£30 fine for no lights

[benb]

Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?

This study shows lack of lights as a contributory cause in 2% of cyclist KSIs
I am unaware of a single injury to someone else caused by an unlit cyclist.

 

[Dogtrousers]

well if they're enforcing the law, what about pedal and spoke reflectors - which I undertand are a legal requirement?

Pedals are, spokes aren't. Bikes manufactured before 1980-something are exempt. Oddly, my old Dawes, which is exempt, is fitted with pedal reflectors, but my newer bike, which isn't, isn't.

 

[Tail End Charlie]

Replace "unlit cyclist" with "unlit deer". Are you sinking? Que pische?

Deer to have lights on!!

 

[mcshroom]

When the law for cycle lights came in the CTC protested, saying that it shifted responsibility for 'seeing' away from drivers and placed the onus on being seen on the victim of the danger posed by drivers.

It comes from a mindset of making everything easier for car drivers to go quickly. Same with the idea muted periodically of giving deer, cows, sheep, and in one case chickens 'high-viz'. Another thread on here recently had a story about a section of chevron signage missing, and that being the reason for drivers crashing on that corner.

We don't seem to think that those (like myself) who choose to pilot over a ton of metal around the roads should take responsiblity to drive with due care and attention, and rather it seems to be everyone else's responsibility to cover for their lack of care.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

When the law for cycle lights came in the CTC protested, saying that it shifted responsibility for 'seeing' away from drivers and placed the onus on being seen on the victim of the danger posed by drivers.

I was about to make the very same point.

If people drove within the limits of available visibility, whether by daylight or by headlights alone, there would be no need for cyclists to be lit at the rear. It's because people drive beyond these limits that other road users have had responsibility shifted onto them.

GC

 

[earlestownflya]

I was about to make the very same point.

If people drove within the limits of available visibility, whether by daylight or by headlights alone, there would be no need for cyclists to be lit at the rear. It's because people drive beyond these limits that other road users have had responsibility shifted onto them.

GC

trouble is ...people don't drive within the available visibility...on a pitch black road you assume it to be clear if you don't see any lights..an unlit cyclist is no different to somebody stepping off the kirb right in front of your vehicle. could you avoid them without taking evasive?

 

[earlestownflya]

In relation to injuring other people you have a point. But what about those cases where a driver seriously injuries or kills a cyclist who he hits as they dont have lights and he doesnt see them. The driver may not be physically injured but I know how I would feel if I killed someone on a bike.

I got very close to hitting cyclists in the dark last year ( twice). Pitch black and they had no reflective gear and no lights. I dont even know how they could see to ride. They literally came out of nowhere. So these accidents can and do happen and it is not the drivers fault.

So the police do not have their priorities wrong. They are just enforcing the laws of the land as they should. In my view, as a cyclist. The lights on bike law is a law they should apply at this time of year with vigor, every year, until cyclist take it for granted that if they dont have lights, they will be fined.

you're right on steve

 

[jonny jeez]

Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?

Please lets not...what is this pre-occupation with the production of empirical "evidence" which is so vague and sterilised as to be often irrelevant anyhow.

What's wrong with using intuitive learning, in the old days we used to call it common sense.

If its dark, its common sense to use lights, suggesting that we shouldn't because some Oxbridge graduate has yet to spend a few million of central government funds taking a look at it...is just daft.

I don't care if recent studies suggest that the use of lights defers responsibility to the rider...riders should be responsible for themselves, again...common sense.

sorry, bit ranty...no offence

 

[earlestownflya]

Replace "unlit cyclist" with "unlit deer". Are you sinking? Que pische?

i hope you're more intelligent than a deer dan...if that's you in the profile pic...maybe not

 

[raleighnut]

Not sure if I have the wrong end of the stick here, but if you actually believe that's the law, I bet you £20 you're wrong.

Depends on the age of the bike.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

people don't drive within the available visibility...

Why not? Don't you think they should?

on a pitch black road you assume it to be clear if you don't see any lights

Why would you do that?

GC

 

[mcshroom]

Please lets not...what is this pre-occupation with the production of empirical "evidence" which is so vague and sterilised as to be often irrelevant anyhow.

What's wrong with using intuitive learning, in the old days we used to call it common sense.

If its dark, its common sense to use lights, suggesting that we shouldn't because some Oxbridge graduate has het to spent a few million of central government funds taking a look at it...is just daft.

I don't care if recent studies suggest that the use of lights defers responsibility to the rider...riders should be responsible for themselves, again...common sense.

sorry, bit ranty...no offence

The push for evidence is because 'common sense' is a catch all for the prejudices of the person making the comments. Empirical evidence should not be biased in the same way.

Why should it be the responsibility of a person to make it easier for the driver not to hit them? The responsibility should be on the party hitting them, not the victim surely.

As for the 'but people don't' argument; When you apply for a license part of your agreement is that you will abide by the rules of the road. There is no 'right' to drive. If you don't fancy abiding by those rules, then you are perfectly able to hand your license back in to the DVLA.

While it might improve the safety of the cyclist to be lit, it would make afar better sense to concentrate police enforcement on the road users who the evidence shows are actually doing the killing.

 

[earlestownflya]

Why not? Don't you think they should?



Why would you do that?

GC

how far is you're visibility in the dark?

 

[Milkfloat]

It is illegal to cycle in the dark without lights - it is illegal for a driver to crash into someone no matter if they have lights or not. Killing people with or without lights is bad. If the police can prevent someone being killed that is good. It is easier to tell someone off for not using lights than it is to catch someone who may be driving beyond their skill level for the conditions. The police should try and do both.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

how far is you're visibility in the dark?

If you're going to answer a question with a question this is not likely to get very far.
Could you have a go at answering my earlier questions?

GC