Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[MartinC]

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, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.

 

[marinyork]

I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.

On the CTC and no lights, it would be interesting to find out what the optimal choice would be on the law especially if we lived in a country that had different liability laws. I have the hunch that the moaners about ninjas and fairies would be disappointed with the answer...

 

[summerdays]

Not sure what I would think if it wasn't the law to have lights. As I found out recently when the school gates were moved and they forgot to change the yellow zig zags - I was much calmer - so I obviously stress more over rule breaking than keeping the kids safe in the first place (or perhaps children are expecting a safe place to cross in the first place). I suspect I would still use lights myself.

 

[MartinC]

On the CTC and no lights, it would be interesting to find out what the optimal choice would be on the law especially if we lived in a country that had different liability laws. I have the hunch that the moaners about ninjas and fairies would be disappointed with the answer...

Interesting question. IIRC lights became compulsory in the '30's so it was a very different environment the CTC were dealing with - less motor traffic, 'slower' roads, many more pedestrians and cyclists. To me the optimum answer now would be responsible drivers and compulsory lights. We've mandated the latter but done very liitle about the former. Changing the civil liablility position would definitely help in my view.

 

[wafflycat]

Interesting question. IIRC lights became compulsory in the '30's so it was a very different environment the CTC were dealing with - less motor traffic, 'slower' roads, many more pedestrians and cyclists. To me the optimum answer now would be responsible drivers and compulsory lights. We've mandated the latter but done very liitle about the former. Changing the civil liablility position would definitely help in my view.

+1

And even if lights were not legally required now, as where I live has a distinct dearth of streetlighting, I'd still be using lights in order to see where I am going at the very least! Even when walking in the village when it's dark I use a torch.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.

The problem with this argument is that an unlit cyclist is practically invisible until you're very close to him or her, so you can be driving in the distance you can see to be clear when that distance is very suddenly reduced, if you see what I mean. Besides, your last sentence could apply equally to idiot cyclists who have no lights ... they expect other road users to make arrangements to allow for their lack of common sense.

 

[Browser]

+1. I know the distance I can see at night when driving, but if some blacked-out unlit berk decides to ignore the fact that a motor vehicle is proceeding along the road onto which they intend to turn from a give-way-marked side road and pull out in front of you, your kind of stuffed aren't you?
Yes, you should be aware that a hazard is ahead (junction) and ready yourself accordingly (reduce speed, move over towards the centre of the road if there is room etc), but short of super-human powers, asking a motorist, of indeed another cyclist, to spot someone who, especially on an unlit road, patently does not want to be seen is asking a bit much.
Bikes used to have to have lights on, even in my impoverished youth. You couldn't see much with them, espcially the old grey-coloured Ever Ready ones, but you were expected to have them and, moreover, responsible parents would make sure their children had them fitted. Now, when you can get a pair of flashing LED lamps for four quid from Wilko's, less people bother. Where's the logic in that?

 

[Old Walrus]

The Brighton Ninja squad are out in force since the clocks changed. The preference seems to be some sad excuse for a front light and nothing at the rear, makes for interesting scenarios when they loom up out of the dark.......gits!

 

[Cab]

Missing the point.

No I'm not.

While I accept the legal requirement I do not accept that on all roads the distance at which you'll see a cyclist at night is less if the cyclist has no lights. On many well lit routes it makes naff all difference; the length and direction of the street can often be more important.

 

[GrasB]

No I'm not.

While I accept the legal requirement I do not accept that on all roads the distance at which you'll see a cyclist at night is less if the cyclist has no lights. On many well lit routes it makes naff all difference; the length and direction of the street can often be more important.

+1 with conditions. While you can see someone clearly without lights it doesn't mean you can see someone & evaluate what they are doing quickly.

 

[Cab]

+1 with conditions. While you can see someone clearly without lights it doesn't mean you can see someone & evaluate what they are doing quickly.

It all comes down to conditions on the road really. On a well lit and typically twisty city street it would be very hard to argue that lights increase visibility. I don't argue that we shouldn't be lit up (front and rear light, secondary rear flashing light, flashing armband and reflector strips for me!), merely that we make far too much out of the bulk of cycling without lights. Dark country roads, poorly lit suburbs, thats one thing, but the VAST bulk of cyclists I see without lights are perfectly visible.

 

[Crankarm]

It all comes down to conditions on the road really. On a well lit and typically twisty city street it would be very hard to argue that lights increase visibility. I don't argue that we shouldn't be lit up (front and rear light, secondary rear flashing light, flashing armband and reflector strips for me!), merely that we make far too much out of the bulk of cycling without lights. Dark country roads, poorly lit suburbs, thats one thing, but the VAST bulk of cyclists I see without lights are perfectly visible.

Absolute tosh. I was walking around Cambridge this evening toward The Backs and there were lots of student/lecturer types cycling without lights in black or dark clothing who were practically invisible. It must have been almost impossible to see them in the headlights of an approaching car behind them. Then I was going down Grange Road through a set of traffic lights on GREEN when this stupid bitch RLJs straight toward me. She doesn't even stop almost crashing into me taking me out. She only didn't as I braked really hard and shouted at her. She didn't have any lights but had a beige coloured coat on .

So don't talk bout lights being an optional extra as they are definitely NOT. The responsible road user and cyclist will have them and more often than not more than one and also be wearing hi-viz reflective clothing. I can see why drivers get so irate as it is highly irresponsible to cycle without lights at night wearing dark clothing .

 

[totallyfixed]

So don't talk bout lights being an optional extra as they are definitely NOT. The responsible road user and cyclist will have them and more often than not more than one and also be wearing hi-viz reflective clothing. I can see why drivers get so irate as it is highly irresponsible to cycle w
ithout lights at night wearing dark clothing .

+1

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...

+1
I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas. The law for once is correct but as is so often the case in this country it's not enforced. A cyclist without lights deserves all they get.

 

[marinyork]

I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas. The law for once is correct but as is so often the case in this country it's not enforced. A cyclist without lights deserves all they get.

That does happen. It's not that unheard of to see all lights on one side of a car broken or that car not with its lights on. Doesn't create a fuss at all. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that sometimes people drive around with defectives for weeks or months.

 

[swee'pea99]

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. Yes. I think it was. And it's bollocks. That's my point, as I would have thought was clear.

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." I would hesitate at 'completely', but I wouldn't take much persuading of 'overwhelmingly'.

People who ride after dark without lights, especially coupled (as is so often the case) with dark/black clothing, are a bloody menace - a danger to themselves and others. It is indefensible. End of, as far as I'm concerned.