[QUOTE 5020658, member: 259"]Your first sentence makes a lot of sense to me.
I can't do anything at all about drivers not looking where they are going, but for a couple of quid I can make myself far more visible, and I would be stupid if I didn't.
And your question is completely irrevelevant.[/QUOTE]
Why? Car smashes into unlit car, driver's fault. Car smashes into unlit tree, driver's fault. Car smashes into unlit cyclist?
I drive cars, have done for many years. I was taught to, and still do, avoid crashing into things by looking where I'm going.
All cyclists should have lights. Should a driver hit an unlit cyclist the cyclist should be paraded as an idiot and the driver sent to jail for not looking where he/she was going.
Now let's add to that that cyclists seem to be hit whether they have lights or not it seems having lights is a very marginal gain. The problem here is that the drivers who do hit unlit cyclists plead it isn't their fault and avoid punishment.
Finally, a police campaign to enforce all cyclists to have lights will have little impact. A police campaign to enforce all dangerous driving will save many lives. Guess which we should focus on?