All bikes should be fitted with lights!

[MadoneRider1991]

http://www.nabendynamo.de/produkte/Edelux.html (website is only available in German, I´m afraid)

http://www.bumm.de/index-e.html?docu/175q-e.htm

Admittedly, I had a problem with one LED headlight from the first Generation after probably 3 years, right after warranty had expired. BUMM sent me a new one without any further question

the power source is lasts forever, but the LED bulb doesn't thats what i was talking about

 

[ufkacbln]

I just don't see why anyone would have a problem with fitting lights to new bikes. Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment, I would consider it incredibly selfish for anyone to not try and make themselves as visible as is reasonably possible while using a public road.

My idea of "visible as reasonably possible" lighting is a Dinotte rear light with Cateye for legality and a CAtey front light for legality accompanied by an Expousre Maxx Enduro - Total cost over £500.

Is anyone who spends less selfish or practicable.

Do I decrease my visibility and increase my risk simply to pander to someone else's idea of what a bicycle should have?

 

[ufkacbln]

Another thing with blinking, or flashing lights for cyclists is that if there's a flashing red light on the road it's nearly bound to be a cyclist, so drivers may subconsioucly see a flashing light and be aware they'll need to slow down/overtake with some space as there's a cyclist ahead.

A thought...... There is evidence that drivers who see cyclists as "serious" feel that they do not need to decrease speed or give a wide space when overtaking as the cyclist is able to cope.

Does the same happen with lights?

I certainly get the same close overtakes when lit as I do when out in the daytime.

 

[Cab]

I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.

So, because motorists (who are causing the risk) aren't able to safely negotiate without harming everyone and everything else, its the responsibility of everyone else not to get in their way and to be so brightly lit they're not possibly going to inconvenience motorists by getting stuck under their cars? The phrase 'ignoring the bull' is, I think, frequently used on Copenhagenzine to describe your argument.

 

[Cab]

My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.

I don't see anyone arguing that lights at night should not be a requirement.

 

[thomas]

A thought...... There is evidence that drivers who see cyclists as "serious" feel that they do not need to decrease speed or give a wide space when overtaking as the cyclist is able to cope.

Does the same happen with lights?

I certainly get the same close overtakes when lit as I do when out in the daytime.

Well....I was kinda hoping the end part . Certainly, if I was driving along the road, not paying a whole lot of attention (as I frequently do ) and there was a flashing red light in my peripheral vision, that would instantly stand out as a cyclist. I couldn't say what action, the hypothetical inept driver that I am would do.


If for instance, on a completely dark road all that could be seen was a flashing red light, or a solid light, someone might confuse the solid with a (faster moving) motorbike and end up rear ending a cyclist. Maybe I'm going a bit far with this idea though....

 

[thomas]

My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.

No one is saying lights don't make you safer. The statistics don't even say that. However, there's only 2% of cases where cyclists without lights caused themselves an injury or death. I think Cab's point is that there are better things to focus on.

If you were to focus your efforts on something, do you do it on something which benefits 2%, or 40%, or another higher statistic.

 

[chap]

I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.

I agree with you to a point. It is of course common sense to make yourself visible. Those that live in the country-side (and are wise) usually carry a torch around with them more for seeing than to be seen, but it doubles as such. Generally, if one has to normally walk through country roads, its a simple case of self-preservation, as your average lout will not stop if nobdy saw them mow you down at 60mph.

However, and I am not suggesting that you implied this, this should not be made legislation. There are plenty of tireless arguments which take the form of 'why should we be forced to adopt common-sense precautions, what about them'. There is a huge inequality in law, financing, and implementation in the favour of the motor vehicle and this must be dealt with - as it is costly in all regards and certainly not sustainable nor at all scalable. Although, as your post indicates, we must realise that these dangerous machines are almost omni-present (even where they are not best suited) and in the end if it came to a collision between a human, and another behind a ton of steel, then the more former would bear the brunt of the damage and no amount of finger wagging shall correct that - it is just the way it is.

 

[redfalo]

the power source is lasts forever, but the LED bulb doesn't thats what i was talking about

Well, according to the manufacturers they have a
Life Cycle of 20000 hours. That's almost forever, isn't it?

 

[summerdays]

If you are going to make a generalisation about the type of cyclist who rides without lights, then look at the type of brakes on that sort of bike has - usually disconnected. I think even if you sold the bikes with lights, that almost the same subset of people would be riding without lights after they broke.

For me I love it when its summer and I don't have to think about dragging lights around with me (apart from the occasional late night). As I usually have 2 rear lights and 2 or more front lights, stopping and locking up my bike at this time of year is a faff. And I like the fact that my lights aren't in the bottom 50 % for visibility.

 

[chap]

If you are going to make a generalisation about the type of cyclist who rides without lights, then look at the type of brakes on that sort of bike has - usually disconnected. I think even if you sold the bikes with lights, that almost the same subset of people would be riding without lights after they broke.

For me I love it when its summer and I don't have to think about dragging lights around with me (apart from the occasional late night). As I usually have 2 rear lights and 2 or more front lights, stopping and locking up my bike at this time of year is a faff. And I like the fact that my lights aren't in the bottom 50 % for visibility.

Yes, darn fixie riders

Obviously, you could legislate saftey into almost every facet of ones life, however after that you pass the responsibility onto the user. In certain cases this cannot be afforded hence MOT tests, admitely for us cyclists it is less important since we are more likely to only get ourselves hurt.

Nonetheless, we are not only talking about chavs here. There are plenty of decent people who for whatever reason do not cycle in the most sensible way. Most of these people I refer to are not even teenagers but adults who are using the bike not for stunts or the cool factor, but as an affordable means of transporting theirselves from A to B without paying £1.20 each way by bus.

I am sure that if peddle-powered lights were to be installed on these bikes then they would get used to them, and start to enjoy the benefits. This will be especially true when they know that they now have a full legal right to be on the road.

People are ultimately the same world-wide and it is usually the prevailing culture that shapes them, this is why we often look to the Netherlands (esp. Amsterdam), Copenhagen, and parts of Germany for ideas of how to reintroduce a cycle-friendly culture in motorised Britain. These are places with inspirational schemes such as the Green Wave, bicycle parks, proper bicycle lanes (both segregated and shared), and widespread cycle schemes (as opposed to the hotch-botch which is our Cycle-to-work 'scheme' that many multi-national companies know nothing of nor see the benefit of introducing despite a strain on car-parking resources.) The citizens of these areas will be like those of ours, some intelligent, others not so, however bicycle use is much more widespread there therefore the similarities concerning attitudes to cyclists, and cycling end there.

In London, we are approaching a critical mass, if bicycle usage is to be highly adopted here, then along with Oxford, York, and Cambridge, there will be little, if any, excuse for other cities to follow suit, this extends to towns, and villages. However, for bicycle use to properly take off they have to be seen as more efficient and beneficial than using the car. This is why the introduction of good bikes from the Velon scheme is a marvelous idea, and likewise if bikes are sold with good inexpensive lighting then this will definetly help the cause.

 

[Ian H]

I agree with you to a point. It is of course common sense to make yourself visible. Those that live in the country-side (and are wise) usually carry a torch around with them more for seeing than to be seen, but it doubles as such...

I live some of the time in the country. I hate using a torch because it spoils the pleasure of being out in the darkness. I do carry one, just to flash at cars if needed. My normal outdoor wear is not hi-viz, and I'm not about to buy such stuff just to go for a walk.

On the bike I use one or sometimes two steady rear lights, and a steady front. No flashing jackets or reflective tabards. But the lights are bright, fitted properly, and face in the right direction, not at either the floor or the sky.

 

[slowmotion]

I read this thread from end to end, but I'm no expert on this subject. I have been back in the saddle for only seven months. My experience is limited to riding in Central London traffic on commutes, sometimes after dark. Here goes...

My safety is my responsibility, and I am unlikely to change the behaviour of motorists hereabouts in the near distant future. Legislation for cyclists or motorists is a complete pipe-dream. Why not stop whingeing? There will always be "stealth cyclists" on all kinds of kit. Some are kids, and some are on seriously expensive bikes. They are immortal, they believe.

I am impressed by the consideration that most motorists give me, and that includes WVM, amongst whom I am numbered.

Get some good lights, front and rear, a nice bright Hi Viz, and do not ponce about.

Stop at red lights and zebras. Cyclists running them really piss off motorists, me included.

Oh yeah, never rely on legislation from the Government to sort out your problems. Stop whining and buy your own lights. Your life. Delegate that to others at your own peril.

Crikey, end of rant.

 

[slowmotion]

I apologise for that rant. It reads as aggressive and unpleasant. I had had my first really hairy moment on the bike a few hours earlier, and it was entirely my own fault, not the motorist's, but that is no excuse for my incontinent blast hereabouts. It made me think of my own mortality in a somewhat gloomy way. I will try to do better.

Ride safely, and best wishes to all.

 

[porteous]

An interesting thread which, as usual, generates some heat (With, or without, light).

It seems to me, having been around since the 50s, that existing laws are clear. After lighting up time, which is well before dusk, cycles should have a functioning rear and front light, and they should be on.

Arguing about whether they are built into the bike, attached to the bike, or carried in your pocket when NOT required by law to be fitted and on is, surely, immaterial?

Attempts by government to compel permanant fixed lights as an integral part of the bike miss the point and are an unwelcome and (IMHO) unacceptable interference of an individuals right to choice.

There are laid down existing UK minimum standards regarding how much light each lamp must give, which I believe have been the subject of previous threads.

So, what are we left with?

1. Yet again the enforcement of an existing sensible a law, designed to protect the individual without being draconian, is either patchy or non existant.

2. It is left to the individual to choose whether to comply with the minimum requirement or augment it with hi vis clothing, more lights, etc etc.

Perhaps we, as cyclists, should make it clear that we support the law, as good road users, while resisting the compulsory element of these suggested construction regulations? Perhaps we should also be supportive of initiatives to police the use of lights by cyclists at night?

Personally I live in the countryside and prefer to be as visible as possible both day and night. It is more difficult, I believe, to be visible in urban areas simply because of the light clutter, as has been sensibly pointed out elsewhere in this thread, so perhaps more thought needs to be given to visibility in an urban setting?

Freedom to cycle safely within the law is a right to be protected and fought for. Taking precautions to do so safely, both for the cyclist and other road users, is, perhaps, the responsibility that goes with that right.