Stupid stupid people.

redddraggon

I was in university longer than expected today, so didn't have my lights with me. Being a bit paranoid (and not stupid) I walked and pushed the bike 1.5 miles home. Plenty of cyclists past me on the way home, but only 50% had lights or even any reflective gear on - and even then only 25% had what I'd call an acceptable standard of lighting (that I'd consider using myself)

Apart from it being illegal to not have lights and reflectors, it's pretty damn negligent.

Any one else see much of this?

Littigator

errrrr, have you missed the last 3 weeks of this forum???

In other news, cyclists who don't wear helmets are they right or wrong? More on that later but now our feature article-

Cyclist who jump red lights, should they be hung drawn or quartered?

linsen

All the time :roll:

I think it's no wonder that cyclists have such a reputation for being irresponsible - so many are.

Hi-viz and good lights are the minority by far where I live

redddraggon

Littigator wrote:

errrrr, have you missed the last 3 weeks of this forum???

I don't really consider myself a proper commuter anymore, so I don't look at this bit much anymore.

Littigator wrote:

Cyclist who jump red lights, should they be hung drawn or quartered?

I berated my housemate this morning for cycling through a yellow light - apparantly "it's fine - I'd do it in a car anyway". Managed to chase him down by the next set of lights though.

biondino

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

lost_in_thought

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

Only semi-guilty.

Oh and me too... red means stop, not yellow.

Jen J

lost_in_thought wrote:

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

Only semi-guilty.

Oh and me too... red means stop, not yellow.

Me three.

biondino

I know 99% of the roads I travel on and I know where going through a yellow will be dangerous. Now, I could say the same sentence and insert "red" in place of "yellow" but - and here's the difference - going through a red light is AGAINST THE LAW. Amber isn't.

In any case, I'll usually stop if it's going to be marginal amber/red, so danger is seldom an issue.

lost_in_thought

I stop if it's amber and I am tired and fancy a breather.

If I'm not I don't... :oops:

If it's red I stop, tired or not.

redddraggon

biondino wrote:

Now, I could say the same sentence and insert "red" in place of "yellow" but - and here's the difference - going through a red light is AGAINST THE LAW. Amber isn't.

Why did my Dad get points on his license then?

artaxerxes

Last night while driving on the Westway towards Euston Road, I saw a cyclist on the hard shoulder with no lights. It was dark (about 9pm) and the Westway no longer has street lights, plus it is a 50mph A-road...madness!

biondino

redddraggon wrote:

biondino wrote:

Now, I could say the same sentence and insert "red" in place of "yellow" but - and here's the difference - going through a red light is AGAINST THE LAW. Amber isn't.

Why did my Dad get points on his license then?

Astonishingly, you're right, you do have to stop on an amber light according to the Highway Code. How about that. You don't have to if doing so could cause a collision, but otherwise it's a fair cop. Thanks for pointing that out!

(what did your dad do?)

DavidBelcher

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

No - as I understand it (and seem to recall from driving lessons a few years back), it's OK to go through on amber lights if unsafe to do otherwise, i.e. if a sudden slam on the brakes for the lights would mean a hefty shunt from a motor vehicle behind, which wouldn't have quite the same snap-decision braking qualities as a bike.

David

Jen J

biondino wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

biondino wrote:

Now, I could say the same sentence and insert "red" in place of "yellow" but - and here's the difference - going through a red light is AGAINST THE LAW. Amber isn't.

Why did my Dad get points on his license then?

Astonishingly, you're right, you do have to stop on an amber light according to the Highway Code. How about that. You don't have to if doing so could cause a collision, but otherwise it's a fair cop. Thanks for pointing that out!

:oops:

I feel very guilty now - just went through two ambers, but didn't make the third so stopped on red.

Will take amber as stop from now on.

alfablue

"You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36]"

redddraggon

biondino wrote:

(what did your dad do?)

Paid the fine and got the points. Although the "second copper" in the car said he only pulled him up for it because the "first copper's" wife got done for the same thing the week before.

Ever since then I've taken amber as a "no-no", but I guess it's not as naughty as a red.

lost_in_thought

Ooooooooh I takes it all back I does! Stopping on amber may well ensue. I've never got into trouble for going through the ambers in a car - maybe as there's that get-out clause it's too hard to police.

I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

ooooooops :oops: :oops:

alfablue

lost_in_thought wrote:

I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

ooooooops :oops: :oops:

I think the legal limit is 2 sheets, 3 and you're going down :shock:

ellieb

On a bike you could easily argue that you did not have time to check behind before braking sharply you so that it was unsafe to stop at amber. Not such a fib really...

chuckcork

I'd personally say that at some of the intersections i've ridden through in Richmond/Putney area, if you went on green you'd be likely to end up in trouble with red light running cars, but I guess the highway code doesn't cover such life saving ideas....

Which is to say I've seen enough cars and particularly motorbikes start off on green and lock up brakes coming to a halt to avoid dimwit who thought 2 seconds after red was OK to turn right, my own acceleration at lights is faster than a car so I always check first that its clear to go!

prj45

I had a word with somebody this morning for no lights.

I said he needed to get some as if he get's struck by a car then all they've got to do is say he had no lights and they'll get away with it.

Hell, I even bet if a somebody piled into a cyclists with no lights and bent their front bumper and got whiplash they'd chase him for the money.

Heard some unintelligable mumbling as I rode off.

(Not that I think being stuck by a car just because you've got no lights is any moral excuse, but it certainly seems to be a legal one and that's what counts).

NWLondoner

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

i do the same as well.

NWLondoner

Last week i was following some other guy up the Edgware Road thru Kilburn and he was dressed ALL in black with NO reflective stripes on his clothes. To make matters worse he had a blue rear LED light. You almost had to be on top of him before you could see it :shock:

I was gonna shout something at him but instead decided to up my pace and drop the b*stard 8)

biondino

It's when they have no lights and wear camouflage that I really boggle.

Bikerbaboon

lost_in_thought wrote:

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

Only semi-guilty.

Oh and me too... red means stop, not yellow.

sorry to sound like spen666 but if i remember right an amber light means stop unless unable to do so safely. so if it goes to amber and you are 5m away doing 20mph its ok to go through.

flashing amber is its go with caution.

girv73

I see cyclists with no lights and in dark clothes all the time. I'm never sure what to do as they're usually on the footpath. Does that make them better or worse?

What really annoys me is the tiny LED front lights you see people with, barely as bright as your watch backlight and slightly green tinged too. You can't see those until you're right on top of them! Case in point: years ago I had one and was stopped by the Police for having no lights!

Jen J

Bikerbaboon wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

biondino wrote:

I cycle through yellow lights all the time. Do I have to feel guilty about this?

Only semi-guilty.

Oh and me too... red means stop, not yellow.

sorry to sound like spen666 but if i remember right an amber light means stop unless unable to do so safely. so if it goes to amber and you are 5m away doing 20mph its ok to go through.

flashing amber is its go with caution.

You're quite right, and this was indeed pointed out near the bottom of page 1

jangle

I was driving along a busy unlit country road, 60 mph limit, at night a couple of weeks ago when the car in front suddenly swerved on to the other side of the road for apparently no reason. I veered wide just out of precaution, assuming it was an animal or big puddle but no, it was a cyclist with no lights and all dark clothing. Utter utter madness. Had there been cars coming the other way it would have been a lot worse..

lost_in_thought

I saw a chap with no lights wearing all black including a black hat - I only saw him by chance. Said to him ' you ought to get some lights mate, I didn't see you'.

I was expecting the usual 'eff off', but instead he said 'I know! I'm sorry. Do you know if there's a bike shop near here?' So I told him to how to get to the two nearest ones. He thanked me and we went on our ways.

Surprising!

pintoo

Anything but green means stop according to any good instructor, but a little discretion on amber is OK. If you get hit, though, you'll have a hard time proving you were in the right.

As for lights/high viz, I overheard one poor commuter getting grief for over-doing it on Friday. He was stopped at a red and was wearing a hi-viz yellow vest, a flashing LED on his helmet and a flashing rear light on his bike (probably a light at the front, too - I was behind so couldn't see). His vest had this piping running all the way round which was flashing neon. I saw him from way back and was just thinking to myself "that's pretty smart - who could say they didn't see you in that?" when some other cyclist starting taking the mickey. She was laughing out loud at him, calling him "hysterical" and pointing him out to pedestrians and other cyclists. Not only did I think it was unnecessary, but pretty tragic. Some kids in a Golf then started yelling at him as well. Er...?!

I don't have a yellow jacket, but a black Altura Nightvision jacket. I'm thinking of getting a yellow vest for obvious reasons. In terms of being sure to be seen, I thought the guy was doing the right thing. I don't think you're going to look too cool in a Hospital bed. He stood a better chance of being seen than I did. Good luck to him, and shame on the other cyclist for giving him crap.

spen666

alfablue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I also didn't know that there actually is a law against cycling if you're a few sheets to the wind...

ooooooops :oops: :oops:

I think the legal limit is 2 sheets, 3 and you're going down :shock:

There is no "limit" as such

With car there are 2 offences

1. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol

2. Driving whilst proportion of alcohol in breath/blood/urine exceeds the prescribed limit [EXCESS ALCOHOL]

2 is the usual charge- 1 is rarely charged- as with 2 you have clear evidence ie the breathalyser reading

For cyclists there is only one offence - the cycling equivalent of number 1. There is no cycling equivalent of number 2