Cyclists with no lights...grrrr

[Dan B]

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.

If that was the entirety of the argument being put forward, I'd share your puzzlement. But what it seems to be is actually "cycling at night on an unlit country road without lights is very dangerous, therefore any cycling anywhere without lights is very dangerous and selfish". This isn't true, and rings especially false for those of us whose experience of unlit cyclists is in well-lit urban areas, where they're usually at least as visible (if not more so, due to pedal reflectors and suchlike) as the similarly unlit pedestrians in the road. It's not the basic argument that's a problem, it's the generalisation

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Even the argument that cyclists without lights are reasonably visible in well lit urban areas is only true if you happen to be looking directly at them. In a driver's peripheral vision and, crucially (especially for lorry drivers), in the rearview mirrors, it's not at all true. The "pedestrian" comparison falls down here, since it's not usual to find a pedestrian who needs to be seen in your rearview mirrors. Besides, I don't see what's so difficult about buying a couple of LED lights and sticking one on each end of your bike. It's hardly a massive expenditure or a huge amount of effort, and given that, I don't understand why all this effort is going into defending unlit cyclists.

 

[wafflycat]

Even the argument that cyclists without lights are reasonably visible in well lit urban areas is only true if you happen to be looking directly at them. In a driver's peripheral vision and, crucially (especially for lorry drivers), in the rearview mirrors, it's not at all true. The "pedestrian" comparison falls down here, since it's not usual to find a pedestrian who needs to be seen in your rearview mirrors. Besides, I don't see what's so difficult about buying a couple of LED lights and sticking one on each end of your bike. It's hardly a massive expenditure or a huge amount of effort, and given that, I don't understand why all this effort is going into defending unlit cyclists.

+1

 

[Cab]

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

The discussion is about how big a risk a cyclist poses to himself and others when doing something that we (pretty much) all agree is not great. That we don't all agree with you about how inappropriate it is does not make us apologists, no matter how hard you try to polarise this discussion along that line.

 

[Cab]

Trolls you need to the Highway Code.

And you need to read what you're arguing against. I see no one arguing that cyclists should break this law, merely that to do so is not always as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

The discussion is about how big a risk a cyclist poses to himself and others when doing something that we (pretty much) all agree is not great.

I don't know that we do all agree that. While there may well be no physical risk to me if I squash one of these selfish idiots while I'm at work tonight, I don't give much for my chances of driving a lorry or sleeping particularly well for a while. And if I can't drive a lorry, where do you suggest my mortgage payments come from?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

And you need to read what you're arguing against. I see no one arguing that cyclists should break this law, merely that to do so is not always as big a deal as you're making it out to be.

It seems to me that it's even less of a big deal to actually go and spend a few quid on some lights.

 

[BentMikey]

It's also not a big deal to drive at a speed where I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear. That includes unlit cyclists and pedestrians.

And I'm not apologising for any unlit idiots, it's not what I'd do as you can no doubt tell from the lights on my bikes. I'm also not going to be a moton apologist [1] either, expecting to speed everywhere and not be able to stop for unlit idiots. It's a good example of one thing that is wrong with car culture, that's what it is.

[1] because that seems to be what you guys are proposing.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

It's also not a big deal to drive at a speed where I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear. That includes unlit cyclists and pedestrians.

And I'm not apologising for any unlit idiots, it's not what I'd do as you can no doubt tell from the lights on my bikes. I'm also not going to be a moton apologist [1] either, expecting to speed everywhere and not be able to stop for unlit idiots. It's a good example of one thing that is wrong with car culture, that's what it is.

[1] because that seems to be what you guys are proposing.

You haven't read the rest of this thread, have you? No one is proposing that motorists should be able to drive at whatever speed they like, merely that it's rather unsporting of cyclists to suddenly cut the distance a motorist can see to be clear by hiding in it. Representing the position of those arguing against unlit cyclists in such a way is rather like me representing your position as saying "cyclists should be allowed to do what they like". Which, I'm pretty sure, is not what you're saying at all.

 

[BentMikey]

Well, there certainly is a bit of polarisation going on, with many on the opposing side of the debate suggesting that it's entirely the cyclists' own fault if there's a crash when they are not wearing lights.

Let's have a little bit of fairness here, and remember that the drivers also bear responsibility and duty for driving in a way that they can see. See things like pedestrians, fallen trees, etc. Do they also hide in plain sight? Do people drive without seeing what their headlights show them?

 

[hackbike 666]

The one thing that surprises me with this poll is the vast difference in cyclists who have or haven't used lights in the drk this week.Based on my commutes it seems to be commonplace for cyclist to have no lights,esp on very early morning commutes.

 

[BentMikey]

The one thing that surprises me with this poll is the vast difference in cyclists who have or haven't used lights in the drk this week.Based on my commutes it seems to be commonplace for cyclist to have no lights,esp on very early morning commutes.

I think that's because we're pretty much all enthusiasts on here, so we care to do cycling things well.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Well, there certainly is a bit of polarisation going on, with many on the opposing side of the debate suggesting that it's entirely the cyclists' own fault if there's a crash when they are not wearing lights.

Let's have a little bit of fairness here, and remember that the drivers also bear responsibility and duty for driving in a way that they can see. See things like pedestrians, fallen trees, etc. Do they also hide in plain sight? Do people drive without seeing what their headlights show them?

But no one is suggesting that the driver doesn't bear some responsibility. And I should say that I've never actually hit an unlit cyclist, a fallen tree, or anything else in the circumstances you describe. But I still think it's a little odd that anyone's defending these goons in any way. Whether all drivers should drive like you say is one thing, but the fact is that they don't. That being the case, any cyclist owes it to themselves to give themselves as much chance as possible, and given the small cost and ready availability of bicycle lights these days, that doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask. Your "fallen tree and pedestrian" analogy is not entirely valid, since pedestrians are usually (but not always) separated from motor traffic by being on the pavement, or walking facing the traffic, where they can see if they need to take evasive action.
Incidentally, no one has yet answered my point about unlit cyclists creeping around in people's mirrors. This has nothing to do with driving in the distance you can see to be clear and everything to do with cyclists seemingly going out of their way to be as invisible as possible. Why do we need to defend that sort of behaviour?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I think that's because we're pretty much all enthusiasts on here, so we care to do cycling things well.

Yes, I agree. I'm surprised the number of "yes" votes is as high as seven, to be honest.

 

[BentMikey]

Your "fallen tree and pedestrian" analogy is not entirely valid, since pedestrians are usually (but not always) separated from motor traffic by being on the pavement, or walking facing the traffic, where they can see if they need to take evasive action.

That is moton apology in action.

p.s. you keep saying how I defend the cyclists, but my recent post makes it exceedingly clear I do exactly the opposite.