Idiots on bikes

[ufkacbln]

This was never a question, as it wasn't dark, it was a really very dull start to the day, just after sunrise (although the sun was obscured by clouds) many posters have said that lights or bright colourful clothes were not necessary, some of us on here disagree with that, this is the crux of the issue.

... and the whole point

It is an entirely arbitrary and individual assessment


You decided it was dull enough for the cyclist t wear hiviz and have lights

Why is the judgement of the cyclist that they were not any less valid?

 

[Justinslow]

Do you think there is any possibility that at any time you could see your way clear to consider the notion that, if everyone else had turned their lights off, you might never have noticed anything other than a cyclist riding their bike in a perfectly reasonable and lawful fashion?

Yes absolutely, but nobody does that in dull/dark daylight conditions, pretty much everybody turns their lights on to make themselves more visible, I go back to another scenario - in heavy rain in day light, do you have your lights on to see where you are going or to be seen or are you the one who never has their lights on?

 

[mjr]

And is not just in the US, in the UK Lezyne have a setting on their rear lights that they "as being for daytime use Anderson not be used at night

Not just UK. Some German-spec dynamo lights have a daytime running light mode that is too bright to be legal at night (so they have daylight sensors which turns it down at night).

How long before the high viz police and motoring lobby decide that daytime running lights are are essential for cyclists

As soon as they think it won't fail the laugh test.

[QUOTE 4046508, member: 9609"]and a none cyclist who skipped through it.
because I am moving relatively slowly, and as a driver I find that info very useful[/QUOTE]
Yes, but sadly, cyclist-motorists might react well to the information, but most of us also cope fine if we see a cyclist later and the Ronnie Pickerings of this world might take it as a signal that they can disregard the cyclist. Much better to make them think you might be a motorbike or e-bike that'll leave a bigger dent: single bright steady lights front and back, and no clothing that can be identified as "cyclist" quickly.

(Thanks for pointing out the leg wasn't just broken - edited to correct. I still can't quite believe the fine.)

 

[Justinslow]

One thing that is interesting from " across the pond"

The original post is about a cyclist in gloomy conditions not darkness

One could argue the point that in these conditions it is not a legal requirement and it is common to see both vehicles and cyclists unlit

However the developing conversation on some US sites is identical

It cites the responsibility of cyclist to be seen and gave lights

However the difference is they are discussing DRLs

Daylight Running Lights

Yep..... All the same arguments that you should be using lights bright enough to be seen in bt bright sunlight every time you cycle even if you have to carry multiple battery packs to allow you to do so

And is not just in the US, in the UK Lezyne have a setting on their rear lights that they "as being for daytime use Anderson not be used at night

How long before the high viz police and motoring lobby decide that daytime running lights are are essential for cyclists

Interesting stuff, I wouldn't want that just as I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, the states do this for motorcycles already don't they, as well as other countries.

 

[Justinslow]

... and the whole point

It is an entirely arbitrary and individual assessment


You decided it was dull enough for the cyclist t wear hiviz and have lights

Why is the judgement of the cyclist that they were not any less valid?

No, not hi viz in the sense of day glo reflective lemon.
Because everyone else had lights on and it was obviously very dull.
At the end of the day you are correct, it is not "law" he did nothing which was illegal, it is only a matter of opinion, that doesn't mean he was correct in his decision to not use lights or brighter colourful clothing, which would be the sensible choice in most people's book.

 

[ufkacbln]

Interesting stuff, I wouldn't want that just as I don't want compulsory helmet wearing, the states do this for motorcycles already don't they, as well as other countries.

But according to the advocates it is common sense, only idiots would not use and it should be the gold standard

The exact same standards and evidence that you are using to claim that the cyclist in the OP is in the wrong

Why are we allowed to choose on DRLs but not hiviz?

 

[ufkacbln]

No, not hi viz in the sense of day glo reflective lemon.
Because everyone else had lights on and it was obviously very dull.
At the end of the day you are correct, it is not "law" he did nothing which was illegal, it is only a matter of opinion, that doesn't mean he was correct in his decision to not use lights or brighter colourful clothing, which would be the sensible choice in most people's book.

The "Fox News" argument then?

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm just amazed by the number of motorists driving without lights or with faulty lights. They far outnumber the number of cyclists I see without lights.

How any motorists can drive without lights I don't know. The wouldn't be able I see their instruments.... but then again, they probably think they don't need them.

Had this with the local press

Headline on front page with full picture of unlit cyclist and hysterical headlines / editorial

Shame that of the four cars in the picture, two were also unlit, one had a single headlight and one was correctly illuminated

They were not happy when challenged, but due credit, they did publish the comments

 

[Justinslow]

I'm just amazed by the number of motorists driving without lights or with faulty lights. They far outnumber the number of cyclists I see without lights.

How any motorists can drive without lights I don't know. The wouldn't be able I see their instruments.... but then again, they probably think they don't need them.

Hi ya Reg, how ya doin, "nobber" here!
Yeah you get clueless motorists just like you get clueless cyclists......

 

[ufkacbln]

Yeah you get clueless motorists just like you get clueless cyclists......

Correct

But why do we accept cars in dark colours an no hiviz as normal

After all I would have s better chance of seeing a car in s bright colour and hiviz markings

 

[Justinslow]

Correct

But why do we accept cars in dark colours an no hiviz as normal

After all I would have s better chance of seeing a car in s bright colour and hiviz markings

I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?

 

[ufkacbln]

I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?

OK

A couple of my bikes / trikes are bigger than some cars

Do I ignore hiviz and lights like a car, or use them like a bike?


(Of course this also brings us back to the big bright emergency vehicles that motorists still hit

 

[Mugshot]

I dunno, size? Because they are bigger?

So why do they need to have lights on when it sufficiently light enough that they don't need them to see by?

 

[Justinslow]

OK

A couple of my bikes / trikes are bigger than some cars

Do I ignore hiviz and lights like a car, or use them like a bike?


(Of course this also brings us back to the big bright emergency vehicles that motorists still hit

Forget hi viz, cars and other vehicles put on their lights when conditions dictate (if they have sensible drivers or auto sensor lights). Whatever you take on the road should be lit if conditions require it, IMO.

 

[Justinslow]

So why do they need to have lights on when it sufficiently light enough that they don't need them to see by?

See "foggy" conditions or heavy rain, it would be great fun wouldn't it on the motorways if nobody used their lights in these conditions?