I'm fairly confident that the skills required in seeing and avoiding an unlit car are transferrable between parked cars and moving cars, unless the drivers of the moving cars are acting entirely unpredictably. Which, were that the case, would be the actual problem whether they were lit up or not
£30 fine for no lights
- Thread starter e-rider
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
quick question... Do you think cars (being driven on public roads) should turn their lights on after dark?
Slightly slower answer: it's nice when they do, but I can't get too hung up about it. I do tend to assume that drivers who've forgotten to flick the switch are probably dozy pillocks around whom I should ride more defensively, because it's not as though they have to worry about being unexpectedly caught out after dark, or having a rear lamp sproing pop off over a bump, or forgetting to charge the batteries. But in the grand scheme of things I'd much rather the cops focussed their attention more on policing actively bad driving (i.e. the people who are driving into other road users) than on its victims (the people being driven into)
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
that'll be a yes then.
davidallenxyz
Regular
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that cyclists will go to to justify breaking the law - and endangering themselves in the process - even to the extent of condoning the non-use of lights by cars!
Blaming the car for driving without consideration from your hospital bed or your grave is a pretty stupid way of making your point. I'm "lit up like Blackpool" and ride on the assumption that every other road user is an idiot who hasn't seen me. I drive my car in the same way. If a motorist does hit me they, will have no excuse whatsoever.
Cyclists are road users and the law is clear. Aside from that, lights are safe. Just switch them on and be done with it.
On that note, I'm concerned by the number of early morning cycle commuters in Bristol who are not bothering with their lights - sensible, hi-viz wearing, helmeted commuters with lighting already attached to their bike. The cars have their lights on because the sun is low and the light is dim. That's a pretty clear sign that you need to do the same.
Blaming the car for driving without consideration from your hospital bed or your grave is a pretty stupid way of making your point. I'm "lit up like Blackpool" and ride on the assumption that every other road user is an idiot who hasn't seen me. I drive my car in the same way. If a motorist does hit me they, will have no excuse whatsoever.
Cyclists are road users and the law is clear. Aside from that, lights are safe. Just switch them on and be done with it.
On that note, I'm concerned by the number of early morning cycle commuters in Bristol who are not bothering with their lights - sensible, hi-viz wearing, helmeted commuters with lighting already attached to their bike. The cars have their lights on because the sun is low and the light is dim. That's a pretty clear sign that you need to do the same.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
I wonder if they record the number of 'hit' cyclists wearing hi-viz in the stats?
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
Worrying if accurate since only the lights are mandatory after sundown.
davidallenxyz
Regular
So what you are saying is that having lights on the bike alone is good enough reason to not use them? I'm confused.
At the end of the day, if people don't want to employ "secondary safety" when they ride, then go for it. I'd rather not be hit, so I go out of my way to minimise the chances of that happening.
Having ridden past an RTA in Bristol today where a cyclist was on the floor and being attended to by an ambulance crew, I was surprised to see that the cyclist I was following responded by RLJing the next junction. If seeing an accident is not going to change other cyclist's attitudes, I'm damn sure I won't succeed in doing so.
So ride on in darkness my friends, and be brave enough to accept the consequences...
With a basic set of LED lamps being available from many budget outlets for as little as £1, there is NO EXCUSE at all for no lights. But it still never fails to amaze me at the number of numpties who still ride 'Ninja'. Even odder are folk like the bloke on the way to work this early a.m., with a quite tasty flashing front lamp, but NO BACK LAMP - !
davidallenxyz
Regular
Then why the sarcastic comment about how well my post was going until I mentioned the lights? Please enlighten me if I have missed a key point.
If the point is that "it wasn't dark", the real point is "it was hard to see". I couldn't see a sodding thing as I rode up the hill outside my house as it happens to be perfectly angled to catch the rising sun. I was extremely pleased that I had lights on my bike.
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
I get the feeling it was the Hi-viz and helmets being referred to.
Edit - slow posting due to scoffing my dinner at the time of trying to type.
davidallenxyz
Regular
Still don't get it. Oh well.
uclown2002
Guru
- Location
- Harrogate
Because the benefits attributed to high-viz and helmets are questionable.
davidallenxyz
Regular
Seem pretty clear to me. Makes you more visible and stops small bumps on your head from hurting too much. I'm happy to keep wearing it.
But I've got no interest in opening THAT can of worms. At least the law doesn't care about your helmet and clothing, so if you want to dress the same colour as tarmac and slap your skull against said tarmac instead of a giant egg-box - GO FOR IT!!!!!
