Frightening ....

[Davidc]

Which would put you in the wrong. What happened to driving at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead of you?

I did say sympathies.

At night an unlit bike with a darkly clothed rider, no reflectors, etc. is effectively invisible. As is a pedestrian in the same condition.

If a car's going at a speed at which they can stop for a cyclist meeting the minimum legal lighting and reflecting requirement that's all you can reasonably expect.

Although pedestrians don't have a legal obligation to light up or reflect there's plenty of advice given to us to be seen.

When I'm out on my bike, or walking, after dark a driver would have to be totally blind not to see me! I don't do invisible.

 

[Cab]

At night an unlit bike with a darkly clothed rider, no reflectors, etc. is effectively invisible. As is a pedestrian in the same condition.

If a car's going at a speed at which they can stop for a cyclist meeting the minimum legal lighting and reflecting requirement that's all you can reasonably expect.

This is Hills Road, in Cambridge. Its well lit, there are a gazillion cyclists on it, and before you've even got a chance of missing one you've seen ten. Any motorists on it have to be going at a speed and driving in a way that takes that into account, else they're not driving safely for the conditions. So if there IS an accident on that road involving a cyclist, odds are my sympathies won't be with a driver who uses lack of lights as an excuse.

 

[BentMikey]

*rolls eyes*

So it's OK for a driver to drive so fast they can't avoid a tree in the road, or some other obstacle? Who cares, roads are only for cars.

 

[Cab]

*rolls eyes*

So it's OK for a driver to drive so fast they can't avoid a tree in the road, or some other obstacle? Who cares, roads are only for cars.

No one quite implied that. But its obviously true that if you're unlit at night on dark roads you're harder to see; the best motorist in the world can still make a mistake, and its fair to suggest that cyclists should do what they can (within reason) to reduce the risk of that. I agree that a motorist should be going at a speed appropriate for the prevailing conditions, and that includes being careful about immoveable obstacles like fallen trees, and while that means that a lot of the blame for such an incident should reside with the motorist, perhaps all of it should not.

 

[BentMikey]

Well yes, I agree. Your stance is considerably more reasonable, Cab.

 

[Davidc]

Cyclists cycling after dark without lights and wearing black/dark non reflective clothing are prime candidates for Darwin Awards IMHO. Most in Cambridge are students anyway. You would have thought they would have more brains. They are a menace to all road users whether they are pedestrians, motor vehicles or other cyclists. I find it intensely annoying that these selfish muppets just vindicate what the unhinged anti-cycling brigade habitually rant on about that cyclists are a lawless bunch of idiots who RLJ, cycle on pavements and cycle without lights. But the same thing happens every year about this time. Another 12 months and it will be coming around again.

The number of cars with only one headlight working is also very noticeable at this time of year as many drivers have made little use of them over the summer. The police call them winkers I believe which is similar to the word I use .

Unusual, but I totally agree with you Crankarm.

 

[Davidc]

This is Hills Road, in Cambridge. Its well lit, there are a gazillion cyclists on it, and before you've even got a chance of missing one you've seen ten. Any motorists on it have to be going at a speed and driving in a way that takes that into account, else they're not driving safely for the conditions. So if there IS an accident on that road involving a cyclist, odds are my sympathies won't be with a driver who uses lack of lights as an excuse.

I've been there and understand you. They all have to go somewhere though, and the end of the journey may not be so well lit.

 

[Davidc]

*rolls eyes*

So it's OK for a driver to drive so fast they can't avoid a tree in the road, or some other obstacle? Who cares, roads are only for cars.

No, but trees don't move, bikes do.

On a road thats as bright as daylight fine, on the roads at the end of the journey that's not a reasonable response. Most drivers don't want to hit anyone (too much hassle). If a cyclist makes it almost impossible to see them ....?

Interestingly in the Netherlands, where the driver is responsible for accidents by default, a cyclist without lights negates that and is held 100% responsible. (At least as I was told by the LBS owner in Schevenigen)

 

[andyfromotley]

I see quite a few in headingly (student area) with no lights on. Lat least think abut itately i have taken to shouting at them in a nice cheery tone 'you'll die soon unless you get lights on that bike!'. The fact that another cyclist rather than a motorist is shouting this does appear to make em think about it.

 

[Cab]

I've been there and understand you. They all have to go somewhere though, and the end of the journey may not be so well lit.

I'll wager that for 99% of them it is.

 

[BentMikey]

...but it's easy to see an unlit cyclist. That's why everyone complains about them. How many didn't you see?

 

[neslon]

Cyclists cycling after dark without lights and wearing black/dark non reflective clothing are prime candidates for Darwin Awards IMHO.

absolutely!!! Here in the Toon, we are swamped with these muppets who only give other two wheeled road users a bad name. Deserve to to get squashed? Hmmm............

 

[dondare]

It's Cambridge, there will be cyclists. If you can't see them then you need to be extra careful.
This "Darwin Award" thing can be taken too far; the roads are there to help people get about, not as a mechanism for improving the gene pool.

 

[Cab]

It's Cambridge, there will be cyclists. If you can't see them then you need to be extra careful.

You just can't stress that too strongly. Its a road, its in Cambridge, there are cyclists on it. Odds are some of them haven't got lights, you know that they are there, there is no excuse for not seeing them.

 

[GrasB]

So hills road is navigable by bicycle then? I've not been up there for ages.

What's more alarming than cyclist in the middle of cambridge not having lights & wearing black, having red light at the front & back, etc. is a herd of cyclists coming down the backs sprawling all over both sides of the road at night (probably 50% of them without lights) & despite me shouting "rider ahead" & moped hooters they seemed completely oblivious to the fact that 2 mopeds and a rather fast moving cyclist where approaching them as they chatted amongst them selves. Not to mention they cycled through a red light & almost took out 2 peds.

Ironically as you're talking about darwin awards, this group of cyclists were heading from the darwin college direction at the time I don't think they quite understand what the prize actually means.