Sort some lights out !

[steve keay]

When I started this post I didn't mean I couldn't see them I just thought it'd be sensible to make your self more visible . Have really enjoyed some of the arguments /discussions. I wouldn't feel quiet as safe if I didn't have decent lights when riding in the dark.

 

[SeanM]

We had a thread about this way back. It is a manufacture of cars seeking to deflect responsibility for the risk their customers bring to the roads from their customers onto the people they put in danger.

Wow!

B@@#$%ds What a world we live in. I am stunned.

 

[theclaud]

Wow!

B@@#$%ds What a world we live in. I am stunned.

What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[SeanM]

What exactly do you disagree with?

The whole statement, but presumably it was well discussed at the time, and that was the outcome. That's fair enough, but i'm happy with my own (less cycnical) view of the world.

 

[mjr]

Good point (and i knew it was coming). But I think a cyclist is a lot smaller, so I'd like to brighten myself up as much as possible.

If you haven't seen my lights, what I'm wearing is unlikely to make much difference.

[QUOTE 3938007, member: 9609"]I understand the point you make, and I also maintain that if a driver hits an unlit cyclist they need to bear a good deal of the responsibility, you should not be crashing into anything any of the time, no excuses - BUT - as a driver I have seen unlit cyclists and I have seen them far later than I would if they had been wearing hi-viz and using lights, and I think to myself, would someone with poor eyesight, someone playing with a mobile phone, someone not concentrating have spotted these - I just don't trust other drivers, and as such I think anyone not trying to be seen is totally bonkers.[/QUOTE]
There are two confounding factors there: firstly, seeing a cyclist earlier does not necessarily mean that a motorist behaves any better towards them (in fact, there is a theory that seeing them earlier means the motorist is more likely to have dismissed them by the time they pass them, so are more likely to pass too close); secondly, unlit cycling is even a factor in only a tiny fraction of cycle collisions. (2% when http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases reported it.) Motorists with poor eyesight, playing with mobile phones or not concentrating should be removed from the roads before they hit anything, not only unlit cyclists!

You can't "be seen". None of us are invisible, not matter how much propaganda tries to suggest otherwise. All road users must be reminded to drive within what they can see to be clear. http://highwaycode.info/rule/126

 

[50000tears]

How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about?

Lights make you more visible than not. Saying that you saw an unlit cyclist is not to say a lack of lights makes him invisible but that you see him later than you would have had he been lit. Most of us who drive can remember times when an unlit cyclist almost appears to come out of nowhere. If we are travelling the same road then headlights will pick them up early but not so if you are looking to turn out of a side road.

As a final point I can guarantee that if you are ever unfortunate enough to get knocked off a bike a night the first question the police, insurers will want to know is whether you had working lights on. Lights are no assurance of being safe but not having them is clearly more dangerous.

Stop flooding threads with arguing just for its own sake.

 

[MontyVeda]

Any driver that uses 'I didn't see it' as an excuse should really be instantly charged with 'undue care and attention'... no ifs, no buts. Doesn't matter if its a tree, deer, skip, pedestrian or cyclist.

 

[John the Monkey]

How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about?

Sorry about that. You should complain to the internet.

 

[theclaud]

How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about?

Lights make you more visible than not. Saying that you saw an unlit cyclist is not to say a lack of lights makes him invisible but that you see him later than you would have had he been lit. Most of us who drive can remember times when an unlit cyclist almost appears to come out of nowhere. If we are travelling the same road then headlights will pick them up early but not so if you are looking to turn out of a side road.

As a final point I can guarantee that if you are ever unfortunate enough to get knocked off a bike a night the first question the police, insurers will want to know is whether you had working lights on. Lights are no assurance of being safe but not having them is clearly more dangerous.

Stop flooding threads with arguing just for its own sake.

That's a non sequitur. A course of action that makes it more likely that you will be blamed for something has not necessarily endangered you. I used the phrase 'arms race' above, because it's quite obvious if you stop and think about it that lights are not inherently necessary at all - they become necessary in varying degrees in relation to other things. Most sensible people would probably agree that different forms and levels of lighting are suitable for different purposes. I think it was Adrian that mentioned above that the CTC campaigned against the original proposal that lights should be compulsory for cyclists. In my view they were right to do so at the time, and losing that battle was a major setback in the fight to protect people and public spaces from the dominance of motor traffic. We are where we are: lights are now cheaper, much less cumbersome and inconvenient, and more reliable, and most cyclists will find being lit desirable for reasons other than a desire to be more conspicuous to drivers. The downside of this is that as lighting technology becomes more impressive, dedicated commuting cyclists are routinely menacing pedestrians and other riders with their extreme illumination, whilst casual utility cyclists on a low budget who don't have a lighting strategy are being slagged off by other cyclists on supposedly friendly forums for being 'suicidal' and 'idiots' and other such nonsense, even though for all anyone knows they are harmlessly bimbling on a half-mile journey through an area with street-lights, and their battery has just run out. Or perhaps they planned to be home in daylight and got delayed. Or perhaps, as I did today, they swapped bikes in the morning and forgot to switch the front light over. I don't wish to do away with lighting, but it's out of control. In my view we should dramatically reduce the power of vehicle headlights so that they stop dazzling everyone and spoiling the darkness, and so that their drivers are obliged to slow down and look where they are going.

 

[ufkacbln]

The CTC's basic objection against lighting was the change in responsibility from the motorist being responsible for looking to the cyclist being responsible for the motorist seeing them

 

[theclaud]

Whilst waiting in the lanes near Llantrithyd on the Cardiff-Swansea FNRttC for a puncture to be fixed at the back of the ride, most of the riders switched off their front lights to look at the stars. It's magical, sometimes, to watch a line of lights snaking through the trees, or to announce our collective presence luminously to astonished drivers in the middle of nowhere, but it's easy to forget what we are missing when our gaze is focused into the narrow beam ahead of us.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 3938610, member: 9609"]the trouble is with "arms races" is they are not really optional, whether you like it or not you have to join in - riding a bike at night with with poor or no lights would be about as mad as scrapping trident.[/QUOTE]

So... not M.A.D. at all then, but in fact a rejection of the madness which has kept us in fear.

 

[vernon]

What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.

How many of them didn't you see?

 

[mustang1]

How many of them didn't you see?

I saw all the cyclists whether wearing dark clothes or fully lit up. But the ones who were fully lit up, I saw from quite a distance. The ones with dark clothes, I had to concentrate on them a lot more and were aware of them only when they were a lot closer.

Since I was on my bike, it wasn't that big a deal as our speed difference is low. And BMWs these days have night vision cameras for those cyclists who like to make themselves as invisible as possible, I'll still be able to see those suckers.

 

[mustang1]

If you haven't seen my lights, what I'm wearing is unlikely to make much difference.


There are two confounding factors there: firstly, seeing a cyclist earlier does not necessarily mean that a motorist behaves any better towards them (in fact, there is a theory that seeing them earlier means the motorist is more likely to have dismissed them by the time they pass them, so are more likely to pass too close); secondly, unlit cycling is even a factor in only a tiny fraction of cycle collisions. (2% when http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases reported it.) Motorists with poor eyesight, playing with mobile phones or not concentrating should be removed from the roads before they hit anything, not only unlit cyclists!

You can't "be seen". None of us are invisible, not matter how much propaganda tries to suggest otherwise. All road users must be reminded to drive within what they can see to be clear. http://highwaycode.info/rule/126

Good points.
(I genuinely mean that despite my next comment, which is....)

I'll be sure to tell the officer this info if they catch me without rear lights on my car! They might even tell me if i were driving a yellow car they might be able to let me off, but a black car with no rear lights is asking for trouble.