Simviation Forums

To set the scene I was fresh out of sugar (I always had a sweet tooth & can't stand my cuppa without sugar) so decided to do my bit for the environment by toddling down to the local corner shop. Well, it's not on a corner but we're lucky to still have one. It's a clear dry night & ideal for a nice walk.

Anyway, back to my point. I live in a residential area with a long wide straight road, unlike the Beatles winding one & much wider than the main road in some places. It's also extremely well lit & often used as a race track. Not that I mind that too much as there's not many people around at this time of night & you can clearly see them coming if you wish to cross the road. We also have nice wide pavements with grass verges on either side of the road.

While blissfully toddling down the pavement without a care in the world I was almost run down by a cyclist who suddenly appeared behind me. As I was meandering a bit (as I do) he had to swerve onto the grass verge alongside said pavement to avoid me. Good job there was no tree in the way or there could have been a serious accident. Now, unlike most old fogies (& many young fogies) I have no objection to anyone riding bicycles on the pavement as the roads are extremely dangerous these days, even for motorists & pedestrians. Don't get me started on pedestrians.

As I was saying, I have no objection to cyclists riding on the pavement providing I & my fellow old fogies know they're there & can consequently make allowances for them. If he'd coughed or made some sort of noise to warn me of his approach I would have moved out of his way.

I was pondering earlier about the 1950s when I was young & had a bicycle myself. In those days every bicycle had to be fitted with a warning device by law. This usually consisted of a solidly constructed chrome-plated mechanical bell operated by a thumb lever & attached to the handlebar of the bike. There was a new-fangled streamlined electric job rather like a car horn which looked trendy but people usually went back to the bell after the battery ran out. Whatever type of warning device it was it had to be in working order & we made sure it was or the local bobby would have soon spotted it & taken the approriate action. This usually involved a clip round the lug'ole with his rolled up cape & a good telling off. If we were lucky he wouldn't march us home & tell our parents or we would get more grief. I couldn't help noticing that this young chap had no lights on his bike either, not even a rear reflector. In my day we wouldn't have dared ride a bike after dark without lights as this was a far worse offence than being caught without the appropriate functional warning device.

Now to the point of this diatribe. When was the law changed on this & if it hasn't been changed why haven't I seen a bike fitted with a bell or proper front & rear lights for many years?

The law hasn't changed Doug. It is still there, but only in theory - out of practise. There is still the fine of

Here in Italy...and in India...bicycles are required to have a bell...at nights...we are obligated to ring a bell at first sight of a pedestrian within 50m...I like ringing my bell and most of the people know me around in my neighbourhood...so I am alright

[quote]The law hasn't changed Doug. It is still there, but only in theory - out of practise. There is still the fine of

Ay, lights is a thing still kept up well and every bike shop would sell them.
Most cyclists I see in the dark have lights - after all if they get hit it's their fault and with the roads these days - not to unlikely.

As for bells - it rings a bell that one, but I can't remember what I read about it. Ummm. Not sure if it is law. Maybe it is -  it has definately gone to the gutters anyway as many bikes can't take bells.
Relfectors are law, and every bike in Britain MUST have them. SO every bike you see in the shops, whether child or adult WILL have reflectors. However, you can unscrew them when you get home and you'll have no worries. The manufacturing companies don't have the leeway Joe Public has. The fact that they don't have all bikes produced with bells makes me think that it isn't law.

Here you are Doug.

At night your cycle MUST have front and rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen.
Law RVLR regs 18 & 24

54: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities where provided.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129

I was wrong about the fines. Just take a look!

[quote]Careless cycling              

Thanks Ben. As I thought, the law hasn't changed at all. Those fines are far more than they used to be but what's the point of having penalties if nobody takes any notice of them or enforces the law?

I can't say I agree with the law against riding on the pavement. This would obviously depend on the width of the pavement but some of the cycle lanes around here are actually far more dangerous as they severely restrict the width of the road. This seems completely ridiculous when in one part of the local town the pavement on both sides of the road is much wider than the road itself.

Anyway, if this is the case how come almost every cyclist I've seen blissfully ignores it?

As for leaving bikes where they cause obstructions to pedestrians, all the kids around here come to a screeching halt, drop their bike where it stops & leave it there. Getting into the local shops involves weaving in & out of any number of the darned things laying on the pavement right outside the door. The first thing we used to do when getting a new bike was to have a proper cycle stand fitted, like on a motorbike, so we could stand it up properly without damaging it.

I don't understand them myself. I treat my bike as it is gold and always lock it to anything. It is 3.5 years old and looks almost as new as when I bought it.

Oh and there is only 1 single cycle lane in Inverness and it is 2 miles out of town where nobody cycles.  :-X

The UK (& Ireland) seems to be hell for bikers. You might feel like being in paradise in Germany then.

[quote]Oh and there is only 1 single cycle lane in Inverness and it is 2 miles out of town where nobody cycles.

I've been pulled for riding on the pavement....... in my youf. I did have proper lights etc so just got a "Gerroff the pavement!!".  In my opinion these days the pavements are the safest option for cycling, except in quiet areas. Most cyclists don't have the level of fitness that I used to have and would not be able to travel at the same speed as the traffic on urban main roads. I could keep up with the traffic for long periods of time and therefore didn't need to ride on the pavement. Cycle lanes are a waste of money unless they physically seperate the motor traffic from the cycles.
The most dangerous thing IMO is to allow bicycles to use bus lanes. I have spent many an hour, as a bus driver, trying to dodge slow moving bikes, in heavy traffic, on lanes that are supposed to allow buses unrestricted and swift access to their destinations. This is especially stupid when the pavements are wide enough and quiet enough to split down the middle and allow cyclists onto them.

Thanks Eno. I have nothing against cyclists or anyone else for that matter. I would dearly love to have a bike myself as it would come in very handy & keep me fit at the same time. To be honest I wouldn't dare attempt to ride one, not locally anyway. It's just too dangerous & I would most likely end up severely injured or killed within a very short space of time. This is mainly the fault of the people in charge of the traffic planning whoever they might be. If they want to encourage people to "get on their bikes" they will have go back to the drawing board, think it out properly & make it safe for all concerned. They must also make sure that whatever laws are in place are strictly enforced. I see no point in having existing laws if they're ignored or can't be practically enforced like so many of the new laws we're constantly faced with these days.

For a start, all new bicycles should be supplied already fitted with a functional warning device, proper front and rear lights & a reflector. IMHO
A proper cycle stand wouldn't come amiss either. You wouldn't expect to buy a motorcycle not fitted with these things as standard so why should a pushbike be any different?

Well, as you all already know by now, I ride a bike to and froe from work four times a day, five days a week, Mon - Fri. And let me remind you, the distance between the dorms and my job is about a quater mile. So, I get a lot of exercise.

As for the safety issue, we have Security Forces [SF] riding around the entire base everyday focusing mainly on car drivers [there are not that many cyclists like me]. The speed limits and laws regarding DUI are enforced greatly, taken really seriously and [if you get caught] you'll get more than just a fine. Your rank will disappear faster than Harry Hudini, you can't drive your car [or any car] on base for about a year or so, and you have to explain yourself to your family - if you're married, the Colonel, Supervisor [which is far worse].

In other words, the roads within the bases are as safe as the bumper cars at a county fair. With the exception of a few fender benders.

We have cycle lanes here on base as well. I use those all the time because they are my only means to getting to work on time for the past year and a half. None of the SF complained. However, all active duty personnel are required to [if riding anything on two wheels] have the following:

1. Well-made helmet [properly worned]
2. Reflector belt [a high-yield one is prefered]
3. Brakes [fully functional]
4. I'm not sure about the warning devices, but there are plenty to buy around here.

On some parts of the base, there are signs that say "15 MPH when yellow light is on" or something like that around the base school. I average 11MPH and managed to clock 22MPH downhill. With that in mind, I might as well slow down just in case the signs apply to cyclists as well.

Well, as you all already know by now, I ride a bike to and froe from work four times a day, five days a week, Mon - Fri. And let me remind you, the distance between the dorms and my job is about a quater mile. So, I get a lot of exercise.

That's fine Kat but first of all you're in the US where traffic laws might be completely different & second you're on a military base. I daresay the traffic laws on military bases in the UK are just as strictly enforced, if not more so than yours. What I'm talking about is the situation on public roads in the UK.

It's interesting to know how other countries deal with it so our powers-that-be can go there & see how it should be done. I'll even help with their fares myself. Oh, wait a minute - I already do.

Try being a biker here in America (both Motorcycle and Bicycle).

Few motorists like to share the road.

There's an intersection nearby where you're lucky if you get across on foot or by bike...motorists don't yield, despite the sign saying they must do so.

If only the cops would be there and give them in incentive to obey the law...