Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[MartinC]

People who ride after dark without lights are riding illegally, stupidly and unneccessarily putting themselves at risk.

People who drive at night and can't stop in the distance they can see with their lights are a danger to themselves and others.

People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.

 

[Tollers]

People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.

OK. Seeing as i started this thread, i need to chip in. If you look at my original post i talk about people pulling out of junctions with no lights on, resulting in my having to take evasive action. There are certainly places on my commute where i'd like to sprint, but have suddenly this week become way too dangerous to do so.

We all take our own safety seriously. Martin, prehaps you havent had the same experiences as I, in which case you're blessed and i envy you. Some may empathise, some might not.

I don't think anyone is frothing at the mouth, but being annoyed and venting about life's little frustrations is what the internet was made for!

Tollers

 

[Rhythm Thief]

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.

Still, riding without lights is a stupid thing to do. And (be honest with yourself), can you imagine how aerated you'd get if we were discussing motor vehicles without lights? You wouldn't be finding excuses for them.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

People who ride after dark without lights are riding illegally, stupidly and unneccessarily putting themselves at risk.

People who drive at night and can't stop in the distance they can see with their lights are a danger to themselves and others.

As I explained earlier, the distance you can see to be clear changes very quickly if someone's hiding in it.

People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.

No, I think it's fair enough. It reflects badly on all of us.

 

[jambo123]

Hello folks. First post here. Recent convert to the world of commuting and so far enjoying the ride. Anyway, last night, cycling home, I saw a man dressed in black, riding with no lights, carrying his daughter - who was no older than four - across the handlebar. Crazy.

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.

While I agree with you about the primary responsibility being with the vehicle driver, you're making an assumption that all of them are as sensible as you. Clearly, that's not the case. For my own safety, I assume that all drivers are incompetent, tired, distracted, in a hurry etc.

The point you seem to be making is that cyclists would be fine if only drivers drove sensibly. That's fine, but not much consolation to the poor cyclist without lights who just got knocked off because the driver didn't see him soon enough.

 

[ferret fur]

Large numbers of lightless cyclists in Edinburgh yesterday pm. I wonder if it has anything to do with the clocks going back?

 

[MartinC]

As I explained earlier, the distance you can see to be clear changes very quickly if someone's hiding in it.



No, I think it's fair enough. It reflects badly on all of us.

I've already said that I think drivers of HGV's who already have to maintain a high level of observation to ensure thy're driving safely might be miffed at people who are doing nothing to help themselves be observed. I can understand you taking them to task.

However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.

Your second point point I don't accept. If some people want to stereotype others as a group and assign behaviour to them then they should be challenged, not pandered to. I don't hold you responsible for how other HGV drivers behave and I don't expect you think I should

 

[Norm]

However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.

Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close.

Even if the obstacle (cows are even worse than cyclists!) is within the reach of dipped beams, you might not be able to "see" that there is anything there, even without the distractions of oncoming traffic, bollards, road signs etc.

 

[MartinC]

Tollers, your original post and the poll are fine. I just find a lot of the reaction to it to be totally disproportionate to the problem and a manifestation of the totally car centric culture in the UK.

 

[Origamist]

Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close.

That said, in urban environments with competing light sources (road lighting, neon/LED signs, xenon lamps, office lighting, reflections, glare etc) black can often stand out as a silhouette in the way that a flouro yellow top sometimes does not.

 

[MartinC]

Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close.

Even if the obstacle (cows are even worse than cyclists!) is within the reach of dipped beams, you might not be able to "see" that there is anything there, even without the distractions of oncoming traffic, bollards, road signs etc.

That's a useful generalisation. At night it's hard to distinguish dark objects from the road background. The difficulty of doing it doesn't mean you don't have to bother. It means you have to drive more slowly. It's also why it's a good idea to have bright lights if you're cycling - it means you stand a better chance of mitigating the effects of the drivers who aren't taking enough care.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I expect other road users to conform to a reasonable minimum standard of visibility at night, and that having lights on the bike on an unlit rural B road is really not too much to ask. Not having lights is rather akin to hiding in the hedge and jumping out 50 yards in front of me. And bear in mind, I don't drive like a loony ... 25 - 30 mph is quite enough with a full tanker of sludge behind me. Besides, the argument is fine in principle - I can see your point - but it's very little consolation for a flat cyclist to argue that "he should have been going slower, then he'd have seen me even without lights".

Your second point point I don't accept. If some people want to stereotype others as a group and assign behaviour to them then they should be challenged, not pandered to. I don't hold you responsible for how other HGV drivers behave and I don't expect you think I should

I agree, to an extent. I never see myself as an ambassador for cycling, or for lorry drivers. But I know there are plenty of drivers who do take their frustration at red light jumpers and all the rest of it out on any cyclist. That's why cyclists without lights are a bad thing; it's a bit of a kick in the teeth for those of us who want to be taken seriously and treated like proper road users.

 

[Norm]

Martin, I feel, from your tone, that you are trying to have a go at me for something.

You said above that RT's point made little sense to you, I was just trying to explain that, generalisation or not, it is possible for dark clothing to allow something to remain effectively hidden, even when illuminated by your headlights.

Whilst I'm sure we always try to travel at a speed which allows us to stop in the distance that we can see to be clear, it is also possible for that distance to be under 40 feet. To use the quidance from the highway code, that would require every unlit road to be travelled at speeds of below 20mph, just on the off-chance that some unlit numpty, or cow, wants to remove himself from the gene pool.

 

[MartinC]

Martin, I feel, from your tone, that you are trying to have a go at me for something.

You said above that RT's point made little sense to you, I was just trying to explain that, generalisation or not, it is possible for dark clothing to allow something to remain effectively hidden, even when illuminated by your headlights.

Whilst I'm sure we always try to travel at a speed which allows us to stop in the distance that we can see to be clear, it is also possible for that distance to be under 40 feet. To use the quidance from the highway code, that would require every unlit road to be travelled at speeds of below 20mph, just on the off-chance that some unlit numpty, or cow, wants to remove himself from the gene pool.

Not having a go at you. Having a go at the assumption that it's too onerous to drive at a speed you can stop in the distance you can see so you don't have to bother and it's everyone else job to make sure the way is clear.

IIRC on the night of the great wind in '87 a number of motorists were described as having been killed or injured by fallen trees (I can't recall the numbers but I think it was well into double figures). Only one had had a tree fall on their car - the rest had driven into fallen trees. Unlit numpties?

 

[Norm]

Unlit numpties?

A dozen drivers in a particularly big storm 22 years ago.... so yeah, if you want to use that as justification for reducing our speeds to 20mph on every unlit road, I can go with unlit numpties.