Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[Tollers]

Can we draw a line now? Hahaha

____________________________________________________________________________

There....I did it

Tollers

 

[ferret fur]

Don't forget, that as a motorist if you were waiting to pull out of a junction at night you could reasonably expect to see lights from any vehicle, motorised or otherwise, coming down the road towards you. If the motorist (or even another cyclist or pedestrain) moved into the path of someone without lights I acn guarantee you that the courts would not find fault with them. Given the ever changing & dynamic nature of urban traffic, I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town. What it boils down to is that if you get hit (or hit) another road user at night while unlit. It is your fault. Anything else is just a one eyed 'if it is on two wheels it must be right' attitude.

 

[Cab]

Don't forget, that as a motorist if you were waiting to pull out of a junction at night you could reasonably expect to see lights from any vehicle, motorised or otherwise, coming down the road towards you. If the motorist (or even another cyclist or pedestrain) moved into the path of someone without lights I acn guarantee you that the courts would not find fault with them.

Except of course that they do, the police and courts do look at whether greater care could have prevented the accident even if the injured party was unlit.

Given the ever changing & dynamic nature of urban traffic, I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town. What it boils down to is that if you get hit (or hit) another road user at night while unlit. It is your fault. Anything else is just a one eyed 'if it is on two wheels it must be right' attitude.

And back to another attempt to polarise the debate

 

[MartinC]

I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town.

This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk.

Some urban lighting conditions at night are better than a dull day. You're very effectively making the case that visibility conditions are a wide spectrum that goes from bright sunlight to pitch black and that an object doesn't suddenly become invisible 'cos it's a minute past lighting up time

 

[Norm]

Bottom line, for me, is that I'd rather be the first person to turn their lights on than the last.

I have driven over someone who ignored priority and came straight across the road in front of me at night in the rain and without lights, it's not something that I'd want to put anyone else through.

The self-imposed guilt trip is bad enough without the threats of prosecution from the police. Fortunately, the junction was covered by CCTV, which showed that I was doing about 10mph and braking but I never did see him, I just heard the bang as he went under the front of my car.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk.

... and that applies equally to the cyclist. How can one say that unlit cyclists can be as visible by night as by day if you "can't make a blanket assessment of the risk"?

 

[Cab]

... and that applies equally to the cyclist. How can one say that unlit cyclists can be as visible by night as by day if you "can't make a blanket assessment of the risk"?

It may not be a blanket assessment. It may be as simple as 'my trip from (x) to (y) is along relatively short, well lit streets where the limit on how far away I'll be seen is how far the next corner is away, not how good my lights are'. To argue that it is never safe is a blanket statement, to argue that there may be times when risk is not increased is not.

 

[Tollers]

OK. To summarise.....

Some streets are as well lit as day. Whilst on these roads cycle lights arent an issue. (Martins valid point).

In real world, most streets arent so well lit (Everyone else's valid point)

Now....drawing a line. Please do not cross.

Tollers
____________________________________________________________________________

 

[ferret fur]

This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk.

I rather think you are making my point for me. It doesn't matter if a cyclist has their lights switched on when they are already visible or don't know if they are visible or not. This is known as failing safe. It DOES matter if they don't have lights on when they are needed for the cyclist to be seen. Since the cyclist cannot definitively judge, from another road users perspective, whether the light conditions are good enough or not to be seen, then it makes sense to have them switched on when the law requires you to. To do otherwise is known as failing dangerous.

 

[MartinC]

I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious.

If the unlit cyclist is riding in a well lit environment they don't pose a serious risk.

The only "fail safe" approach would be for cyclists to be lit at all times. Lighting up time determines when riding with or without lights is legal - not how visible the cyclist is. As you so rightly said visibility is affected by many factors.

 

[Crankarm]

If the unlit cyclist is riding in a well lit environment they don't pose a serious risk.

The only "fail safe" approach would be for cyclists to be lit at all times. Lighting up time determines when riding with or without lights is legal - not how visible the cyclist is. As you so rightly said visibility is affected by many factors.

For some one who was up an arms by the scale of indignation surrounding cyclists riding around after dark without lights you are doing a pretty full on job yourself to defend yourself and them, dragging out this thread which is now .

You are indeed a .

 

[MartinC]

For some one who was up an arms by the scale of indignation surrounding cyclists riding around after dark without lights you are doing a pretty full on job yourself to defend yourself and them, dragging out this thread which is now .

You are indeed a .

But you posted last! Oh no! It was me again!