Sorry guys I've been busy today and not able to post and the discussion seems to have moved on. Sensibly too thanks largely to Rhythm Thief and Cab.
Coming back in it seems that many are reading things into what I (and others)are saying that really aren't there. This is what I posted originally:
MartinC said:
The bikes I ride at night have hub dynamos, B&M high performance standlights front and rear and backup LEDS for which I always carry spare batteries. I wouldn't ride in the dark without being well lit and do my very best to make sure I do all I can to prevent it happening.
There are 2 things I don't understand though.
Why are other cyclists so censorious of other cyclists who ride without lights? Lots of people do lots of things I don't agree with, wouldn't do myself or that I don't approve of. I think it's daft but essentially it's their risk and nothing to do with me. I'd agree that people like Rythm Thief have grounds to feel inconvenienced by it but others objections seem contrived. Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?
Secondly I can't understand the point of view that it's totally the unlit cyclist's fault if they get hit. Sure they've contributed to the accident by not taking sensible steps to mitigate the risks but there's also a fundamental responsibility when driving/riding to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see. If you hit a dark object at night you clearly weren't doing this and must bear some of the blame.
Reading threads about it puts me in mind of the Daily Mail.
It seems to me that what good and responsible drivers like Wafflycat and Rhthym Thief are saying is this. The extreme cases (cyclists riding badly, in dark clothes, unlit and on pitch black country roads) increases the stress involved in driving properly and creates the fear of being involved in an accident despite their best endeavours to avoid it. I have a lot of sympathy with this view, especially for RT who has an onerous responsibility at the best of times.
Nevertheless cyclists without lights aren't the only unlit hazard or obstruction on the road that must be allowed for and this stress is always going to be present.
Cycling without lights is, in my view, always anti social. That it's quite correctly illegal isn't being challenged. What I don't accept is the condemnation of any unlit cycling as automatically extremely dangerous for the offender and all the people they share the road with. I'm extremely suspicious of the origin of much of this castigation - it seems like the standard knee jerk reaction of the UK motorist who expects, like Mr Toad, that all the lower, less entitled, classes of road user get out of his way. I think that some cyclists too also view these ignorants as a lower order.
It's interesting that most of this discussion has been focussed around the needs of the motorist. The OP started the thread with his reaction to the impact unlit cyclist were having on him as a cyclist. In my view the people most at risk from unlit cyclists are pedestrians but if IIRC they've only figured in this discussion as another group who should be well lit if they want to stray onto the motorist's road.