I nearly ran over two cyclists today, and they'd have deserved it if it had happened....

[HLaB]

The thread title is poo.

Indeed they might have been wrong (in fact they were) but nobody derserves to be run over

 

[green1]

Not a criticism or anything, and off topic a bit, but I was just wondering why a flashing front light irritates you...

Merely because I frequently flash at the front (so to speak) and was wondering what I'm doing wrong

It makes it far harder to judge speed and distance, and if it's aimed too high and is a decent lamp it can dazzle more than a steady light.

 

[davefb]

It still wasn't the fault of the pedestrians though, was it. When driving we should always be able to stop in the area ahead that we can see to be clear. If you can't see clear road ahead, you slow down. If this driver came upon the pedestrians unexpectedly and could not stop, then he/she was driving too fast for the conditions. Likewise the OP should have stopped when confronted with the cyclist on the bridge.

There have been other threads where people have admitted their driving is sometimes less than perfect (which applies to us all I'm sure), and people respect them for admitting as much. The best thing is to learn from one's mistakes. The OP edited and extended the title of this thread when he realised the original version reflected badly on him. Unfortunately the new version, attempting to shift the blame onto the cyclist, makes him look much worse.

walk single file when approaching a blind crest might be an idea.. (not sure if they were on the right side, i could make the assumption because otherwise my mate would have had warning they were there, but i dont know either way). you're right, you should never cross the median on a crest (national speed limit, though I think its now 50), but the first mistake was someone giving someone that decision. don't be selfish, think first. think about what you're actions might have on other road users.

cycling on the wrong side of the road is selfish as it's making other people have to cope with your behaviour..


and for the 2nd one,, yeah pedal reflectors... amazing how much they say BIKE!

 

[lejogger]

It makes it far harder to judge speed and distance, at if it's aimed too high and is a decent lamp it can dazzle more than a steady light.

Fair enough.

But playing devil's advocate, is a flashy light not more likely to be picked up than a steady beam, especially in a busy urban setting where there could be any number of other lights for it to blend into? Providing of course that it is not so bright as to be a danger to someone driving towards it.

 

[4F]

IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.

 

[MisterStan]

IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.

Plus one - I tend to use flashing mode when I don't need full beam to see...

 

[davefb]

IMHO I agree and think that a flashing front light for urban cycling is better than solid.

flashing says "look here", but solid is easier to 'track'... which is the justification for 'one of both'..

 

[4F]

flashing says "look here", but solid is easier to 'track'... which is the justification for 'one of both'..

True but I am a cheapskate so it is one or the other.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

One flashing light during the day, and one flashing, one fixed beam at night front and back. I know it's hard to get a decent ''fix'' on flashing lights amidst heavy traffic and poor ambient street lighting but using a combination makes it easier for all to see.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

One flashing light during the day, and one flashing, one fixed beam at night front and back. I know it's hard to get a decent ''fix'' on flashing lights amidst heavy traffic and poor ambient street lighting but using a combination makes it easier for all to see.

totally agree

 

[Cubist]

Depends which way they are walking. Pedestrians are supposed to walk on the wrong side of the road.

I'm afraid there is no legislation anywhere which dictates how a pedestrian should use a highway. The driver should not have overtaken where they could not see it was safe to do so.
Legally there is no other argument.

 

[Globalti]

Just go on You Tube and find some Lucas Brunelle videos if you want to see idiot cyclists. I wonder how many outraged comments were posted on web fora after those alley cat races?

 

[mickle]

Some years ago I met a Ninja BMXer coming the wrong way around an overgrown roundabout, so I couldn't see him over the top of the shrubbery, at night. Quite how I missed him I'll never know, although I'm glad I did.

You beat me to it!

 

[snailracer]

I'm afraid there is no legislation anywhere which dictates how a pedestrian should use a highway. The driver should not have overtaken where they could not see it was safe to do so.
Legally there is no other argument.

Legally speaking, there is no "wrong" side of the road, for any road user. Otherwise, overtaking, driving along narrow roads, crossing junctions or roads, etc. would be illegal.
In the OP's example, the legal onus would be on the motorist to anticipate possible obstructions on the blind side of the humpback bridge, not on road users on the blind side of such a bridge to get out of the way.

 

[ufkacbln]

but I had to post a parcel that wouldn't fit on my bike!

N+1 time, you obviously don't have the right bike!