Suicidal cyclist on the Dronfield Bypass, LIGHT UP !

[Tony]

There is but the reg's are a bit of a mess. The minimum is what it was years ago. Remember those chromed Pifco lamps with a black twizzle switch on top? The most pathetic modern lamp is much better than they were and some of them are brighter than car lights. I've got a couple of watts of concentrated magnified red lights at the back, both steady and flashing and I still might put more on. On top of that I use various hi-viz and reflectives. Another couple of lamps on the front and red and white blinkers on my helmet and still it feels like being invisible sometimes.

 

None of that negates the drivers responsibility though and when you read the tosh that some write on here you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were latter day Mad Max's who couldn't see past their next bit of psychotic vehicular destruction.

 

All that motorists have to do is give riders (good or bad) plenty of space and sometimes a few seconds of time. That's it, no more. Anyone would think that it was an affront to their virility.

[truman]

 

All that motorists have to do is give riders (good or bad) plenty of space and sometimes a few seconds of time. That's it, no more. Anyone would think that it was an affront to their virility.

 

I don't disagree with you but you've more chance of giving a cyclist time and space if he's actually visible..especially on a road like the Dronfield bypass...

[Tony]

If you don't see a red light on the unlit DP you shouldn't be driving. Around town there is so much competition for visual attention that you need all the help you can get, but on there I'd say not... aside from dozy drivers of course.

[Greengeek]

I've ridden my motorbike along there in the dark, with no headlights after a total failure.

 

Every time I saw a car in my mirror, I pulled over and let them pass! Hair Raising experience I can tell you.

[WalkleyIan]

Genuine question here..is there a minimum brightness for rear cycle lights or will any do?

 

BS Light regulations were thrown into disarray by the release of LED lights a few years back. The regs were playing catch up with the technology as they were originally written for filament bulbs and there was an issue that non BS lights could be legal if they conformed to a standard in another Eu country.

 

 

Here's a cautionary tale about bike lighting.

 

I was taken out head on by a taxi last Monday night despite having about £400 worth of lights on the front of the bike and wearing an Altura night vision ultra jacket.

 

I was stationary at a T junction and the taxi came round the corner on the wrong side of the road somehow failed to see me and took the bike out from under me. Thankfully I managed to exit stage left as the bike went under the taxi.

 

Very scary that the bloke never saw me, I can only guess he was not looking in the direction he was travelling, fiddling with the GPS, or some other distraction.

 

Police went to "have a word" with him but it just goes to show you can take every precaution in the book to stay safe but some numpty will still fail to see you.

[Justin Smith]

Are you sure about that?

 

Not being funny (well I am) but from your detailed description the cyclist was perfectly legal and you were inattentive and driving with due care etc.

 

It makes no difference to him whether he was perfectly legal, if he`s dead.

The fact of the matter was it was bleedin` dangerous.

Every person I`ve told this story to has shuddered, because as drivers they could see the danger.

My main motivation for putting this thread on here is to remind cyclists how dangerous it is at night, particularly if their lights are almost invisible.

Incidentally, are pedestrians banned from the Dronfield bypass ?

It isn`t a motorway so I wouldn`t have thought they were.

So, if I`d hit a pedestrian (a completely unlit pedestrian, possibly dressed all in black.....) walking across the slip road, he also would have been perfectly legal, but dead.

He was legal so I was in the wrong is a fatuous thing to say, apart from being arguable.

And anyway, if it`s perfectly safe for cyclists (and pedestrians come to that) to be on roads like the Dronfield bypass, why are they banned from motorways ? Not that I`m saying they should necessarily be banned from the Dronfield bypass because it`d be a legal minefield to only ban them from certain roads of the same classification.

But, as I`ve said/asked repeatedly on this thread, what advantage is there to any cyclist to actually use the Dronfield bypass ? ! ? Why was he there in the first place ? It`s a mystery.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Justin Smith

[Justin Smith]

Post 22 and counting...

 

That`s good, hopefully it`ll still be on here at 122, it might save someones life......

Why do people just accept the very real dangers on the roads without a second thought, but get worried about (almost) nothing, like the minute possibility they might get blown up in an aeroplane ? ! ?

[Tony]

He was legal so I was in the wrong is a fatuous thing to say, apart from being arguable.

But it's neither arguable or fatuous is it? He had lights and was legal but you had to do an emergency stop. Which of you was in the wrong, legally and actually? You were of course.

 

As you have noted, pedestrians aren't banned either. Again it's your legal responsibility to be a safe driver, not theirs to be a walking Christmas tree. Just worry about you being safe, not them doing your job for you.

 

There are also big signs warning of deer on the DB. Should they be fitted with tail lights and a very shiny nose for your convenience?

[Justin Smith]

But it's neither arguable or fatuous is it? He had lights and was legal but you had to do an emergency stop. Which of you was in the wrong, legally and actually? You were of course.

 

As you have noted, pedestrians aren't banned either. Again it's your legal responsibility to be a safe driver, not theirs to be a walking Christmas tree. Just worry about you being safe, not them doing your job for you.

 

There are also big signs warning of deer on the DB. Should they be fitted with tail lights and a very shiny nose for your convenience?

 

I worry about them being safe.

Anyone who cycles on the Dronfield bypass is taking their life in their hands, even in the day time. There are vehicles going past them at up to 100mph, which, of course they shouldn`t be doing, but they do anyway, just the slipstream from that must be dangerous to a cyclist. But to cycle on the bypass at night, dressed in dark clothing with only one poxy little light ? That`s just plain stupid. Anyone who disagrees with that is just arguing for the sake of it, i.e. a "forum arguement", that is something you`d never hear anyone say in the real world. I`ve spoken to a lot of people about this because it shook me up so much, not one person has said "it was all your fault, he wasn`t doing anything wrong, what are you complaining about" ?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Justin Smith

[Justin Smith]

As you have noted, pedestrians aren't banned either.

 

Question, why are pedestrians and cyclists banned from motorways ?