Cyclists without lights....

[Baggy]

Either you are trolling deliberately, or you're just a complete idiot. I'm erring towards the latter.

Facts Lee has given us:

He was a messenger years ago
He has ridden over 22000 miles
He's in his 20's

I'm assuming that he does of course mean 22000 miles a year, otherwise the "I was a messenger" maths doesn't quite work out

If he's not trolling, good luck to him on not being turned into road-toffee. But nobody's going to change his mind.

 

[Baggy]

I put the second sentence in there to illustrate that I don't agree with the first one: in the first one I was just paraphrasing the reasons that have been given. Don't shoot the messenger.

Ah, I thought you could see his logic and were agreeing.

 

[Origamist]

Facts Lee has given us:

He was a messenger years ago
He has ridden over 22000 miles
He's in his 20's

I'm assuming that he does of course mean 22000 miles a year, otherwise the "I was a messenger" maths doesn't quite work out

If he's not trolling, good luck to him on not being turned into road-toffee. But nobody's going to change his mind.

He did actually say earlier in the thread:

"I understand what people are saying with the use of lights but sometimes I like to ride without".

This suggests he doesn't do it as a matter of course and is proabably not convinced by his own rationale (otherwise he would ride without lights all the time).

 

[swee'pea99]

And here's me still baffled...why would you 'like' to ride without lights? What's to like?

 

[Cab]

Generally, when I see a cyclist on the streets without lights, I don't care. I mean, it doesn't matter, I've seen him. All too often people complain about the number of cyclists they see without lights on in cities, and I feel they're missing the point.

I use lights because I think its marginally safer on the routes I ride to do so, and because it is a legal requirement if cycling in the dark. I don't believe I'm very much more visible with lights on than with good reflectors and bright clothing, as I'm almost always on well lit city streets where effective visibility is as far as the next corner.

While cyclists should of course have lights on, I do wish that those who most vocally complain about cyclists not all having them (frustrated motorists, for the most part) would get a sense of perspective.

 

[Lazy-Commuter]

Ah, I thought you could see his logic and were agreeing.

Re-reading it, I've missed out the word "apparently" at the end of the 1st sentence .. that might have made it clearer.

Anyway, I did a quick head-count on the way home last night and we ARE a good bunch of children round my way. Of six bikes on the way home, including me, we all had some kind of hi-vis / reflective / Sam Browne affair going on, everyone had lights on their bikes and 5 out of 6 of us were even using them.

The one guy who wasn't using his lights was OK as it went, 'cos it was dusk (half hour before sunset) and he was on the bridleway with nobody else about; well, other than me but I could see him from a way off 'cos it wasn't that dark. The others were on roads and so needed lights on.

 

[Baggy]

He did actually say earlier in the thread:

"I understand what people are saying with the use of lights but sometimes I like to ride without".

This suggests he doesn't do it as a matter of course and is proabably not convinced by his own rationale (otherwise he would ride without lights all the time).

But he's not actually said that, he's just gone on to offer arguments and examples about how riding without has given him better riding skills.

He also said earlier he hadn't said it was safer to ride without, but subsequently has kept arguing about why it's ok not to use them.

In summary, the argument is going nowhere.

 

[Origamist]

But he's not actually said that, he's just gone on to offer arguments and examples about how riding without has given him better riding skills.

He also said earlier he hadn't said it was safer to ride without, but subsequently has kept arguing about why it's ok not to use them.

In summary, the argument is going nowhere.

Well, he has: it's written down - but you're certainly right, contradictory statements abound.

As I've said, if Lee is being genuine that riding without lights heightens his perception, he'd do it all the time, not sometimes.

Lee just likes to argue the toss...

 

[swee'pea99]

Hello Lee! Hope we didn't wake you up. Now, about that actual benefit of riding without lights...?

 

[swee'pea99]

There is no ''actual benefit''

Well, that's about as clear as it gets. Thanks!

 

[MartinC]

I have friends who are partially sighted. To them people like User3143 are selfish twits. I tend to agree with them.

 

[MartinC]

Thank you, I'll add that to the list. Your friends who are partially sighted are they peds or drivers?

Flippant. Are you able to respond to the obvious and substantive point? Riding in the dark without lights makes it hard for pedestrians with poor sight to see you.

 

[MartinC]

Point 1 - there's no way that you can know that you always see pedestrians in the dark. Believing that you can is dangerous overconfidence.

Point 2 - they can't see you. If your argument is that because you can see them you can always mitigate all the risks then this is dangerous overconfidence too. It's also very arrogant.

 

[MartinC]

I can see any and all peds that would interfere with the line I take on a bike. You would be surprised how well the human eye can see with fully adjusted night vision.

Believing you can do that in any light conditions is arrogant and foolish.

It also ignores the point that other people (however acute their sight is) need to see you. Disregarding that is also arrogant and foolish.

 

[hackbike 6]

This thread is funny.Well done.

19 Pages?