Bike Lights

[AimlessWanderer]

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of cyclists using bright headlamps either.  Car lights are pointed at THE ROAD, not straight into the eyes of oncomimg drivers; this makes all the difference.  If folks don't believe this is true then turn on your headlamp at night walk 20 feet away, stare into it for a couple of seconds and then look away.  If you can honestly say it's not affected your vision then feel free to wear it.   If, however, you find you have spots in your eyes, then please don't wear it on the road.

True enough, but roads aren't totally smooth; headlights move up and down, and you still get them in face. Different cars have lights at different heights; you still get them in the face. And besides, who's reaction is it to head *toward* a really bright light coming at them? Still a better safety feature than a hindrance, in my opinion, but at the same time, most people here don't not own a motor vehicle and rely on their bike for 98% of their transportation, as I do. I also doubt most members here ride both in extremely congested urban traffic while commuting (downtown San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland), AND on unlit rural roads miles in the hills. Here in the Bay Area we have both and a typical ride home for me is usually a minimum of 20 miles in both types of conditions. In downtown SF being seen means staying alive, and if I have to intentionally blind someone to keep them from running a red light so they don't mow me down, so be it.

Sorry Heinz, perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying that just because it might only be dangerous to the driver and not the cyclist, it's OK to distract the oncoming driver?

I take your point that in remote and unlit areas that a good headlamp is a boon, but using it to deliberately blind someone is a concept I just can't get behind.   Could you not mount a good air-horn to your bike if you feel you need to make your presence known?

The phenomenon of "Target fixation".  It's why skiiers ski into the only tree on the slope.  Our unconcious tendency is to steer where we're looking.  Major cause of motorcycle accidents and is often the reason runners get hit by a car when they run on the road.

If someone says think about something other than an elephant, you have to think about an elephant in order to find something different. If someone says think about cheesecake ... the chances you are going to think about an elephant is pretty slim. Focus on what you want to achieve rather than what you want to avoid.

If you want someone to notice you so they don't run into you, imparing both their vision and thinking ability so they still might run into you (or even into someone else) doesn't seem like the best option to me 

[JAfromMn]

I got to add

I keep my light pointed at the ground in front of my wheel.

I also don't run my headlight on hi when on the road with cars.

I ride mostly in on gravel or off road.

[Syncop8r]

Mmmmm.... cheesecake... 

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Sorry, but I'm not a fan of cyclists using bright headlamps either.  Car lights are pointed at THE ROAD, not straight into the eyes of oncomimg drivers; this makes all the difference.  If folks don't believe this is true then turn on your headlamp at night walk 20 feet away, stare into it for a couple of seconds and then look away.  If you can honestly say it's not affected your vision then feel free to wear it.   If, however, you find you have spots in your eyes, then please don't wear it on the road.

True enough, but roads aren't totally smooth; headlights move up and down, and you still get them in face. Different cars have lights at different heights; you still get them in the face. And besides, who's reaction is it to head *toward* a really bright light coming at them? Still a better safety feature than a hindrance, in my opinion, but at the same time, most people here don't not own a motor vehicle and rely on their bike for 98% of their transportation, as I do. I also doubt most members here ride both in extremely congested urban traffic while commuting (downtown San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland), AND on unlit rural roads miles in the hills. Here in the Bay Area we have both and a typical ride home for me is usually a minimum of 20 miles in both types of conditions. In downtown SF being seen means staying alive, and if I have to intentionally blind someone to keep them from running a red light so they don't mow me down, so be it.

Sorry Heinz, perhaps I'm reading you wrong, but are you saying that just because it might only be dangerous to the driver and not the cyclist, it's OK to distract the oncoming driver?

I take your point that in remote and unlit areas that a good headlamp is a boon, but using it to deliberately blind someone is a concept I just can't get behind.   Could you not mount a good air-horn to your bike if you feel you need to make your presence known?

An air-horn doesn't do much good, particularly in a busy environment. With all the other traffic around, and especially in an urban canyon, the sound is directionless and a driver can't tell where it's coming from. If I flash someone, it tells them right where I am and what location to avoid.

That said, no, I don't just casually flash anyone I come across, and I don't run my headlamp on max all the time either. I will, however, if someone is about to hit me by running a light, etc. And believe me, in downtown San Francisco during rush hour, you learn to wait a second or two after the light turns green to allow those rushing a$$holes to run the light before you start into the intersection. Even then, at least once a day either going into the office or coming back home, I see someone blatantly run a light, even going through crossing traffic.

Even more common are the people who try to sneak through in heavy traffic and end up blocking the intersection; I see that several times each day, particularly in the evenings. In a situation like that, were I have no choice but to split through cars to get through the intersection, my headlamp lets them know I am coming and from where, and to let me pass. And I'm not too worried about pissing people off and having them come after me either... this last summer a guy in downtown SF ran a light and a cyclist yelled at him, and he hit the cyclist... the surrounding crowd of cyclists dragged the guy out of his car and beat the living $hit out of him... he was in a coma for several days afterward. I'm not one of those people though; I'm too old for that kind of stuff, and while I do ride aggressively, I'm not foolish. I know when to stop and when to go.

In short, I use a headlight because it's an essential tool. If I'm coming across as an indiscriminate user, that's not what I mean, and I'm obviously not communicating that clearly enough. But in terms of my safety, a powerful headlamp is a necessary tool and I will NOT ride without one at night.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Properly aimed car headlights will not blind oncoming drivers. 

Please actually read what I posted above about car headlights. Perhaps you have the luxury of perfectly smooth roads where you live, and everyone drives exactly the same car so no one ever gets headlights in the face, but where I live, in the real world, it happens all the time.

A head lamp, even at half the power shining right at you will.   

Again, please read what I posted above about how I use my headlamp while riding.

[Jothra]

The law for bicycle lighting hereabouts is that from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, I need one or two white lights on the front (but no more than two; headlamps are permitted), one red light on the back, and a red reflector on the back.

On my road bike, I use a Blackburn Super Flea on the front, and a red Blackburn Flea on the back. These lights are very bright, and are USB rechargeable. The Super Flea isn't Super Cheap (normally $45-ish in my area), but I didn't pay MSRP on it.

On my winterized mountain bike, I'm using a Black Diamond Storm headlamp permanently zip-tied to the centre of my handlebar, and an old MEC Dazzle Clip Mount permanently attached to the mounting arm of my rear filth prophylactic. Both of these lights were cheap like borscht, take easily sourced AA or AAA batteries, and make me highly visible while illuminating the road before me.

Just for the whynots, both bikes have wheel reflectors. I have some shame somewhere, but it isn't on my bicycles.

I'm not going to rant about it, but at my height, on my required road bike size, in my truck-and-SUV-heavy corner of the world, it is all headlights in my eyes all the time. This is no-one's fault, but it is a definite fact.

[Gareth]

OK Heniz, it's obvious we're never going to agree on this and I don't want this to turn into an argument, but I will say that a horn is exactly what a car has to alert other drivers to your presence and it seems to work well for them.  I'm not sure I agree that sound is somehow directionless either.

[Syncop8r]

I think headlights as well as a fixed forward light are a good idea, as long as they're not too bright and shone in other road users' eyes.
There is nothing in our road code (mind you I haven't looked at it in 20 years) about flashing lights, but I think most would agree these are a great option for being visible.

[derekmac]

Properly aimed car headlights will not blind oncoming drivers. 

Please actually read what I posted above about car headlights. Perhaps you have the luxury of perfectly smooth roads where you live, and everyone drives exactly the same car so no one ever gets headlights in the face, but where I live, in the real world, it happens all the time.

A head lamp, even at half the power shining right at you will.   

Again, please read what I posted above about how I use my headlamp while riding.

I did read what you wrote, and I happen to live in the province that invented horrible roads. That is why I said properly aimed lights. Yes cars bounce going over bumps, which will cause the lights to momentarily shine higher than normal, but you can't compare lights designed to be operated and constantly directed at oncoming people to a headlight that probably isn't.

You also stated that if you had to blind someone, you would. That's why I said the car would only feel a bump.

I'm not directing this at you, this is from 16 years experience of driving on back roads that are heavily populated by bikes. The vast majority of bikers I see think they own the road, and can make up the rules of the road as they please. I can't count the amount of idiot bikers I've almost hit because of this mentality.

The road should be shared, respectfully by all parties.

[derekmac]

I also want to apologize if what I'm saying is offensive or makes me sound like an ass.  I still have a killer cold, and my head is still a bit fuzzy.  I just don't want anyone to get hurt from something that could possibly be prevented, that's all.

 

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

OK Heniz, it's obvious we're never going to agree on this and I don't want this to turn into an argument, but I will say that a horn is exactly what a car has to alert other drivers to your presence and it seems to work well for them.  I'm not sure I agree that sound is somehow directionless either.

In general, no, it's not directionless. We actually have pretty good sound localization outside of the medial plane of the body because there's a strong crossover differential in the primary auditory nerve starting at the superior olivary nucleus and going up into the primary auditory pathway from there. It's actually because of the high level of cross over and signal integration at that level that allows the brain to extrapolate direction of a sound. Unless of course it's directly on the medial bilateral symmetric plane of the body. However, such localization is based on the differential amplitude of the sound wave between the two ears. Binaural auditory perception creates a "sound shadow" where the sound received by the distal ear is at reduced amplitude compared to the proximal ear. However, this creates other problems (more on that in a minute).

Our visual localization ability is much more robust than our auditory localization ability. This is not only because of the greater amount of separation in the precortical processing of the visual signal (full binocular processing doesn't happen until V5 in the anterior occipital lobe) compared to auditory processing (which begins crossover processing in the precortical auditory nuclei as I mention above) but also because a structure in the middle of the brain, called the superior colliculus, functions to create a map of visual space that is used specifically for visual object localization. It receives direct input from the spatiotopic mapping of the retina and visual field corresponding to the three dimensional spatial layout received by the eyes. In fact, the superior colliculus plays a central role in the brain's construction of our internal representation of three dimensional visual space.

Now, the inferior colliculus does the same thing for auditory localization, but the problem is it does so after the binaural auditory signal has already been integrated in the early steps of auditory processing such as in the vestibular nucleus and the superior olivary nucleus. So the inferior colliculus has to actually re-separate the auditory signals it receives, and it relies on cross-modal input from the superior colliculus to do that.

The problem is, aside from the fact that most people using their horns are directly in back of us (on the medial plane of the body where there is no interaural volume differences, rendering localization practically useless), in a crowded urban environment, there is a tremendous amount of echo and other distortions in the sound signal. That complicates the localization process in the subcortical processing centers in the brain. Add in all the other ambient/white noise, and it can be almost impossible to localize a sound, particularly when the sound is being diffused/muffled by passing through the barrier of the body of the car. Thousands of cars produce a lot of noise, and downtown SF traffic is VERY noisy. While my specialization is the cognitive neurophysiology of visual spatial localization, particularly with respect to attentionally guided visual spatial perception, I do know of many psychophysical studies on auditory localization that demonstrate that the more muddied the auditory stimulus is, and the more noise there is in the environment, the more difficult it becomes to localize a sound. What's more, these physical acoustic factors interact; white noise and/or other noise further degrades the signal and reduces the amplitude differences between the proximal and distal ear, which is the primary basis of auditory signal localization.

All that said, again, let me reiterate; I do not deliberately flash people unless I feel they are putting me at risk. And contrary to appearances, that's not all the time, even in downtown San Francisco traffic.   Additionally, I don't run my headlamp all the time while riding. I recognize that in an urban environment it can be detrimental, and in fact it's often not necessary. I tend to use it less in heavy traffic which is moving slowly, where I'm doing a lot more lane splitting, than in lighter traffic that's moving more quickly and I'm more a part of the flow of traffic rather than moving through stationary cars. There's enough ambient light in those situations that my lighting needs are typically limited to being visible rather than needing to see. Even on the back roads and dedicated bike paths I make extensive use of on my recreational riding home at night, I turn my head to the side to divert the center of the beam off the trail so I don't flash people coming in the opposite direction. And yes, I wish other cyclists would afford me the same courtesy, but they usually don't.

My headlamp is a tool and I actively work to use it appropriately and respectfully as much as I can. Yes, I do deliberately flash people some times; it's a matter of safety. But in general, I'm not some crazed zealot who speeds through traffic deliberately trying to blind people I come across. Using a headlamp tremendously increases my safety and is much more of a benefit than any potential drawbacks. Yeah, once in a while someone gets PO'd even when I'm using my lights responsibly, but that's their reaction, and some people are gonna hate no matter what. For my needs, a headlamp keeps me much, much safer, and I'm not going to compromise on that.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Properly aimed car headlights will not blind oncoming drivers. 

Please actually read what I posted above about car headlights. Perhaps you have the luxury of perfectly smooth roads where you live, and everyone drives exactly the same car so no one ever gets headlights in the face, but where I live, in the real world, it happens all the time.

A head lamp, even at half the power shining right at you will.   

I did read what you wrote, and I happen to live in the province that invented horrible roads. That is why I said properly aimed lights. Yes cars bounce going over bumps, which will cause the lights to momentarily shine higher than normal, but you can't compare lights designed to be operated and constantly directed at oncoming people to a headlight that probably isn't.

You also stated that if you had to blind someone, you would. That's why I said the car would only feel a bump.

I'm not directing this at you, this is from 16 years experience of driving on back roads that are heavily populated by bikes. The vast majority of bikers I see think they own the road, and can make up the rules of the road as they please. I can't count the amount of idiot bikers I've almost hit because of this mentality.

The road should be shared, respectfully by all parties.

I understand what you mean, and no offense taken. My experience here in California, is that the vast majority of motorists feel the same way you claim cyclists seem to; that they own the road. I can't count the number of times I've had people scream at me out the window of their car that I'm "hogging the road" when what I'm doing is exercising my legal right to use the lane under CVC 21200. The simple fact is, and this has been shown in actual studies, is that a cyclist is safer taking the lane, thus requiring the motorist to cross the centerline to pass, than keeping to the side where a car will share the lane. This results in less space between the car and bike, and increases the likelihood of a collision respectively.

I don't know about Canada, but here in the US, cyclists death at the hands of motorists is basically a way to get away with murder. less than 1% of cyclist fatalities in an automobile involved collision, even when the ruling is that the collision was caused by the actions of the motorist, result in any kind of criminal legal action taken against the driver. Usually they all say "it was just an accident". Only in cases of extreme negligence on the part of the motorist are charges even filed, and in many of those cases, the motorist still gets a free pass.

Here in California, bicycles are classified as vehicles under the law, with all the rights and privileges as cars and other motor vehicles. Yet the vast majority of people consider us a nuisance, that we shouldn't be allowed on the roads, that we don't pay any taxes for the roads (which is completely false), and so on. I've had lit cigarettes flicked at me, bottles thrown at me, screamed at, swerved at, and the like, for years. Fortunately not very often. I know my rights and I stand up for them. Again, I'm not foolish or reckless about it. But I do everything within my power to protect myself, and I'm not going to stop simply because some people mistakenly think I don't have any right on, or rights when on, the road. This is also why I volunteer for my local cycling advocacy organization as well; it makes the streets safer for both cyclists AND motorists.

[16VGTIDave]

Bicycles are vehicles, and have similar rights, yet few of the responsibilities as any other motorists/vehicles on the road. Despite not directly paying road or fuel taxes (completely true), not having any training or licenses, or paying for insurance - my mandatory vehicle insurance has mandatory fees to cover cyclists (aka uninsured motorists).  But, bicycles are still considered vehicles. No argument from me about that point.

What most cyclists seem to disregard is that the laws of physics trump legal laws. Every time. My point? A 175lb spandex clad cyclist on a 15lb road bike traveling at 30kph is no match for a 2800lb car traveling at 80kph. And when the driver of said car has to suddenly decide between oncoming traffic (almost certain death) and a "legally lane sharing" bicycle, they will choose the bicycle (the much lesser threat to their life). And there is nothing that well shaped spandex clad cyclist's ass can do about it because the only warning they will have is the squealing of tires and maybe a honking horn.

You might be wondering "Where did a guy who has ridden a bicycle for over 4 decades get such an attitude?". Well, let me tell you, and I see this all the time during the summer:
Citiot (city idiot) cyclists drive out to the country to ride the scenic roads. These roads (some are classed as highways which prohibits pedestrians and bicycles by definition) have narrow lanes, gravel shoulders and a posted speed limit of 80 or 90 kph. There is often farm equipment and heavy trucks on the roads (highways), and sometimes horse drawn wagons on the shoulders. Yet for some reason, these citiots think it is okay to ride these roads, often 2 or 3 abreast down the road (highway) so they can converse. Now, imagine the reaction from a local motorist heading into town to go shopping, when they round a corner or crest a hill at speed, only to find the road blocked by slow moving traffic (cyclists). At this point, the laws of the road are irrelevant. Physics is all that really matters. It is the cyclist(s) who put themselves in harms way, and the motorist who will likely be legally punished if an accident results. If the cyclist survives such an accident, they may even sue for injuries, damages, etc, and will probably win. Thereby driving up all MOTORISTS insurance costs.

Now, I'm not trying to discriminate against cyclists. I think they should be treated fairly and with respect, just like every other vehicle on the road. So as soon as cyclists on the roads have to take training, get a licence, pay to register their bike, have their bike safety inspected, and have valid insurance, they will have the right to claim their fair share of the road. Or bicycles could simply be banned from all roads with speed limits above 50kph (30mph) unless they have met all the previously mentioned vehicular requirements. Keeping to the right shoulder while displaying a slow moving vehicle sign (the large reflective orange triangle) would make cycling MUCH safer for motorists.

Dave

[derekmac]

Bicycles are vehicles, and have similar rights, yet few of the responsibilities as any other motorists/vehicles on the road. Despite not directly paying road or fuel taxes (completely true), not having any training or licenses, or paying for insurance - my mandatory vehicle insurance has mandatory fees to cover cyclists (aka uninsured motorists).  But, bicycles are still considered vehicles. No argument from me about that point.

What most cyclists seem to disregard is that the laws of physics trump legal laws. Every time. My point? A 175lb spandex clad cyclist on a 15lb road bike traveling at 30kph is no match for a 2800lb car traveling at 80kph. And when the driver of said car has to suddenly decide between oncoming traffic (almost certain death) and a "legally lane sharing" bicycle, they will choose the bicycle (the much lesser threat to their life). And there is nothing that well shaped spandex clad cyclist's ass can do about it because the only warning they will have is the squealing of tires and maybe a honking horn.

You might be wondering "Where did a guy who has ridden a bicycle for over 4 decades get such an attitude?". Well, let me tell you, and I see this all the time during the summer:
Citiot (city idiot) cyclists drive out to the country to ride the scenic roads. These roads (some are classed as highways which prohibits pedestrians and bicycles by definition) have narrow lanes, gravel shoulders and a posted speed limit of 80 or 90 kph. There is often farm equipment and heavy trucks on the roads (highways), and sometimes horse drawn wagons on the shoulders. Yet for some reason, these citiots think it is okay to ride these roads, often 2 or 3 abreast down the road (highway) so they can converse. Now, imagine the reaction from a local motorist heading into town to go shopping, when they round a corner or crest a hill at speed, only to find the road blocked by slow moving traffic (cyclists). At this point, the laws of the road are irrelevant. Physics is all that really matters. It is the cyclist(s) who put themselves in harms way, and the motorist who will likely be legally punished if an accident results. If the cyclist survives such an accident, they may even sue for injuries, damages, etc, and will probably win. Thereby driving up all MOTORISTS insurance costs.

Now, I'm not trying to discriminate against cyclists. I think they should be treated fairly and with respect, just like every other vehicle on the road. So as soon as cyclists on the roads have to take training, get a licence, pay to register their bike, have their bike safety inspected, and have valid insurance, they will have the right to claim their fair share of the road. Or bicycles could simply be banned from all roads with speed limits above 50kph (30mph) unless they have met all the previously mentioned vehicular requirements. Keeping to the right shoulder while displaying a slow moving vehicle sign (the large reflective orange triangle) would make cycling MUCH safer for motorists.

Dave

It's the back roads here that bother me as well.  It's very common to see 10+ bikers traveling together, and 90+% of the time, they are 2-4 wide on the road.  It is against the law for them to travel like that, and I have seen groups pulled over by the RCMP, but they all do it.  When you come up on a group like that, they also very rarely make room for you to go by.  By law, we have to give the bikes a few feet of room to pass them, which means the only way we can do so, is to drive in the oncoming lane.

The back roads here only have short straight spots, and are tree lined, so you can't see what's coming up.  The speed limits are also either 70 or 80kph, meaning there's very little time to react when coming up on a group that you can't see.

I would love to see them need to take a course, and have to have a license and insurance.  If I have to go into a ditch to avoid killing someone, it's me that will have to pay for any damages. 

Now, in the city, I've never had a problem with cyclists.  They seem to know and follow the rules much better.  It's just the groups that like to take over the back roads that are a concern.

Again, no knocks against anyone here, just reporting what I see here.

[hiraethus]

tl;dr? Let me summarise: get the smurf off my roads or I'll run you over.

[16VGTIDave]

tl;dr? Let me summarise: get the smurf off my roads or I'll run you over.

No, more like "Please don't put yourself in a position where I may have to decide if hitting you is my best option." And  "If you want the rights, you have to accept the responsibilities."

[Jothra]

People here have a very cartoonish idea of what drivers and cyclists do on the road. I keep expecting Rod Serling to show up.

[JAfromMn]

JA's bike riding rules and thoughts.

I'm on a bike if I'm in a accident with any sort of vehicle I'm going to get hurt. Every driver Besides me has the right of way.

I try stay off roads with moving traffic.  I prefer to ride in allies and off road or preferably the rare bike trail that goes were I'm heading.

Reflectors , A bright headlight and tail lights are a must for night ridding. Keep lights charged , a bright headlight pointed at the ground where I need to see won't blind other drivers but I turn light on low when I ride on light roads .I use my bike light like I would use headlights driving a car

A good bike is a A bike that works like it should. Please stay off the road if it dont.

Keep the music low . Hearing is a huge part of staying safe.

Don't be stupid .

[Jothra]

OP time: I bought a second Super Flea today. Great light.

[JAfromMn]

OP time: I bought a second Super Flea today. Great light.

Link?

found it
Back
 http://www.blackburndesign.com/super-flea-light-rear.html#.VLsGvcnnbqA
front http://www.blackburndesign.com/super-flea-light-rear.html#.VLsGvcnnbqA

I LIKE IT
 

[Jothra]

Fair enough. My previous link is kind of buried.

It's USB rechargeable, and has two brightness settings. Also, no permanent mounting hardware!

[AimlessWanderer]

I have this on the front ...


http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/LISMLU60/smart-lunar-60-lux-front-light

... and this on the back ...


http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/LISMRTR1W/smart-lunar-r1-rear-led-bike-light-1-watt

Plus I also have these cheapos for a bit of extra back up in case a light fails or batteries go flat


http://www.halfords.com/cycling/accessories/lights-reflectors/halfords-led-bike-light-set

I'll also have either a hi-vis waiscoat, or an orange cycling jacket with Hi-Vis Sam Browne, reflective cycling clips, and bike reflectors front and rear.

I am aware that my cycling abilities/experience are currently limited, and won't ride after dusk or in heavy traffic. I do have road sense from many years driving and will only take the lane when I deem it unsafe for a following motorist to overtake me. I will pull over to allow them to pass once I reach a clearer section of road. I also (unlike the vast majority or road cyclists) have third party insurance

[tosh]

Excuse the appalling quality - but it's almost 2am here in the UK, just been snowing and this silly sod has just gone into the freezing garage to take these 2 pictures 

My lights are dirt cheap

The one on the left is used simply as a strobe to catch daydreaming motorists - £7
The one on the right was bought used off ebay for £12 (supposedly 800 lumens)

Both are used daily on my commute to and from work.

Originally I made do with just 2 of the cheap £7 one's, but after colliding with the kerb on a pitch black stretch of road I decided to buy something a little.....ahem BRIGHTER!

[JAfromMn]

 I'm still running my SPAMCORP headlight

1200 lumens running off 4 18650 batteries. Rechargeable.




I need to upgrade it but it works good so I'm not in a rush to replace it.

http://m.[url=http://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,55947.0.html]SPAMCORP.com/CREE-XM-L-T6-1200-Lumen-3-Mode-LED-Focus-Bicycle-Light-Black-1-18650_p139500.html[/url]

[JAfromMn]

Opps

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Gee Dave,

Interesting how you know me and feel qualified to pass judgment on what kind of cyclist I am, despite having never met me or seen me ride in traffic. You should go into business as a professional psychic. That said, I'm not going to bother to address anything else in your post as I'm not going to buy into your judgment of me.

The only thing I will say, and this goes hand in hand with you seeming to think you know who I am as a cyclist, you're completely, 100% wrong about the "road tax".  I suggest you educate yourself.

http://www.teamestrogen.com/content/cycling_myth2

http://ipayroadtax.com/

Since no one is actually reading what I've written here, or bothered to consider the merits of what I have clearly and specifically posted about how I ride, and instead are simply parroting their own opinions rather than actually considering the factual evidence I have presented, I see no reason to continue participating in this thread.

Bicycles are vehicles, and have similar rights, yet few of the responsibilities as any other motorists/vehicles on the road. Despite not directly paying road or fuel taxes (completely true), not having any training or licenses, or paying for insurance - my mandatory vehicle insurance has mandatory fees to cover cyclists (aka uninsured motorists).  But, bicycles are still considered vehicles. No argument from me about that point.

What most cyclists seem to disregard is that the laws of physics trump legal laws. Every time. My point? A 175lb spandex clad cyclist on a 15lb road bike traveling at 30kph is no match for a 2800lb car traveling at 80kph. And when the driver of said car has to suddenly decide between oncoming traffic (almost certain death) and a "legally lane sharing" bicycle, they will choose the bicycle (the much lesser threat to their life). And there is nothing that well shaped spandex clad cyclist's ass can do about it because the only warning they will have is the squealing of tires and maybe a honking horn.

You might be wondering "Where did a guy who has ridden a bicycle for over 4 decades get such an attitude?". Well, let me tell you, and I see this all the time during the summer:
Citiot (city idiot) cyclists drive out to the country to ride the scenic roads. These roads (some are classed as highways which prohibits pedestrians and bicycles by definition) have narrow lanes, gravel shoulders and a posted speed limit of 80 or 90 kph. There is often farm equipment and heavy trucks on the roads (highways), and sometimes horse drawn wagons on the shoulders. Yet for some reason, these citiots think it is okay to ride these roads, often 2 or 3 abreast down the road (highway) so they can converse. Now, imagine the reaction from a local motorist heading into town to go shopping, when they round a corner or crest a hill at speed, only to find the road blocked by slow moving traffic (cyclists). At this point, the laws of the road are irrelevant. Physics is all that really matters. It is the cyclist(s) who put themselves in harms way, and the motorist who will likely be legally punished if an accident results. If the cyclist survives such an accident, they may even sue for injuries, damages, etc, and will probably win. Thereby driving up all MOTORISTS insurance costs.

Now, I'm not trying to discriminate against cyclists. I think they should be treated fairly and with respect, just like every other vehicle on the road. So as soon as cyclists on the roads have to take training, get a licence, pay to register their bike, have their bike safety inspected, and have valid insurance, they will have the right to claim their fair share of the road. Or bicycles could simply be banned from all roads with speed limits above 50kph (30mph) unless they have met all the previously mentioned vehicular requirements. Keeping to the right shoulder while displaying a slow moving vehicle sign (the large reflective orange triangle) would make cycling MUCH safer for motorists.

Dave

[Grant Lamontagne]

Let's all remember to play nicely.  Honestly I don't see anything offensive in that post at all Paul.  If you'd like to send me a PM and let me know what specifically you found offensive I'd be happy to help settle this.

Def

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[tosh]

Whilst I've no intention of getting involved in this heated debate.I must  confess cyclists who insist on riding 2 and 3 a breast are a complete pain in the neck. I commute to work each day on my bike and take great measures to ensure I'm not an obstruction to traffic. I see no reason why cyclists think they have the God given right to obstruct traffic, jump red lights etc etc.

[hiraethus]

Keep it up chaps, we're on our way to getting the full set.

[Mr. Whippy]

This isn't an either/or discussion.  BOTH sides have valid points, however BOTH sides share blame on the confrontations.

I see both sides of this since I bicycle commute to work from late spring to early autumn (41 miles round trip) AND I live out in the premier cycling country of Baltimore county.  On the weekends, hoards of cyclists clog the roads, sometimes making for traffic nightmares as they ride 2, 3 or even 4 abreast on 2 lane roads posted for 50 mph.  For those of us who live here, it is extremely rude and disrespectful.  I've had people tell me to shut off the tractor because it was making too much noise at their "Rest break".  Seriously? 

This sort of behavior is elitist and leads to resentment from non-cyclists who are trying to use the roads, at or near the speeds at which the roads are posted.

On the flipside, aggressive drivers and inattentive drivers are a huge danger to cyclists.  Even riding the line (at the edge of the road) is extremely dangerous when motorists are unaware of where their vehicle is in the lane.  It is for this reason that many advocate for cyclists to ride in the middle of the lane--essentially forcing the motorist to pay attention to BOTH sides of their car.  Being clipped by a car door or window is a trip to the hospital.  Motorists have no "skin" in the game for these "minor" impacts, and hence many minimize the risk.

There is no clear cut answer to this.  Cyclists have to be conscious that they are impediments to traffic and should make road choices, time choices and riding position based on the balance of personal safety and traffic nuisance.  Motorists have to recognize cyclists have rights on the road and are extremely vulnerable.  Although it's not currently the law, someday, hitting a cyclist could be considered assault with a deadly weapon.

As for road tax:  Get real.  In the US, it's the top 40% of earners pay 106% of the taxes and the bottom 40% pay -9% of all taxes (that's negative 9 percent).  This nugget comes from the Congressional Budget Office (circa Dec 2013) based on IRS data from 2010 and includes tax credits as well.  Who pays road tax?  The top 40% of US earners pay road tax.  Who doesn't pay road tax? The bottom 40% of earners.  Place the bicycles where you may.

Now get out there and play nice.