Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[Tollers]

Hello folks. First post here.

Welcome Jambo. Hope you like it here!

Tollers

 

[Grendel]

Saw a few last night, although 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.
I did see a studenty type with no hi-viz gear and a single red steady light, but amongst all the other lights he did seem to get a bit lost in the whole thing.

 

[Cab]

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.

On the backs I'd agree with you. Shady, irregularly lit, yep, lights are an absolute must there. Isn't a typical well lit bit of city centre by any means.

 

[Cab]

I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas.

I wouldn't particularly care to be honest. If they're going at an appropriate speed and visible... Should it upset me?

 

[Cab]

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.

I entirely agree that you should have lights! But on most town centre streets I find no visibility difference based on vehicles (bikes or cars or whatever) being well lit. If anything, lighter coloured clothes (or paintwork) and reflectors are more useful.

I think we over-react to cyclists without lights. They're in the wrong, but I'm not seeing a good sense of perspective here.

 

[MartinC]

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.

No, hyperbole, the point I was making was that it was common sense to drive so that you can stop within the distance you can see and that unlit cyclists aren't the only possible obstruction.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I entirely agree that you should have lights! But on most town centre streets I find no visibility difference based on vehicles (bikes or cars or whatever) being well lit. If anything, lighter coloured clothes (or paintwork) and reflectors are more useful.

I think we over-react to cyclists without lights. They're in the wrong, but I'm not seeing a good sense of perspective here.

I think we're arguing two different scenarios here. I'm basing my argument on my experience with unlit cyclists on an unlit rural B road on Monday night. I agree, it's less important in a well lit city centre, although it's surprising how things can disappear between streetlights. And, of course, an unlit cyclist (or any other road user) is that much harder to spot in a motorist's peripheral vision or wingmirrors than one with lights.

 

[Norm]

I have indeed made frequent reference to cows myself.

In the context of this thread, that is. The case on the other stuff I might or might not have been doing with cows is still pending and they can't prove anything unless they have photos of me doing it.

I take your point, as I made it myself, but you haven't yet commented about whether you feel that is justification for a blanket 20mph speed limit in unlit areas.

 

[GrasB]

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.

The other thing is sometimes it's hard to tell how much clear vision you have on the roads in the dark. Perspective & object perception can get morphed in the dark fairly easily as your brain miss-interprets the signals that the eyes are sending to it. From a physically incorrect picture of what you're looking at you've got a hard time to work out exactly how fast is to fast, more to the fact your standard reaction times have just gone out the window & you have no idea they have until you're put in the position of needing to react.

At the end of the day when you're driving, cycling, walking etc. you're balancing risks. At some point there's a decision which says this an acceptable balance & that is a judgement call, you really have a responsibility to minimise the impact of other peoples misjudgements.

 

[MartinC]

you haven't yet commented about whether you feel that is justification for a blanket 20mph speed limit in unlit areas.

This was your idea. Can't see that the requirement to drive inside the distance you can see translates into a blanket ban in unlit areas- far to many variables. If you hit something that was there then clearly you weren't doing it. If you can't judge it then you shouldn't be driving.

 

[Norm]

This was your idea. Can't see that the requirement to drive inside the distance you can see translates into a blanket ban in unlit areas- far to many variables. If you hit something that was there then clearly you weren't doing it. If you can't judge it then you shouldn't be driving.

It was my idea, thanks.

If the distance that you can see is under 40 feet, then a direct corollary of your "drive within the limit of what you can clearly see" is that no-one on dipped beam should under any circumstances drive at more than 20mph on an unlit road.

IMO.

 

[MartinC]

The other thing is sometimes it's hard to tell how much clear vision you have on the roads in the dark. Perspective & object perception can get morphed in the dark fairly easily as your brain miss-interprets the signals that the eyes are sending to it. From a physically incorrect picture of what you're looking at you've got a hard time to work out exactly how fast is to fast, more to the fact your standard reaction times have just gone out the window & you have no idea they have until you're put in the position of needing to react.

At the end of the day when you're driving, cycling, walking etc. you're balancing risks. At some point there's a decision which says this an acceptable balance & that is a judgement call, you really have a responsibility to minimise the impact of other peoples misjudgements.

Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.

I can understand why you think the argument is "unbalanced" (without necessarily agreeing with you, mind), but I don't understand why you seem to be trying to find excuses for the sort of nutter who rides around at night with no lights on. After all, if "One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people", surely that applies to cyclists too?

 

[ketka82uk]

Was in shock this evening, cycling back through Hammersmith when I saw a woman cycling along with her kid on a trailer bike and no lights whatsoever. Unbelievable! I just couldn't get over the utter stupidity of someone who would put their child in danger like that....

Sometimes, though, you can have lights that are too bright. Earlier on in my commute I was blinded by a cyclist running some serious equipment in a well-lit area - we're talking serious lumina usually saved for off-road mtbing in the pitch black. Whatever it was it was way brighter than car headlights on full beam. Almost burnt my retinas out!!

 

[Crankarm]

Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.

I can understand why you think the argument is "unbalanced" (without necessarily agreeing with you, mind), but I don't understand why you seem to be trying to find excuses for the sort of nutter who rides around at night with no lights on. After all, if "One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people", surely that applies to cyclists too?

I think MartinC is just being obtuse for sake of it. He's really a .

Perhaps he can provide his name, description of his bike and likely location where he will be riding it in the dark without lights so we can arrange for plod to rendezvous with him to give him some words of advice and a little present, an FPN .