mike142sl Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 making hi-viz a legal requirement, would be meaningless without enforcement. ie. fixed-penalty notices, that kind of thing. It would more likely be dealt with at point of incident. i.e. cyclist gets knocked off bike at a junction - if not wearing HiViz then a fine or unable to take action against whoever knocked him/her off. Might have the occasional drive to remind cyclists, a bit like how they did it recently with mobile phone use. All this talk of having to buy items being a barrier? makes you wonder how they buy the bike in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 It would more likely be dealt with at point of incident. i.e. cyclist gets knocked off bike at a junction - if not wearing HiViz then a fine or unable to take action against whoever knocked him/her off. Might have the occasional drive to remind cyclists, a bit like how they did it recently with mobile phone use. All this talk of having to buy items being a barrier? makes you wonder how they buy the bike in the first place! Looks like you've given that a lot of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 The rules for cyclists must be flexible, otherwise we would have 3 year olds being fined for cycling on the pavement. Except that the age of criminal responsibility is ten. So that wouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 I was driving through rural Nottingham and Derbyshire yesterday evening and came across all sorts of cyclists. Kids weaving about on bmxs, serious Lycra clad ones and several in between. The one that caused my concern was a guy in a lovely green t shirt, khaki shorts and matching hat. I over took (gave plenty of room) but he was really hard to spot in my mirror - it was highly unlikely he'd sped up and found a blind spot on the side of my big van but he was really difficult to pick out against hedges and cornfields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 someone , ahem, will be along soon to break down your post, line by line, telling you as a driver you should be more responsible, the roads not yours and cyclist should not have to make themselves visible. This will then perpetuate for another 10 pages with no one having changed any one else's point of view. I cycle, wear ridiculous bright clothes, helmet and use lights. I read this thread and all I can think of is the song from The Italian Job 'self preservation society'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyR Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) See the bolded. Make your mind up. Logic fail. Necessity isn't determined by legality. I think reflective strips and flashing lights are necessary for riding at night yet they're not a legal requirement. I also think their use should be encouraged. Again, make your mind up, if they are not legal requirements then why are they barriers and why shouldn't their use by encouraged? (on the assumption they have benefits) [/color] [/color] Such nit picking! - a barrier = legal requirement at least roughly that seems to be the definition in this thread. None of the other things you or cyclone have mentioned are necessary. many are a good idea but to go cycling all you really need are: Bike Yourself and at night: Bike Yourself lights I do however think that some clothes at least is a good idea. . ---------- Post added 08-07-2017 at 06:27 ---------- You obviously dont drive very often . I has a run in with one today on Penistone Rd at the Rutland Rd traffic lights. Sat at the lights one came between me and another car and rode straight through the red light. So when i caught up with the lunatic at the next lights i made sure the gap between me and the other car wasnt big enough for him to get through. Now if a motorist runs a red light , its a fine time , yet the two wheeled idiots get away with it. I wish you a long and prosperous life. Edited July 8, 2017 by TimmyR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petemcewan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) TimmyR, It is possible to cycle without any clothes on. https://www.timeout.com/london/festivals/world-naked-bike-ride Edited July 8, 2017 by petemcewan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 It would more likely be dealt with at point of incident. i.e. cyclist gets knocked off bike at a junction - if not wearing HiViz then a fine or unable to take action against whoever knocked him/her off. Might have the occasional drive to remind cyclists, a bit like how they did it recently with mobile phone use. All this talk of having to buy items being a barrier? makes you wonder how they buy the bike in the first place! Nobody said that the cost of the hi viz was the barrier. ---------- Post added 08-07-2017 at 11:09 ---------- It may have been already mentioned on this thread but i still can't believe it's not a legal requirement to wear a helmet. Why? Have you actually looked at and understood the pro's and con's for helmets? It's not a one sided argument. ---------- Post added 08-07-2017 at 11:11 ---------- Much of the problem with this seems to be that while motorists and cyclists both have 'should' and 'must' rules that are supposed to govern their conduct under the highway code only motorists are charged with knowing the rules. I do believe that cyclists should be required to demonstrate a knowledge (via a test perhaps) that they know how to conduct themselves when on a cycle. I am also increasingly convinced seeing the conduct of many cyclists that they should be properly trained in something akin to the hazard perception test for the good of themselves and others. Improper conduct on a cycle can cause dangerous situations and I don't buy the argument that it's OK because it has health benefits and therefore you should be allowed to do it where you want causing inconvenience and danger to other road users and pedestrians. IF cyclists were required/expected to obey the rules in the same way as motorists it is surprising to read the highway code and realise just how much of the 'should' requirements in particular would alleviate many of the concerns raised here and subsequently shot down by those who claim it is a barrier to cycling. There are 'requirements' under the heading 'should' that you wear light or fluorescent clothing and specifically reflective clothing in the dark, you MUST have lights in the dark and there are recommendations about when and where to have flashing lights. As a cyclist and a motorist seeing more and more cyclists on the road acting irresponsibly I am becoming more convinced that cyclists need to know how to use the road, they often need a better awareness of what they are doing. None of which detracts from the belief that I think the same of many motorists I encounter, and I accept that I am of course not perfect and do make mistakes. Obviously requiring drivers to obey the laws of the road works so well that none of them ever ignore it and do what they want. And with that example, I can see why you'd think it would somehow 'fix' the cycling problems that you perceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bargepole23 Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 It would more likely be dealt with at point of incident. i.e. cyclist gets knocked off bike at a junction - if not wearing HiViz then a fine or unable to take action against whoever knocked him/her off. Might have the occasional drive to remind cyclists, a bit like how they did it recently with mobile phone use. All this talk of having to buy items being a barrier? makes you wonder how they buy the bike in the first place! A cyclist gets knocked off and your thoughts are to fine them for not wearing hi vis? What a lovely person you sound. Perhaps imagine it was a family member knocked off, would you be so keen on the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogey Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Nobody said that the cost of the hi viz was the barrier. ---------- Post added 08-07-2017 at 11:09 ---------- Why? Have you actually looked at and understood the pro's and con's for helmets? It's not a one sided argument. ---------- Post added 08-07-2017 at 11:11 ---------- Obviously requiring drivers to obey the laws of the road works so well that none of them ever ignore it and do what they want. And with that example, I can see why you'd think it would somehow 'fix' the cycling problems that you perceive. You're suggesting we should do away with all rules because they are some times inconvenient? or that rules should only be applied if they are convenient? Or is it just that you're just a bit of a dick of a cyclist who feels the need to militantly justify how you dont like to follow the rules because they are inconvenient to you personally? Unless of course its other people required to follow rules for your safety and convenience as and when it suits you? 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