MNHQ normally put a note when they edit?

[NotTodayThanks2]

There's usually good reasons as to why people who ride s don't use the cycle path. They will be reasons as a car driving non-rider you will remain unaware.
Riding on a pavement is at the discretion of a police constable.

[NoBetterName]

According to the HC, riding on the pavement is not permitted, here the wording of MUST NOT instead of SHOULD NOT (of course police officers can always direct traffic to do otherwise). I rode a push-bike every day for many years and have to say never rode on a pavement. You are putting vulnerable pedestrians in danger (children/frail people/elderly etc etc).

[NoBetterName]

*hence, not here. Autocorrect!

[NotTodayThanks2]

yeah we do this occasionally on MN - still doesn't make any difference to the fact it's at a police constables discretion.

[NoBetterName]

Do what occasionally? Eh?

[NotTodayThanks2]

do the riding on the pavement thing. Gets a bit tedious after a while.

[NoBetterName]

I was simply pointing out it's not permitted. If you believe differently, that is your prerogative but what you are claiming is not what the highway code states which gets a bit tedious I'm sure.

[KidLorneRoll]

Whether a cyclist is actually issued a fixed penalty for pavement cycling is not automatic. Home office guidelines state that a cyclist who cycles with consideration on a pavement due to it being safer than on a road will not be fined:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Regarding lights - yes, of course any non-idiot cyclist should have lights and hi-vis at night. However, a car should be driven at a speed where it is possible to stop in the distance you can see. Any driver coming out with the line that "suddenly" a cyclist was right in front of them is a shit driver, and needs to learn how to anticipate hazards. A sheep or tree in the road doesn't have lights, ever. It's no excuse.

[NotTodayThanks2]

It is permitted with discretion. It isn't a difficult concept when you think about it.

[MistresssIggi]

I am confused about the idea of a tree suddenly appearing in the road.

[NoBetterName]

Children etc are another matter entirely. However, being fined or not is not what determines whether something is technically allowed or not (especially given the complete absence of police presence on most streets these days. It just means that in certain circumstances they will to all intents and purposes turn a blind eye).

[BanjoStarz]

Can I ask about front bicycle lights?

I have a daily three mile trip along national speed limit windy country lanes. Some of the tracks off this are very popular with people who cycle on mountain bikes. They have super bright (think car full beam) front lights obviously for lighting the track In Front of them...but...they don't then adjust these lights in anyway when they cycle on the roads between tracks...which then dazzles the hell out of me.

Is this normal behaviour? I see so many cyclists with bloody dazzling front lights that I end up almost at a standstill cos they've temporarily blinded me!

[NotTodayThanks2]

There is a legal lumens max to all lights on cars and bikes. This below dazzling levels. I'd visit an opticians.

[MistresssIggi]

I think most people would agree that a car on full beam is dazzling. This is why they dip when pasing another car. So why couldn't a bike as pp describes be?

[mrsmata]

I work in a city well known for having a large proportion of cyclists many of them university students. I see large numbers of them with no lights on their bikes and wearing no reflective clothing. It is as if they expect the street lighting to be enough for drivers to pick them out but in reality they are very difficult to spot. Just because they can see where they are going doesn't mean other road users can see them.

Recently I've seen more and more cyclists using mobiles while riding along - they are engrossed in their phone and looking down rather than at the road ahead (possibly using sat nav) and I do wonder if they are aware of the danger they are putting themselves in.

Every now and again the police do a safety drive about riding without lights and will stop cyclists travelling without them but it never seems to make a big difference. The police would need to be stationed on every route in and around the city on a daily basis to have a long term effect and I assume the resources to do that just aren't available.

I can't remember any recent national safety campaign for cyclists in the same way that they regularly run to raise awareness of motorbikes but I do think one is needed. Every working day I see so many cyclists putting themselves in danger for want of a few pounds spent on lights and hi- vis reflectors and it makes my heart sink.

Car drivers definitely have a responsibility to be vigilent and careful but also cyclists should be equally aware of how visible or not they are to other road users and I'm convinced that many just really don't appreciate how vulnerable they are.

[BanjoStarz]

Given that I have a 6 monthly review with an ophthalmic consultant I'd be fairly confident that it's not my eyes at fault.

Far more likely that the cyclists are exceeding the maximum lumens levels no?

[Spermysextowel]

nappies & Socks.
Yes, the tiny flashing lights are harder to see than a solid beam. Dynamo-powered lights front & back with a headlamp the size of a beacon may not be very flash but worth it.

[Livelovebehappy]

Can't see why people are roping in pedestrians with cyclists. If you are a pedestrian, presumably you are walking on the path, and crossing the road at pedestrian crossings, so there shouldn't be an issue with having to wear hi-viz clothing. I walk to work early mornings in the semi darkness and wouldn't want to start wearing flashing lights and a hi-viz bib! Shouldn't need to.

[NoBetterName]

The statement quoted by the pp wrt cyclists using the pavement does not illustrate it is "permissible with discretion", it shows that cycling is not permissible on pavements, but police officers have the right to use discretion when deciding whether to issue a fixed penalty notice. There is a huge difference in those two scenarios. As I said previously, I cycled many miles every day for years (in central London and also along many different types of roads outside the city) and never felt the need to use the pavements (or skip traffic lights etc for that matter).

[NerrSnerr]

'Can't see why people are roping in pedestrians with cyclists. If you are a pedestrian, presumably you are walking on the path, and crossing the road at pedestrian crossings, so there shouldn't be an issue with having to wear hi-viz clothing.' There are a lot of country roads near me with no pavement and pedestrians walk to get to work/ bus stops. Not many put we often pass at least one.

[CharliePurple]

Because pedestrians suddenly decide to walk across an unlit road in black clothing in the dark rather than using a crossing.