RonJeremy Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 2 or 3. And the cars being an equal distance from the line on the other side would be 4 to 6 wouldn't it? If the road were so narrow that car drivers were within a foot of the centre line, I'd expect the cyclists to adopt single file in the primary position (centre of the carriageway, not in the gutter). ---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 10:32 ---------- Those drivers should be immediately banned from driving. They clearly don't have the temperament or the intelligence to be sharing the road with other users. No (sensible) cyclist knowingly puts themselves in danger. You think riding two abreast CAN be dangerous, and I accept that it COULD be. But generally it's safer, and that's when cyclists do it, and that's when you don't like it. No - I don't like it when they put themselves and other road users in danger. Frequently I pass them very close on the other side of the road closer to me than I would pass them. In many many instances two abreast (whilst probably legal) is dangerous and when people keep saying it is safer to ride two abreast it makes the situation worse, because of the "God-given" right of some cyclists. Many are safe and ride in single file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 The new law is "must travel during the day with the daytime running lights (DRL) on". otherwise known as "headlights", so not really sure what your point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 otherwise known as "headlights", so not really sure what your point is? No they aren't. Headlights are designed to illuminate the road for you to see better and have a secondary benefit of making it easier to see you as well. Daytime running lights are designed to make your more visible to others. They are NOT the same thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No they aren't. Headlights are designed to illuminate the road for you to see better and have a secondary benefit of making it easier to see you as well. Daytime running lights are designed to make your more visible to others. They are NOT the same thing at all. The dim-dip headlights brought in years ago were similar, for this very same reason, to get rid of the dazzle from headlights; they were made obsolete by EU law. We will end up being told by the EU to have Daytime running lights on 24/7, and it will probable be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Not sure if I got that right, I will check ---------- Post added 21-12-2015 at 14:20 ---------- I am merely discussing the issue. I know that I find driving in the dark makes things harder to see. There is something called, night blindness, perhaps some see better than others at night? I think more about cyclists being harder to see, most are anti-cyclist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyctalopia I have astigmatism and am shortsighted, so I always wear glasses or contact lenses, but I still find it slightly harder to see at night, especially if I am tired. For this reason, I avoid night driving on the motorway because I am not comfortable with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No they aren't. Headlights are designed to illuminate the road for you to see better and have a secondary benefit of making it easier to see you as well. Daytime running lights are designed to make your more visible to others. They are NOT the same thing at all. Yes ok now I understand, but not all cars have daylight running lights - only news ones have these. So my point stands that in Switzerland one has to have headlights on at all times (unless you have DLR in which case you are allowed to use these instead) - and if this is so, why would they do that if it is dangerous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 No - I don't like it when they put themselves and other road users in danger. Frequently I pass them very close on the other side of the road closer to me than I would pass them. In many many instances two abreast (whilst probably legal) is dangerous and when people keep saying it is safer to ride two abreast it makes the situation worse, because of the "God-given" right of some cyclists. Many are safe and ride in single file. Weird, I drive more than I cycle at the moment, but I rarely see any behaviour like this... I see much more frequent dangerous behaviour from other motorists. ---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 14:21 ---------- The dim-dip headlights brought in years ago were similar, for this very same reason, to get rid of the dazzle from headlights; they were made obsolete by EU law. We will end up being told by the EU to have Daytime running lights on 24/7, and it will probable be a good thing. DRL are very much like sidelights that simply come on when the car is running, instead of being switched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Weird, I drive more than I cycle at the moment, but I rarely see any behaviour like this... I see much more frequent dangerous behaviour from other motorists. ---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 14:21 ---------- DRL are very much like sidelights that simply come on when the car is running, instead of being switched. The car is a more dangerous item I accept, nay agree, but cyclists 2 abreast is dangerous in so many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 why would they do that if it is dangerous? Some motorcycling advocacy groups are concerned over the potential for reduced motorcycle visibility with the introduction of headlamp-based DRLs on cars and other dual-track vehicles, since it means motorcycles are no longer the only vehicles displaying headlamps during the day. Motorists are quite safe in their little boxes, but cyclists are much more vulnerable when accidents occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Some motorcycling advocacy groups are concerned over the potential for reduced motorcycle visibility with the introduction of headlamp-based DRLs on cars and other dual-track vehicles, since it means motorcycles are no longer the only vehicles displaying headlamps during the day. Motorists are quite safe in their little boxes, but cyclists are much more vulnerable when accidents occur. Surely it starts getting ridiculous. If you can't see a car without headlights on during the day then you've no chance of seeing cyclists or pedestrians. More than just cars use the roads and by putting DRLs on cars you are helping obscure the unlit up like Christmas tree road users. We've had this conversation before on another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now