All bikes should be fitted with lights!

[chap]

Oh! Where do they walk then? There are not footpaths and pavements everywhere.

The idea of 'always on' lights on bikes is just as wrong as that of day lighting on cars.

I see the power of the comma was lost here. To reiterate:

'Generally, pedestrians do not walk along the road.'
​

However when they do, there are a series of considerations that usually take place. For a start, they are more mindful of cars since they are not on their usual territory - thus will tend to keep to the side, especially when they hear an approaching vehicle. This is why it can be a problem when cycling on country lanes, as you startle the pedestrians who either turn and see an object close up and approaching, or assuming they are the only ones there suddenly hear a 'Good Morning / Afternoon'.

In rural areas the more sensible citizens usually carry a torch at night, when going for a walk. Some even wear reflectives. So if they can afford to take such precautions when they are walking (bear in mind that you are much more agile when on foot than any other mode of transportation) then surely it makes sense to at least adopt the minimal of them (mandatory lights) when on a bike. Bearing in mind that anybody, regardless of skill, could walk into Halfords, buy a bike, then cycle on to the road.

 

[Panter]

I suppose I should also have some lights embedded into my body too? For those times I'm walking home drunk.

The bell rule is stupid, when the law says that being able to yell is good enough. Why would I want a new bike to be fitted with some lights that cost a couple quid, when I already have £100+ worth of lights on my bike/helmet?

If someone else is too stupid to have lights, I'm sorry, but why should I be penalised for that?

We're getting a little silly now aren't we.
Bicycles are made to be ridden on the road, except for MTB's of course.

The OP was to discuss the merits of compulsory bicycle lighting which, I think, is a good idea.
Sure, you should have the option to upgrade your lights, and I imagine that most people will, but if there are discreet, built in LED lights in the frame, what is the problem with that? how does that penalise you?

 

[Panter]

I see the power of the comma was lost here. To reiterate:

'Generally, pedestrians do not walk along the road.'
​

However when they do, there are a series of considerations that usually take place. For a start, they are more mindful of cars since they are not on their usual territory - thus will tend to keep to the side, especially when they hear an approaching vehicle. This is why it can be a problem when cycling on country lanes, as you startle the pedestrians who either turn and see an object close up and approaching, or assuming they are the only ones there suddenly hear a 'Good Morning / Afternoon'.

In rural areas the more sensible citizens usually carry a torch at night, when going for a walk. Some even wear reflectives. So if they can afford to take such precautions when they are walking (bear in mind that you are much more agile when on foot than any other mode of transportation) then surely it makes sense to at least adopt the minimal of them (mandatory lights) when on a bike. Bearing in mind that anybody, regardless of skill, could walk into Halfords, buy a bike, then cycle on to the road.

+1 to all of that.

My commute takes in a lot of quiet, rural lanes but there are still a surprising number of walkers, joggers etc out.

The vast majority of them carry a torch pointing at the ground at the very least, whilst most wear hi-vis and carry lights.

 

[Cab]

2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.

The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.

While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't that big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.

 

[Davidc]

2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.

The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.

An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.

It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.

Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.

 

[Panter]

2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.

The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.

While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't that big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.

Completely agree with that.

 

[Cab]

An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.

It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.

Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.

Couldn't disagree more.

Having lights or not is not demonstrably a contributory factor in many accidents for cyclists. It isn't whether we're lit up or not, it isn't whether the motorist has lights on, its whether they look. Not whether they just gawp in our direction, its whether they look for cyclists.

If a cyclist is too thin to be seen, it could be because of poor road positioning at a junction, or it could be that the observational skills of the motorist aren't good enough to justify being allowed to propel a serious mass of metal and glass at high speed in public. Not caring? Sometimes. Not understanding or having sufficient competence? Frequently. Not seeing because of a lack of lights? Happens, but it is almost vanishingly rare.

Really, I support having lights on bikes. But we need to get a grip here and stop blaming cyclists for a tiny minority cause of accidents.

 

[Dan B]

An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.

It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.

But this is basically self-defeating: anything you wear or attach to your bike that makes you "stand out" is only useful if nobody else is doing it. If everyone else has got one too, you're lost in the crowd again. And if the car drivers can run theirs off a 70 amp alternator while the cyclist is limited to the batteries he can carry or a hub-mounted dynamo, this is an arms race that in the long term, the cyclist will lose.

 

[thomas]

Forcing bike lights is stupid. If they require batteries then they won't last forever. If they require dynamos they will probably put people of cycling.

Either way, if they can be turned on and off, people may still not use them (out of laziness).

It may push up the cost of the bike, but to get back to your concluding sentence you would be bringing down the national costs that, at present, could be attributed to other peoples stupidity.

What national cost? The bill from the NHS? I don't think that the bill from the odd cyclist without lights actually costs the country more than a few peanuts in the scheme of things.

Sure, you should have the option to upgrade your lights, and I imagine that most people will, but if there are discreet, built in LED lights in the frame, what is the problem with that? how does that penalise you?

Because I'm forced into having something of no benefit to me and something I don't want.

2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.

The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.

While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't that big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.

+1!!!

An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.

It doesn't work like that though. Motorcyclists generally have lights on more of the time, yet my Dad (who does less miles on his motorbike than I do on my bike) has had 2 (daytime) accidents in the past couple of years, where as I've been lucky enough not to be injured. One was with a, very loud Harley. You couldn't miss that even if you didn't look, but he still had someone reverse into him.

It's like drivers who use full beam all the time. If everyone does it, everyone blends in.

Much better to only allow people to drive if they can drive safely and look before pulling out at junctions. it's much simpler to look than it is to force every bicycle to have compulsory lighting.


Around here there are a lot of students on bikes, many without lights. There are a couple main routes, put some police on them for a couple days over a few weeks and either giving people a £30 fine or option to buy lights would be a lot more beneficial. Very few of the students would be buying a new bike with inbuilt lights, but a second hand out without. You would probably find any law wouldn't require older bikes to be modified with a lighting system and therefore a large amount of people without lights wouldn't benefit.

 

[gavintc]

I think nanny would like this idea.

Nanny likes safety things. Nanny thinks you can never be safe enough.

 

[Cab]

Around here there are a lot of students on bikes, many without lights. There are a couple main routes, put some police on them for a couple days over a few weeks and either giving people a £30 fine or option to buy lights would be a lot more beneficial.

While I think that anyone caught out at night without lights has no room to complain (its a fair cop!), I don't approve of specifically targeting cyclists without lights in this way. The stats on the causes of accidents do not support the argument that such is a good way to spend police time and resources.

Better to use the same resources to target the cause of what is, statistically, the most likely cause of cycling accidents; bad motoring.

 

[thomas]

While I think that anyone caught out at night without lights has no room to complain (its a fair cop!), I don't approve of specifically targeting cyclists without lights in this way. The stats on the causes of accidents do not support the argument that such is a good way to spend police time and resources.

Better to use the same resources to target the cause of what is, statistically, the most likely cause of cycling accidents; bad motoring.

It did used to bother me a bit, but now I couldn't really care less. They can all be seen. I was more pointing out, that it seems to make more sense to actually enforce existing laws than making up new ones about bicycles having to legally have lights, even if not ridden at night/dusk.

I reckon if the police were positioned along the avenues for a night they could easily stop 20-50+ cyclists without lights....however, it's well lit up throughout and usually cyclists are bunched up so 'safe in numbers'. Put a few PCSOs on it...it wouldn't be a waste of police resources as they only seem to walk around aimlessly not doing a lot anyway

Certainly a quick trip around the ring road and you'll spot a number of cars with faulty brake lights which is a pet hate of mine.

 

[GrasB]

while existing road traffic laws are more than up to the job I still think that every new bike should be fitted with road legal lights. Just like a bell you can take them off but you then really don't have much of an excuse for not being road legal with regard to lights. For people who like 'big' lights you've got your self a set of 'bobby beaters', you only need one of your lights at either end of the bike to be legal any other lights are considered extras & don't have to be 'road legal'.

 

[snorri]

An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.
It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.
Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.

I totally disagree.
You are caliing for cyclists spend their own money on dubious safety equipment instead of campaigning for suitable punishment on errant drivers.
Bump up fines and reduce the number of points required to disqualify reckless drivers, make the guilty pay, not the innocent.

 

[Davidc]

I totally disagree.
You are caliing for cyclists spend their own money on dubious safety equipment instead of campaigning for suitable punishment on errant drivers.
Bump up fines and reduce the number of points required to disqualify reckless drivers, make the guilty pay, not the innocent.

No, just suggesting that cyclists can do a bit to help themselves at negligible cost.

My views on punishments for errant drivers are elsewhere on the forum. Generally if I had my way they'd be off the road for at least a year on a first offence, with a minimum £1k fine, for most moving traffic offences.

It's an unconnected issue.