RAC report on Red lights cars and cyclists



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> writes:
> >The advent of MTBs, which made pavement hopping easy. After pavement hopping, other aspects of
> >the Highway Code appeared optional...
>
> Sounds very plausible! And of course MTB's don't need those other silly legal trappings of bell,
> reflectors, and lights, i.e., they don't have them, and police don't bother about such things,
> "proving" it, giving rise to the general impression that laws don't apply to bicycles.

I think that the same rules apply at point of sale regarding reflectors etc. Lights, of course, are
only required for riding in the dark and bells haven't been a legal requirement (not sure of the
current status).

Pete
 
Richard Keatinge <[email protected]> wrote:

| In message <[email protected]>, Patrick Herring
| <ph@$pamblock.anweald.co.uk> writes
| >a single-lane road [1] and there was no impact on anyone from a cyclist going straight on. So
| >you're not the only one.
| >
| >[1] I mean the road had one traffic lane in each direction - what's the word for that?
|
| Technically it's called a "two-lane road". More of a phrase than just a word, really. But it does
| convey the right idea.

Hmm, OK. Except "the road I was sharing with some cars had two lanes" could easily be read as two
lanes in each direction. Ho hum.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.