Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[Rhythm Thief]

That is moton apology in action.

It's not, though. I'm not a moton, and I do drive within the distance I can see to be clear. But I know that there are plenty out there who don't, and my point is that it's little consolation for a squished cyclist to be able to say "well, I was unlit, but that car driver was certainly going too fast!" Besides, it seems to me to be a valid point: a cyclist riding with the flow of traffic is much less able to see what is coming towards them on the same side of the road than a pedestrian is, and is also less able to take evasive action should they need to. It should be obvious that this is not a manifesto for motorists to drive exactly as they please, I'm just pointing out a few differences between pedestrians and cyclists.

p.s. you keep saying how I defend the cyclists, but my recent post makes it exceedingly clear I do exactly the opposite.

Fair enough, although my "defending the unlit cyclists" comment wasn't aimed at you.

 

[Amanda P]

one was clad head to toe in Hi-Vis with a Hi-Viz backpack and probably Hi-Viz pants, they had a front light on, but no back light.

Cool! Pants with lights on!

A bit too cool at this time of year, maybe, and if you put trousers on, presumably that would cover up the lights...

 

[Cab]

I don't know that we do all agree that. While there may well be no physical risk to me if I squash one of these selfish idiots while I'm at work tonight, I don't give much for my chances of driving a lorry or sleeping particularly well for a while. And if I can't drive a lorry, where do you suggest my mortgage payments come from?

You're saying the same thing in a different way; I agree, cyclists should be well lit, the issue really is whether or not its always that big a deal. I contend that it isn't always.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

You're saying the same thing in a different way; I agree, cyclists should be well lit, the issue really is whether or not its always that big a deal. I contend that it isn't always.

Ok, I'm prepared to agree that it's not always such a big issue as it is on my unlit B road. but I still don't think there's much excuse for being without lights anywhere.

 

[Cab]

Ok, I'm prepared to agree that it's not always such a big issue as it is on my unlit B road. but I still don't think there's much excuse for being without lights anywhere.

In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.

 

[Crankarm]

In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.

And quite apart from commiting an offence for not having lights on their bikes........... But we'll just ignore those laws we can't be bothered with shall we ?

 

[wafflycat]

It seems to me that it's even less of a big deal to actually go and spend a few quid on some lights.

+1

 

[summerdays]

I think one of the problems about cyclists without lights not being visible to car drivers, is that if they are of the opinion that lights don't help, they they also probably belong to the subset of cyclists who may break other rules. If they ride in the gutter - motorists just aren't paying attention there, they are in the invisible zone even if it was daylight. I think that no lights and gutter crawlers go together, and a general lack of good traffic skills.

 

[Cab]

And quite apart from commiting an offence for not having lights on their bikes...........

Indeed. An offense. Just not one causing any harm; realistically, a pile of 50 bikes at the same time going down a well lit city road, some unlit, whats the real likelyhood of the lack of lighting on some of them causing an accident?

But we'll just ignore those laws we can't be bothered with shall we ?

By all means enfoce the laws, ideally in the order in which harm is caused by breaking them. Do you not agree?

 

[Cab]

I think one of the problems about cyclists without lights not being visible to car drivers, is that if they are of the opinion that lights don't help, they they also probably belong to the subset of cyclists who may break other rules. If they ride in the gutter - motorists just aren't paying attention there, they are in the invisible zone even if it was daylight. I think that no lights and gutter crawlers go together, and a general lack of good traffic skills.

It is very often the case (in my experience) that unlit cyclists are just that sort; inexperienced or very passive gutter huggers. Tends to be the case that they're effectively invisible as much or more because of taking a poor road position.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.

Isn't that reason enough in itself to get some lights? Apart from anything else, the attitude you're displaying here ("yes, it's illegal, but it's not actually dangerous") is not a million miles from the excuses used by speeding drivers to justify their actions. Cyclists can't pick and choose which laws it's ok to disobey, surely.

 

[Cab]

Isn't that reason enough in itself to get some lights? Apart from anything else, the attitude you're displaying here ("yes, it's illegal, but it's not actually dangerous") is not a million miles from the excuses used by speeding drivers to justify their actions. Cyclists can't pick and choose which laws it's ok to disobey, surely.

You're still acting like I'm arguing against having lights. I'm not. I'm arguing that you're treating this like its way more serious than (in many cases) it is.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

You're still acting like I'm arguing against having lights. I'm not. I'm arguing that you're treating this like its way more serious than (in many cases) it is.

No, I understand that you're not arguing against having lights. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the seriousness of not having them, though.
As an aside, one of the things I can't understand about this forum is how some of its members can froth at the mouth about speeding drivers or dangerous motorists, and then adopt the same arguments and attitudes they use to justify their actions to argue the case for cyclists who break the law. If you believe that motorists should obey the speed limit whatever their judgement tells them a safe speed is, then surely you have to argue that a cyclist should have lights whether or not they believe it to be safe to ride without them. It's just the same argument.

 

[Cab]

No, I understand that you're not arguing against having lights. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the seriousness of not having them, though.
As an aside, one of the things I can't understand about this forum is how some of its members can froth at the mouth about speeding drivers or dangerous motorists, and then adopt the same arguments and attitudes they use to justify their actions to argue the case for cyclists who break the law. If you believe that motorists should obey the speed limit whatever their judgement tells them a safe speed is, then surely you have to argue that a cyclist should have lights whether or not they believe it to be safe to ride without them. It's just the same argument.

Of course a cyclist should have lights at night, but I'm quite relaxed about them not having them where that is of trivial impact in the same way as I'm relaxed about people doing 80mph on a quiet motorway. Neither can complain if they're nicked, but I would hope that the police should have better things to do with their time than go for those offenders causing least harm to others. And in many, many situations cyclists without lights are harmless.

 

[MartinC]

Sorry guys I've been busy today and not able to post and the discussion seems to have moved on. Sensibly too thanks largely to Rhythm Thief and Cab.

Coming back in it seems that many are reading things into what I (and others)are saying that really aren't there. This is what I posted originally:

The bikes I ride at night have hub dynamos, B&M high performance standlights front and rear and backup LEDS for which I always carry spare batteries. I wouldn't ride in the dark without being well lit and do my very best to make sure I do all I can to prevent it happening.

There are 2 things I don't understand though.

Why are other cyclists so censorious of other cyclists who ride without lights? Lots of people do lots of things I don't agree with, wouldn't do myself or that I don't approve of. I think it's daft but essentially it's their risk and nothing to do with me. I'd agree that people like Rythm Thief have grounds to feel inconvenienced by it but others objections seem contrived. Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?

Secondly I can't understand the point of view that it's totally the unlit cyclist's fault if they get hit. Sure they've contributed to the accident by not taking sensible steps to mitigate the risks but there's also a fundamental responsibility when driving/riding to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see. If you hit a dark object at night you clearly weren't doing this and must bear some of the blame.

Reading threads about it puts me in mind of the Daily Mail.

It seems to me that what good and responsible drivers like Wafflycat and Rhthym Thief are saying is this. The extreme cases (cyclists riding badly, in dark clothes, unlit and on pitch black country roads) increases the stress involved in driving properly and creates the fear of being involved in an accident despite their best endeavours to avoid it. I have a lot of sympathy with this view, especially for RT who has an onerous responsibility at the best of times.

Nevertheless cyclists without lights aren't the only unlit hazard or obstruction on the road that must be allowed for and this stress is always going to be present.

Cycling without lights is, in my view, always anti social. That it's quite correctly illegal isn't being challenged. What I don't accept is the condemnation of any unlit cycling as automatically extremely dangerous for the offender and all the people they share the road with. I'm extremely suspicious of the origin of much of this castigation - it seems like the standard knee jerk reaction of the UK motorist who expects, like Mr Toad, that all the lower, less entitled, classes of road user get out of his way. I think that some cyclists too also view these ignorants as a lower order.

It's interesting that most of this discussion has been focussed around the needs of the motorist. The OP started the thread with his reaction to the impact unlit cyclist were having on him as a cyclist. In my view the people most at risk from unlit cyclists are pedestrians but if IIRC they've only figured in this discussion as another group who should be well lit if they want to stray onto the motorist's road.