Dark cycle users.

[Ming the Merciless]

We need this.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/01/paris-car-ban-seine-anne-hidalgo/512534/

 

[jefmcg]

Here, granny, this is how you suck an egg!

Well, I'm not a granny, but I do suck - so, half right.

 

[Welsh wheels]

It's your choice what to wear and whether to use lights or not so I don't see what the problem is.

I'm afraid I disagree that it's your choice whether or not to use lights. Firstly, it is against the law not to use lights after dark and secondly it's very foolish to cycle around after dark with no lights.

 

[Welsh wheels]

As we all know, it's common to see folk on bikes on the roads after dark who inevitably wear dark clothing and have no lights on said bikes. This is something I'd be too scared to do in case of the inevitable. If as a driver, you had a collision with said cycle user, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd try and blame you for the event.
Or is it just me being too cautious - ?

I see too many people riding around in the city where I live without lights. Mostly clueless people who don't know how to stay safe on the roads.

 

[mjr]

I'm afraid I disagree that it's your choice whether or not to use lights. Firstly, it is against the law not to use lights after dark and secondly it's very foolish to cycle around after dark with no lights.

I agree it's against the law, but people can still choose whether or not to break the law (at least until the Department of Precrime starts up). As explained in the post before the one you quoted, I don't think it's particularly foolish, although I wouldn't do it.

I see too many people riding around in the city where I live without lights. Mostly clueless people who don't know how to stay safe on the roads.

And yet, you see them and it's mostly not people riding after dark without lights who are road casualties...

 

[youngoldbloke]

And yet, you see them and it's mostly not people riding after dark without lights who are road casualties...

You may well see the cyclist without lights, and light clothing, but you see them later than you see the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing, allowing you to adjust speed and road position sooner, and thus more safely. On unlit country roads this is even more true.

 

[mjr]

You may well see the cyclist without lights, and light clothing, but you see them later than you see the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing, allowing you to adjust speed and road position sooner, and thus more safely. On unlit country roads this is even more true.

In other words, the cyclist with lights and reflective clothing is enabling motorists to violate Highway Code rule 126 ("Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear") - and this is good because...?

 

[youngoldbloke]

round and round and round we go .... do you drive mjr? Do you ever drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you never been surprised that the single light approaching is actually just the nearside headlight of a car, and not a motorbike. Of course you've seen it, but it's much safer to see two lights isn't it?
I didn't say one couldn't stop within the distance you can see to be clear, I said it was safer for all concerned to be able to react sooner rather than later.

 

[mjr]

round and round and round we go .... do you drive mjr? Do you ever drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you never been surprised that the single light approaching is actually just the nearside headlight of a car, and not a motorbike. Of course you've seen it, but it's much safer to see two lights isn't it?

Yes, yes and not particularly. Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them. You shouldn't rely on them precisely because they so often mislead due to things like the very common vehicles with one failed headlight or the increasingly frequent totally unlit cars, plus things like animals and debris moving around.

Don't you drive? Don't you drive on unlit country roads at night? Have you ever had to deal with a deer running out of the roadside forest and freezing directly in front of you?

I didn't say one couldn't stop within the distance you can see to be clear, I said it was safer for all concerned to be able to react sooner rather than later.

And I said I don't see how it's safer. If you're driving so that you can comfortably react safely within the distance you can see, how can it be any safer to react to something you can only see lights or reflective bits of?

 

[youngoldbloke]

Of course I drive on unlit country roads at night - hence my observations.
'Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them.' - that's an interesting statement. What is the function of 'side lights' or 'daytime running lights'? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? I find it helpful to see the rear light of a cyclist ahead - although, as is suggested, I would see them later anyway, even if unlit, as I would an unlit truck, car or motorcycle. Why are these, in your opinion, unnecessary lights required?
I sometimes see dead deer - 'road kill', I have never hit one, but I have swerved (dangerously) to avoid pheasants - I think I was travelling at around 20 mph (and it was in daylight). I now put my safety first. I suspect sometimes such creatures are unavoidable. What speed do you think I should I be driving at on onlit country roads at night to ensure their safety?

 

[mjr]

Of course I drive on unlit country roads at night - hence my observations.

I don't see why it's "of course" - it wasn't deducible from the post.

'Their headlights are for them to see with, not me to see them.' - that's an interesting statement. What is the function of 'side lights' or 'daytime running lights'? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? They don't provide much illumination of the road do they? What about rear lights? I find it helpful to see the rear light of a cyclist ahead - although, as is suggested, I would see them later anyway, even if unlit, as I would an unlit truck, car or motorcycle. Why are these, in your opinion, unnecessary lights required?

Their function is to further distract from motorists' responsibility to drive within what they can see and they're required because our MPs in the 1930s/40s were already overwhelmingly motorists or sympathisers. You may find it interesting to reread the stonkingly prescient reasons that CTC opposed compulsory rear lights back then.

I sometimes see dead deer - 'road kill', I have never hit one, but I have swerved (dangerously) to avoid pheasants - I think I was travelling at around 20 mph (and it was in daylight). I now put my safety first. I suspect sometimes such creatures are unavoidable. What speed do you think I should I be driving at on onlit country roads at night to ensure their safety?

It depends on the clearance of the vehicle from roadside cover. On a wide carriageway bordered by cycleways, footways, mown verges and neighbouring fields low crops, you can safely go faster than on a single-car-width road with hedges right up against the road. There's probably some formula involving stopping distances and X and Y visibility distances (as seen in road design manuals) that could decide exactly what's safe but I need to leave my desk before six.

 

[youngoldbloke]

I thought the comments in my post 157 indicated my experiences as a driver, as did 'On unlit country roads this is even more true'. The route to the nearest town involves travelling on unlit single carriageway A roads, NSL 60mph, with short stretches through villages with 50 and 40 mph limits. I make the journey at night at least once a week. Cyclists are a rarity at night, and pedestrians almost non existent.

 

[winjim]

I thought the comments in my post 157 indicated my experiences as a driver, as did 'On unlit country roads this is even more true'. The route to the nearest town involves travelling on unlit single carriageway A roads, NSL 60mph, with short stretches through villages with 50 and 40 mph limits. I make the journey at night at least once a week. Cyclists are a rarity at night, and pedestrians almost non existent.

There are loads of them. You just can't see them because they're not lit up.

 

[youngoldbloke]

There are loads of them. You just can't see them because they're not lit up.

I didn't want to write 'and you never see pedestrians' for obvious reasons - there just aren't many about on this stretch of road, most of which has no footway, except through the 50 and 40 mph zones and as you near the town, where you often encounter joggers. (Many of whom wear hiviz/reflective gilets .......) Actually it is quite common for people walking around here to carry torches at night too.

 

[winjim]

I didn't want to write 'and you never see pedestrians' for obvious reasons - there just aren't many about on this stretch of road, most of which has no footway, except through the 50 and 40 mph zones and as you near the town, where you often encounter joggers. (Many of whom wear hiviz/reflective gilets .......) Actually it is quite common for people walking around here to carry torches at night too.

Round here we get the horrible combination of oncoming cyclists with super-bright front lights approahing on the right, and oncoming joggers with super-bright head torches approaching on the left. It's really disorienting.