Get yourself seen!

[Kies]

"To be seen by other road users" - meaning to alert drivers of my presence.

You havn't answered my question - do you think riding at night with no lights and dark clothing is a good idea? Is it something you do, or would recommend to any cyclist?

I don't like to spend my money on lights and a night vision jacket, but i choose to when riding at night. Call it self preservation or trying to tip the balance in my favour. Whatever you do when riding at night - stay safe. Goodnight :-)

 

[MontyVeda]

I totally agree with all you have said. Cyclist/pedestrians should not be decked out in radioactive day glo suits, but a pair of cheap lights isn't asking much either

i think we're all in agreement regarding at least a cheap set of bike lights... it's the hi-viz reflective waistcoats some of us aren't keen on.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

"To be seen by other road users" - meaning to alert drivers of my presence.

You havn't answered my question - do you think riding at night with no lights and dark clothing is a good idea? Is it something you do, or would recommend to any cyclist?

I don't like to spend my money on lights and a night vision jacket, but i choose to when riding at night. Call it self preservation or trying to tip the balance in my favour. Whatever you do when riding at night - stay safe. Goodnight :-)

Can you or can you not see the ninja cyclists you hate with such a passion? You know the ones who make you feel like lowering the car window and shouting " give us a chance at spotting you muppett" (sic) when you are driving.

My opinions on no lights/dark clothing are irrelevant. Because what I choose to wear, and however many, or few, lights I use is irrelevant. The drivers who are looking will see you no matter how darkly you are dressed or how poorly your bike is lit. The drivers who aren't looking, aka twunts, won't see you even if you are the offspring of a SpaceLemon and a Christmas Tree.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

i think we're all in agreement regarding at least a cheap set of bike lights... it's the hi-viz reflective waistcoats some of us aren't keen on.

apropos of nothing...

The other evening, out on a run (two legged) down a very poorly lit shared use path I was slowly passed by a woman on an Apollo bso. Cheap lights. White (well green really) on the rear pointing at the sky and red on the front. Her bare calves were the most visible thing about her. I sped up to run alongside her and tried to point out she might have it slightly wrong. Stupid thing to do, I just scared her.

 

[Kies]

Can you or can you not see the ninja cyclists you hate with such a passion? You know the ones who make you feel like lowering the car window and shouting " give us a chance at spotting you muppett" (sic) when you are driving.

My opinions on no lights/dark clothing are irrelevant. Because what I choose to wear, and however many, or few, lights I use is irrelevant. The drivers who are looking will see you no matter how darkly you are dressed or how poorly your bike is lit. The drivers who aren't looking, aka twunts, won't see you even if you are the offspring of a SpaceLemon and a Christmas Tree.

I see them as i am always on the look out for cyclists, but then i would as i love cycling, other motorist don't give a hoot about us, and yet we defend the ninja? Not me.
my issue is they jeapordise their own safety and of others by riding without lights. (Imagine a car swerving to avoid a bike he sees at the very last moment, resulting in a rta)

Your opinion does matter and is relevant to this debate as you see fit to try and pick holes in my opinion. I'm curious why you are unable to answer?

 

[andrewpreston]

Many of us are fond of quoting the law and the Highway Code. Here's what the CTC has to say on the legalities of cycle lighting.

"It is illegal to cycle on a public road after dark without lights and reflectors. Exactly which lights and reflectors, where to fit them and when to light up, is defined by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations." It goes on to say...


"The main points of RVLR are as follows:

• Lights (and reflectors) are required on a pedal cycle only between sunset and sunrise.
• Lights (and reflectors) are not required when the cycle is stationary or being pushed along the roadside.
• When they are required, the lights and reflectors listed below must be clean and working properly."

The full article can be found here...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

 

[Noodley]

I sped up to run alongside her and tried to point out she might have it slightly wrong. Stupid thing to do, I just scared her.

Perhaps wear some clothes next time.

 

[Primal Scream]

By reading all the posts on the entire thread, reflecting on them, and then deciding.

Fairly straightforward process really.

Rather a shame that your conclusion is mistaken thelthough I may be missing something, it has been known to happen

 

[swee'pea99]

The drivers who are looking will see you no matter how darkly you are dressed or how poorly your bike is lit. The drivers who aren't looking, aka twunts, won't see you even if you are the offspring of a SpaceLemon and a Christmas Tree.

What a daft comment.

Driving attentiveness, like almost everything, could be plotted on a bell curve. Some drivers are, to all intents and purposes, blind. Some are staggeringly attentive. Take off those tiny minorities, and you have a vast majority who will, other things being equal, be more likely to see cyclists after dark if they have lights.

 

[swansonj]

What a daft comment.

Driving attentiveness, like almost everything, could be plotted on a bell curve. Some drivers are, to all intents and purposes, blind. Some are staggeringly attentive. Take off those tiny minorities, and you have a vast majority who will, other things being equal, be more likely to see cyclists after dark if they have lights.

Does that logic imply that we should be campaigning for all cars to be painted in hi-viz?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I see them as i am always on the look out for cyclists, but then i would as i love cycling, other motorist don't give a hoot about us, and yet we defend the ninja? Not me.
my issue is they jeapordise their own safety and of others by riding without lights. (Imagine a car swerving to avoid a bike he sees at the very last moment, resulting in a rta)

Your opinion does matter and is relevant to this debate as you see fit to try and pick holes in my opinion. I'm curious why you are unable to answer?

You are the one asserting forcefully that drivers cannot see ninja planks.

Your claim. You justify it. And why is your driver so inattentive, or travelling at such an inappropriate speed, that they can only see said plank at the very last moment?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What a daft comment.

Driving attentiveness, like almost everything, could be plotted on a bell curve. Some drivers are, to all intents and purposes, blind. Some are staggeringly attentive. Take off those tiny minorities, and you have a vast majority who will, other things being equal, be more likely to see cyclists after dark if they have lights.

They may see them sooner tis all. Unlit ninja planks are not invisible. Like black parked cars.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Does that logic imply that we should be campaigning for all cars to be painted in hi-viz?

Where do I sign the petition? I'm continually riding into the back of unlit parked cars at night. Just can't see 'em.

 

[swee'pea99]

Does that logic imply that we should be campaigning for all cars to be painted in hi-viz?

No. Any more daft comments out there?

 

[XRHYSX]

Does that logic imply that we should be campaigning for all cars to be painted in hi-viz?

Its electric so they it needs hi-viz so you can at least see it