New offences for cyclists/cycling

[PK99]

I can't see any issue with the driver in the left lane at all. It's not compulsory to exit if you are in the left lane. The car in the right hand is clearly a chump.

O
Hwc 186
When taking an exit to the right or going full circle (unless signs or markings indicate otherwise):
Signal right and approach the exit in the right hand lane
Keep to the right on the roundabout until you need to change lanes to reach your exit
Signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you intend to take

When taking any intermediate exit (unless signs or markings indicate otherwise):
Select the appropriate lane on approach to the roundabout
Stay in the lane until you need to alter your lane to exit
Signal left after you have passed the exit before the one you want to take

 

[Mike_P]

With the amount of motorists who do not comply with is worrying. Aside from those who do indicate at all are the clowns who indicate they are going right when they are going straight on.

 

[styles]

That the first 3 responses to this are:

• It should be split liability but maybe 60/40
• Person on left is at fault (they were, as they used the left lane to turn right [3rd exit on a 4 lane roundabout])
• Person on right is at fault (they were, as they tried to exit when it wasn't clear to do so)

Probably vindicates the 50/50 (or at least some form of split liability) verdict!

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm not up for an argument on this, but it does seem to me that being in the wrong lane is a somewhat less bad thing than driving directly into a car that is easily visible to you. So 50 50 seems harsh. I'd put the blame an the guy doing the colliding but add mitigation that the other guy was in the wrong lane.

But no one is asking me, so that's OK.

 

[brommieinkorea]

It is defined in the law as:
or the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.


They aren't doing so. AFAIK, there is no maximum for bike lights any more than there is for car lights.

They are adding similar penalties for riding without lights between sunset and sunrise to the ones they are adding for riding dangerously.

These changes probably will mean a bit more enforcement, if the copper can just hand outa fixed penalty, rather tha n having to go to court over it.

But I don't think it is anything for most of us to worry about.

And you just posted legalese, or also known as laws to pander to the motor lobby.

 

[Alex321]

And you just posted legalese, or also known as laws to pander to the motor lobby.

I do wish you would stop lying.

Yes, that is (of course) "legalese", but the law I was quoting is nothing whatsoever to do with the motor lobby, or "pandering" to it.

 

[mjr]

They aren't doing so. AFAIK, there is no maximum for bike lights any more than there is for car lights.

I missed this at the time. There is a maximum in law for both! You mustn't dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users. In practice, this means no more than a few lux above the horizontal. But nobody seems to be enforcing this except at MOT test time and drivers just press the 'higher' button repeatedly the first time they drive in the dark after the test.

 

[Binky]

I missed this at the time. There is a maximum in law for both! You mustn't dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users. In practice, this means no more than a few lux above the horizontal. But nobody seems to be enforcing this except at MOT test time and drivers just press the 'higher' button repeatedly the first time they drive in the dark after the test.

If that's the case how can it possibly be enforcible and also why then are bike light manufactors allowed to make bike lights that are dazzling.
I've just bought a Cateye VIZ450 which is extremely bright on daylight setting.
Who determines what is dazzling as circumstances of weather/light/eyesight will differ just about every situation.

 

[mjr]

If that's the case how can it possibly be enforcible and also why then are bike light manufactors allowed to make bike lights that are dazzling.

Who's going to stop them making dazzling lights? They just sell them as off-road lights.

I've just bought a Cateye VIZ450 which is extremely bright on daylight setting.
Who determines what is dazzling as circumstances of weather/light/eyesight will differ just about every situation.

I believe there is court precedent, but I forget exactly where the line is. Basically, the same light above the horizontal as a UN specifications car headlight is definitely safe.

Edit to add: https://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/t...keersregels/uk_rvlr/index_en.html#bs.6102.3.5 has more details on the British Standard for bike lights. Line H is the horizontal. If your lights are in line with this, they're unquestionably non-dazzling.

 

[presta]

During my driving lessons (I learned to drive in Germany, not the UK, it's a long and rather boring story) it was drilled into me repeatedly that if I hit a pedestrian or cyclist I was in a lot of trouble; they deliberately drove in "shared space" streets and areas with cycleways to I got used to seeing them and reacting appropriately around pedestrians and cyclists. I had to demonstrate that I'd checked every pedestrian crossing for pedestrians waiting or even approaching them.

Correct behaviour around cycle lanes (in exactly the situation shown above) is also a big part of the test: the point being cyclists on cycle lanes have right of way crossing side roads unless otherwise shown by the signage.

It's a very different regime from the UK, and it does improve driver behaviour.

That's a cultural issue, not a lack of cycle paths issue. In a society that already hates cyclists, spending taxpayers money on cycle paths just fuels the hatred all the more. In fact it get's even worse than that, I've seen cyclists blamed for not cycling in concrete rain gullies, or in the 6" gap between the edge line and the kerb, because motorists think they're cycle lanes.

That's a threat. Pure and simple.

So?

 

[Binky]

Who's going to stop them making dazzling lights? They just sell them as off-road lights.

I believe there is court precedent, but I forget exactly where the line is. Basically, the same light above the horizontal as a UN specifications car headlight is definitely safe.

Edit to add: https://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/t...keersregels/uk_rvlr/index_en.html#bs.6102.3.5 has more details on the British Standard for bike lights. Line H is the horizontal. If your lights are in line with this, they're unquestionably non-dazzling.

Nope, they are sold and advertised as road/commuting lights:

https://www.cateye.com/intl/select/safety_lights/result.html?t=use&s=Commute

Also literally no-one is going to read that BSI article prior to buying a bike light!

 

[mjr]

Nope, they are sold and advertised as road/commuting lights:

https://www.cateye.com/intl/select/safety_lights/result.html?t=use&s=Commute

That's not a UK site. Maybe it's legal in Japan.

Also literally no-one is going to read that BSI article prior to buying a bike light!

I am not no-one!

But they shouldn't need to. Reviewers and even shopkeepers should be checking and informing buyers, but the UK cycling market has failed, reviewers wobble on about powwwwwerrrrr and shopkeepers use the off-road dodge.

 

[Alex321]

Nope, they are sold and advertised as road/commuting lights:

https://www.cateye.com/intl/select/safety_lights/result.html?t=use&s=Commute

Also literally no-one is going to read that BSI article prior to buying a bike light!

The problem is that so far as the law is concerned, you are supposed to have front and rear light which conform to the BS or other similar standard. But you can also have additional lights which don't.

So they can legally make and sell lights which don't confirm to the standards. I don't think ANY of the catered lihts sold in the UK meet the BS.

And there is no defined maximum brightness, just the rather subjective test of whether they dazzle or not.

And most people just assume that any light they can buy from a regular shop will be legal, so very few of us are actually cycling with fully legal lights.

 

[Binky]

That's not a UK site. Maybe it's legal in Japan.


I am not no-one!

But they shouldn't need to. Reviewers and even shopkeepers should be checking and informing buyers, but the UK cycling market has failed, reviewers wobble on about powwwwwerrrrr and shopkeepers use the off-road dodge.

Didn't think I'd have to navigate the website for you but a few clicks and here's the UK section :

Oh yeah, it's the same.

https://www.cateyecycling.co.uk/collections/rear-lights?page=1

 

[Alex321]

That's not a UK site. Maybe it's legal in Japan.

They have a very similar selection in the UK
https://www.cateyecycling.co.uk/collections/rear-lights?page=1