Do you use your lights in the day light hours

[mjr]

Not so lucky for the rabbit though!

The foot might still be attached to the rabbit!

(source)

 

[Vantage]

So is it that you don't think distracting people from other perfectly legal unlit cyclists is rather anti-social and that encouraging light use in daytime is a waste of energy, or that you don't think they're valid reasons, or what?

I'm a bit slow today. What are you asking?

 

[Drago]

I think he's asking you on a date.

 

[mjr]

I'm a bit slow today. What are you asking?

You wrote that there was no reason not to light up in daytime... so I'm asking if you disagree with the suggested reasons or what?

 

[nickyboy]

So is it that you don't think distracting people from other perfectly legal unlit cyclists is rather anti-social and that encouraging light use in daytime is a waste of energy, or that you don't think they're valid reasons, or what?

I saw that you used this argument upthread ie. by using day time lights this potentially puts those not using day time lights at greater harm. I didn't bother replying at the time but as you mention it again I think I might.

My personal safety is exactly that, personal. I will take whatever actions I deem necessary to make myself safe on my bike. That may or may not include day time lights. If another cyclist chooses not to use lights or whatever then that's up to them. But please don't suggest that I shouldn't take an action that I consider will make me safer, just to help some other cyclist who chooses not to do so

 

[mjr]

My personal safety is exactly that, personal. I will take whatever actions I deem necessary to make myself safe on my bike. That may or may not include day time lights. If another cyclist chooses not to use lights or whatever then that's up to them. But please don't suggest that I shouldn't take an action that I consider will make me safer, just to help some other cyclist who chooses not to do so

How far do you take that beggar-thy-neighbour attitude? Would you consider it acceptable to push another cyclist into traffic if it might help you avoid a collision?

Sharing the roads seems inherently a social task. Lighting up motivated by attracting more attention than you should get (rather than lighting up to help oneself see or to comply with the law) seems anti-social whether it works or not.

 

[Vantage]

You wrote that there was no reason not to light up in daytime... so I'm asking if you disagree with the suggested reasons or what?

I wrote that there was no reason for me not to light up. As it costs nothing to power dynamo lights, I might as well run them all the time.
I do wonder why you might think that my decision to use daytime lights is in anyway antisocial towards riders who choose not to use day lights though. If they believe that their lack of lights puts them at no more risk than I with my lights, where is the problem?

 

[Vantage]

How far do you take that beggar-thy-neighbour attitude? Would you consider it acceptable to push another cyclist into traffic if it might help you avoid a collision?

Sharing the roads seems inherently a social task. Lighting up motivated by attracting more attention than you should get (rather than lighting up to help oneself see or to comply with the law) seems anti-social whether it works or not.

People have the right to take whatever safety measures to protect themselves as they deem fit as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
There are fixie riders who choose not to fit brakes to their bikes. Do you suggest we all remove our brakes so we're all equally at risk?

 

[mjr]

People have the right to take whatever safety measures to protect themselves as they deem fit as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.
There are fixie riders who choose not to fit brakes to their bikes. Do you suggest we all remove our brakes so we're all equally at risk?

I don't see why that would be comparable?

One cyclist lighting up to grab attention does cause harm to others: if it works, by taking attention away from others; and even if it does nothing, by encouraging a public expectation that cyclists should be needlessly lit at all times which may have consequences in motorist behaviour and court rulings and so on.

 

[fossyant]

Yes. In the event of a collision, it makes my legal position a bit better. Too many motorists will use any excuse to pretend they never saw me, so this makes their position weaker.

They still use the same excuse. That's the excuse the driver used in my case.

 

[fossyant]

I don't see why that would be comparable?

One cyclist lighting up to grab attention does cause harm to others: if it works, by taking attention away from others; and even if it does nothing, by encouraging a public expectation that cyclists should be needlessly lit at all times which may have consequences in motorist behaviour and court rulings and so on.

I work on the assumption of covering my own backside. So if conditions are questionable or say I'd set out in low light I would leave my lights on rather than stop.
The driver's insurance will try everything argue contibutory negligence in an event of an accident.

I've been there. The third partys insurer have said they will try for that in my case. Exactly what they will argue is beyond me as they have admitted primary liability. If it saves them money they will. I had lights on and bright clothing.

The more you do to cover your own backside the better in an accident. These insurance companies are sneaky swines.

 

[Vantage]

I don't see why that would be comparable?

One cyclist lighting up to grab attention does cause harm to others: if it works, by taking attention away from others; and even if it does nothing, by encouraging a public expectation that cyclists should be needlessly lit at all times which may have consequences in motorist behaviour and court rulings and so on.

Do you use lights at night? If so, why?

 

[fossyant]

DRL's are a big problem now for cyclists. They obliterate many cycle lights even if used. They also make it harder to see cyclists.

 

[mjr]

Do you use lights at night? If so, why?

To see and to reduce the risk of police attention. Would you answer my earlier questions, please?

 

[mjr]

The more you do to cover your own backside the better in an accident. These insurance companies are sneaky swines.

Indeed, many seem to be, but trying to second guess their fraudulent attempts to impose pointless practices isn't covering one's own backside: it's bending over and greasing up, plus helping them to get their next victim!

I wish there was an insurer who promised to point out when there's no evidence supporting the other insurer's suggested anti-cycling measure and they'd have to prove otherwise in court to reduce their liability.