Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
alan sherman wrote:
So it’s illegal to touch a phone being used as a sat nav to do something like pick an alternate route being offered.No, the prohibition is on handheld devices – so you can touch a phone used as a satnav provided it’s in a cradle and you remain in control of the vehicle while you do so.
But on the other hand he’ll
But on the other hand he’ll be rubbing his hands with evil glee that we’re still talking about him on a thread that he hasn’t even commented on.
I’ve been using the following
I’ve been using the following since 2018, primarily for commutes of c.50 mins each way:
Rear: Cycliq Fly6CE. Good – looping recording, decent quality, convenient mounting, decent battery life (would get most of a week’s commuting out of it). Bad: difficulty connecting to Cycliq’s own software to change settings like timestamp.
Front: entry level Go Pro Hero. No looping and poor battery (maybe 3 legs of my commute) meant it was inconvenient and I stopped using it. Mount is also more involved.
So would you like us to start
So would you like us to start blaming Palace fans, is that how it works? A kind of circular economy? 😉
there are many ways to detect a car reaching a set of lights, they probably wouldn’t need to actually get out and press. Just as they manage on sensor controlled junctions, now if only those junctions could be equipped with a cyclist button so you could be sure that you are waiting because the light will change, and not left wondering has the camera/metal detector even registered my presence or am i waiting for a car to arrive.Around me there are some newly installed sensor-controlled cycle lanes (cyclists get a separate phase to pedestrians and cars, but the cycle phase is triggered by sensors). They do work, but it took me a while to realise you have to stop well short of the stop line to trick the sensors into thinking there’s a few cyclists waiting. Roll right up to the stop line on your own and it just won’t change. We also have some annoying pedestrian crossings like this, where if you’re not standing in the right place for the sensor to see you, you won’t get a pedestrian phase even though you’ve pressed the button – the lights cancel the request if they don’t detect a ped.
I have been considering
I have been considering getting a Shakedry, but that doesn’t fill me with confidence. Have you done any of the “do nots” in the following care instructions (from https://www.gore-tex.com/en_uk/support/care/outerwear)?
SPECIAL CARE
GORE-TEX GARMENTS WITH PERSISTENT BEADING SURFACESWashing GORE-TEX garments with persistent beading surfaces (e.g. GORE-TEX SHAKEDRY™ garments) is slightly different as they have no textile outer layer – the outer layer is the GORE-TEX membrane itself and there’s no need for DWR.
Machine wash on delicate cycle at 105°F/40°C.
Do not dry clean.
Do not tumble dry.
Do not iron.
Do not bleach.
Do not apply DWR treatment.My 10 year old machine has
My 10 year old machine has been descaled (rarely) but never dismantled or degreased or had the gasket changed. At this stage, the gunk may be all that’s holding it together. I feel a project coming on.
Of course, amber gamblers are
Of course, amber gamblers are endemic. I was just saying that it doesn’t stand scrutiny to suggest that lack of opportunity is the only thing holding people back from ignoring red lights. There is always someone who decides to stop at red, and they must be in the majority, otherwise we’d see constant streams of cars sailing through on long-established red (seem to recall a video on here of this happening in London somewhere around a cycle superhighway, and it’s actually very strange to watch), rather than a small number of people at every junction chancing it just after the lights have changed.
Markieteeee’s suggestion is a little more mischievous – can’t fault that technically (damn you), other than by defining my own terms and saying I’ve always thought of RLJing as actually proceeding through the junction, rather than just overstepping the line.
Well yes, but… There is
Well yes, but… There is always a first driver at the lights. Presumably the first driver at any given set of lights did have the opportunity to ignore an amber or red, but chose not to. This is repeated time after time so that everyone will at some point be that first driver at the lights. If it was just lack of opportunity due to traffic, then you would expect to see more drivers proceed through solid red lights when they finally realise their chance of being the first driver in the queue. But IME it is exceedingly rare to see a driver arrive at established red lights and then proceed anyway – when you do see it it’s quite shocking.
How so?
How so?
Sriracha wrote:
a cyclist stopping over the line at a red light is seldom overlooked.Interesting – hadn’t occurred to me that drivers might characterise that as a form of RLJing – I’ve always assumed their beef is with sailing through solid red lights and continuing on your way.
I have used this argument
I have used this argument myself before, but I don’t know if I really believe it. Sure, a lot of drivers find cyclists an annoyance and will come out with something like “as soon as you lot stop at red lights, I’ll give you more space”. But I question how many drivers actively choose to endanger a cyclist because of another cyclist’s infraction. I suspect it’s usually just a poor attempt at defending themselves after the event, in the heat of a confrontation. They seem perfectly capable of taking murderous offence at legal things that cyclists do too, so RLJing is only part of the problem.
I agree with all of that, but
I agree with all of that, but I do think there’s still a place for calling out bad behaviour – it doesn’t need to amount to abuse (I wasn’t actually endorsing the ‘loser’ proposal in the OP). I’d also probably support things like the Idaho Stop (haven’t given it a lot of thought), but unless and until it is law here, I don’t agree with just acting like it is. Sadly, it’s not uncommon to see cyclists in London going through a pedestrian phase at speed, rather than with Idaho Stop levels of care.
Whether it’s a problem is a
Whether it’s a problem is a matter of opinion, but in my experience it is common. I haven’t commuted in London for a while (covid, innit) but I used to see it a lot on my commute. I have said before on here that I think the ire drivers reserve for RLJing cyclists is partly because of the way cyclists jump red lights. Yes, plenty of drivers (and some cyclists) are amber gamblers, who will sneak through on amber or red when they should have stopped. But what a lot of cyclists (but very few drivers) do, is arrive at an established red light and then carry on through it for their convenience.
Are you suggesting we shouldn
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t care about cyclists’ offences unless and until we have eradicated motoring offences? I fully understand that cyclists pose a much lower risk to other road users, relative to drivers. But the risk of harm is not zero, as illustrated by my example above. Why can’t we try to make both drivers and cyclists better at the same time?
