Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[summerdays]

Some cyclists get caught out at this time of year. I've had to lend lights out on rides 3 or 4 times for when people's batteries ran out/light flew off and broke once etc. As I sometimes carry four front lights with me they seem to get dished out as backup to other people way before I need them.

But how do they have the right brackets? That's why all the family bikes will take Smart Superflash lights, and then there are some additional lights too - meaning we can share some of the lights. Plus having a stash of spare lights means that I can't use the excuse of I can't find a light when I'm going out - I can always borrow one of the spares.

 

[swee'pea99]

They're morons. The only thing that amazes me is how many of them there are. Don't waste your time talking to them tho' - you'll just demoralise yourself to no good effect. It won't make any difference anyway. They're morons.

 

[marinyork]

But how do they have the right brackets? That's why all the family bikes will take Smart Superflash lights, and then there are some additional lights too - meaning we can share some of the lights. Plus having a stash of spare lights means that I can't use the excuse of I can't find a light when I'm going out - I can always borrow one of the spares.

When I started cycling, many things I've done wrong and learnt along the way I did actually think about brackets and stuff. I originally had 2x cateye el-120/30s. These will fit on any bike. They aren't any good for seeing with, but 2 of them make a fairly all right to be seen combination if spaced about 6 inches apart. Compared to the average cyclist's lights they still rate well for knocking about town. They'll fit on any bike. My other two lights are Hope Vision 1s that with a bit of tweaking can fit on most handlebars. Don't think the 120/30s are too bad as you can whip them off in 2 or three seconds. Cateye changed the mount now though . I've lent them out to friends who don't have lights before.

There is certainly a problem with mounts on rears though. I found rather annoyingly enough that my race bike won't take the cateye el-1000 as the tube is too wide! The Mars 4 can be attached to anything or to a pannier. Now the price of the smart 1/2 has reduced again thinking of buying one and putting tape round it.

I think the knog movement for lights is also quite good.

 

[fossyant]

If you've got old lights or even reflector brackets, the Smart Superflash and many Cateye rear brackets can be bodged. My Superflash wouldn't fit the stay as the arm isn't long enough and the bottom of the light struck the stay, meaning it was pointing up. Took an old lamp bracket I had lying around, longer arm, and job's a good 'en...

(PS Always worth saving bits and bobs - I have a box full)....

 

[marinyork]

Not complaining. The Mars 4 was cheap at the time I bought it . The idea is to fit smart 1/2 watts on the forks as I've seen other people do (although perhaps they bodged those).

 

[MartinC]

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.

 

[marinyork]

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.

Both of those points are explained by a lot of the people in commuting and cycling in general are highway code literalists. They are only bothered about the "MUST". If you see it in terms of this you'll find that it explains the attitude to just about any motoring/road issue.

 

[swee'pea99]

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 almost hit one myself last night, wobbling out of a side turning, dressed in black, almost invisible. I suppose if I had hit them, only they would have got hurt/had their bike damaged. Just as well the driver right behind me was on the ball as I had to suddenly swerve out to avoid them. What if they hadn't been? 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. Has anyone on this thread said this? 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.

.

 

[trustysteed]

Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?

that's the nail on the head for a lot of the threads in Commuting. some people seem to have a rather overblown sense of proportion of their personal opinion about cycling/other cyclists that they like to foist on others.

 

[lady_rider]

It's because (as I said in a previous reply) cyclists who do light up then get the brunt of motorists' generalised anger towards cyclists who don't...

 

[theclaud]

It's because (as I said in a previous reply) cyclists who do light up then get the brunt of motorists' generalised anger towards cyclists who don't...

Cyclists bear the brunt of motorists' generalised anger irrespective of their behaviour. It's worth remembering that the CTC campaigned vigorously against compulsory lights. What's changed since, except motorised traffic getting faster and nastier and motorists becoming more angry towards us? It's certainly not obvious that lights have made us safer.

 

[lady_rider]

It's worth remembering that the CTC campaigned vigorously against compulsory lights.

REALLY?! I didn't know that... Hmmm.... When I drive it's just so obvious that using lights on a bike makes you so much more visible. Especially on dark, unlit country lanes. As a cyclist I'd rather give motorists as little excuse as possible for a SMIDSY, and as a driver I know that an unlit, unreflected cyclist in black can appear out of nowhere...

 

[marinyork]

to the forum. If you haven't heard the argument before, some of us believe cyclists are treated as an outgroup.

 

[theclaud]

REALLY?! I didn't know that... Hmmm.... When I drive it's just so obvious that using lights on a bike makes you so much more visible. Especially on dark, unlit country lanes. As a cyclist I'd rather give motorists as little excuse as possible for a SMIDSY, and as a driver I know that an unlit, unreflected cyclist in black can appear out of nowhere...

I use lights myself, but I still ride home if the batteries go or I drop them down a drain. But I'd say that if you give motorists licence to expect and demand cyclists to be lit up like a Christmas tree, then they will use that as an excuse not to see anyone that isn't. I was asked recently by someone who nearly killed me in broad daylight where my "yellow thing" was...

 

[MartinC]

Swee'pea99.

"I suppose if I had hit them, only they would have got hurt/had their bike damaged." - I think that's what I was saying.

Today at 9:13, comment about the observed aftermath of an accident (but not the accident itself) - "Cyclist had no lights, completely in black. Completely his fault."