Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[swee'pea99]

I do n't think he's a exactly, just one of these people who can't admit they're wrong. The point where I lose patience is the repetition of 'they're only endangering themselves'. If that were true, I'd have no problem. But it isn't.

 

[swee'pea99]

PS. I'd still think they were morons, mind.

 

[MartinC]

The original point I was making was that I can't see the justification for all the self righteous indignation that cycling without lights engenders. I'm not making any excuse for those that do it - it's illegal and stupid.

Taking a common sense view, by and large, unlit cyclists only put themselves at risk. I know the more excitable amongst you can contrive a set of circumstances where an unlit cyclist will trigger a set of circumstances that result in widespread death and destruction. Calm down. It's very unlikely.

Clearly, challenging the cant and hyperbole that surrounds the issue is more than some of you can bear. Resorting to abuse is just confirms that your capacity for rational argument has run out. Get over yourselves.

Incidentally, some of your posts give a disappointing insight into where the mindset I was questioning comes from.

 

[wafflycat]

The original point I was making was that I can't see the justification for all the self righteous indignation that cycling without lights engenders. I'm not making any excuse for those that do it - it's illegal and stupid.

Taking a common sense view, by and large, unlit cyclists only put themselves at risk. I know the more excitable amongst you can contrive a set of circumstances where an unlit cyclist will trigger a set of circumstances that result in widespread death and destruction. Calm down. It's very unlikely.

Clearly, challenging the cant and hyperbole that surrounds the issue is more than some of you can bear. Resorting to abuse is just confirms that your capacity for rational argument has run out. Get over yourselves.

Incidentally, some of your posts give a disappointing insight into where the mindset I was questioning comes from.

No they don't. If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist comes out from a side road and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.

 

[Crankarm]

No they don't. If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist comes out from a side road and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.

+1. Very cogently put WC.

 

[hackbike 666]

Im with WC on this considering I had a very nasty incident with an unlit clown last year.

I think your pointer here is how hard is it to see some peds who dress all in dark clothing?

 

[MartinC]

No they don't. If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist comes out from a side road and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.

With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.

I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.

 

[wafflycat]

With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.

I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.

No it's not contrived - it's real.

And why is the subject causing 'indignation' as you describe it, I'd describe it as discussion - perhaps because it's the subject of this thread whereas, for example, motorists driving with bald tyres isn't.

 

[Cab]

No it's not contrived - it's real.

You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?

It is fairly contrived.

 

[wafflycat]

You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?

It is fairly contrived.

Obviously you've never driven, walked or cycled down an unlit Norfolk lane at night. Because I can tell you that an unlit cyclist *does* effectively disappear into the background visually. Such a cyclist is NOT very visible on such a road.

All the apologists for any cyclists cycling thus can make all the excuses they want, which is remarkably like the 'two wheels good, four wheels bad' mantra, and it doesn't change a thing - that cycling at night without lights is not only illegal, it's stupid and does nothing to help the personal safety of the cyclist and does have an adverse effect on those who also happen to be using the road, whatever their mode of transport.

Indeed this pathetic excuse-seeking for cyclists who act in this illegal, selfish, unthinking and silly fashion is *pathetic* YMMV.

 

[Cab]

Obviously you've never driven, walked or cycled down an unlit Norfolk lane at night.

Argument based on personal incredulity? I've been along many a country lane at night.

Because I can tell you that an unlit cyclist *does* effectively disappear into the background visually. Such a cyclist is NOT very visible on such a road.

I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.

All the apologists for any cyclists cycling...

And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. No one is acting like that, no one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inappropriately. You're portraying the stance that you're disagreeing with as way more vehement than it is. Others have posted saying that its a problem but not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, that the moral indignation shown here is disproportionate to the risk. Indeed that you are over-stating the problem. I agree with them.

And to be honest your near hysterical mis-portrayal of the argument put to you does you no credit at all. You're a good egg Wafflycat, this should be beneath you.

 

[wafflycat]

No-one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inapproriately? LOL!

 

[Crankarm]

With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.

I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.

Argument based on personal incredulity? I've been along many a country lane at night.

I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.

And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. No one is acting like that, no one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inappropriately. You're portraying the stance that you're disagreeing with as way more vehement than it is. Others have posted saying that its a problem but not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, that the moral indignation shown here is disproportionate to the risk. Indeed that you are over-stating the problem. I agree with them.

And to be honest your near hysterical mis-portrayal of the argument put to you does you no credit at all. You're a good egg Wafflycat, this should be beneath you.

Oh oh! Alert, Alert! Troll fest. Two trolls are festering.



Trolls you need to the Highway Code.

It is the law to have lights fitted to bicycles at night for good reason.

I'm a cyclist who wouldn't ever countenance cycling without lights after dark. In my travels I frequently encounter other cyclists on bikes and BSO without any lights. See my earlier post for my encounter with one last week. If I were in a larger vehicle such as a car I would be very annoyed that these peoples' cavalier and casual attitude to their safety by not equipping their bikes with lights would mean they involved me in possibly injurying them through no fault of my own if I collided with them as I couldn't see them in the darkness. As a cyclist I am just as annoyed as they can be lethal to other cyclists and pedestrians. These selfish eejits give all cyclists a bad image.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?

It is fairly contrived.

It's not contrived. I think you're underestimating just how many idiots ride bicycles.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.

But reflective strips only work when your headlights point at them. Not, say, when a cyclist is waiting at a side road.
Cycling at night on an unlit country road without lights is the mark of an idiot. There's no more to be said, really; I can't work out why we have a sizeable contingent who are ready to defend these people.