Riding without lights...

[Elmer Fudd]

The answer is that the pursuit drivers aren't forcing the criminals to drive away.

So that covers the innocent by-standers as the police RLJ. I thought they were told no to do that. ( And no, I'm no defending the thieving chav scum bags ).

 

[BentMikey]

I'm not totally pro the police actions either, but I think it's important to bring some consequences to those trying to evade the police in that manner.

 

[gambatte]

End of the day it’s a legal requirement to have lights on a bike at night. All this ‘the driver should be able to see them, what if it was a pedestrian’. Its not a pedestrian, it’s a cyclist. What if the car driver was to use the same defence.

“Sorry officer, I didn’t have my lights on. But it’s a 5ft by 10ft, noisy, 1500kg lump of metal, they should have been able to see it.”

Ignoring the legalities, I think, we all have a moral responsibility not to put ourselves in such dangerous situations in the first place.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

yes but it's a matter of how you define dangerous.

 

[gambatte]

I’d say wearing dark clothes, walking in the road on an unlit street is dangerous?

 

[BentMikey]

End of the day it’s a legal requirement to have lights on a bike at night. All this ‘the driver should be able to see them, what if it was a pedestrian’. Its not a pedestrian, it’s a cyclist. What if the car driver was to use the same defence.

“Sorry officer, I didn’t have my lights on. But it’s a 5ft by 10ft, noisy, 1500kg lump of metal, they should have been able to see it.”

Ignoring the legalities, I think, we all have a moral responsibility not to put ourselves in such dangerous situations in the first place.

The point is that everyone has responsibility, and whilst lights are both important and a legal requirement, it's much more important still to ride and drive safely. That means driving at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, and it seems that very few drivers drive like this nowadays, sadly. Instead they seem to rely on other people/vehicles having lights and reflectors which can be seen from much further away, and use this to let them drive at a much higher and unsafe speed.

 

[BentMikey]

I’d say wearing dark clothes, walking in the road on an unlit street is dangerous?

But who brings the danger? How is the pedestrian going to hurt anyone in an accident?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Exactamundo, and Mikey you've just given me a new sig line.

 

[Terminator]

But who brings the danger? How is the pedestrian going to hurt anyone in an accident?

When the peds run out in front of a cyclist without looking.

Happens to cars as well but usually it's the peds who come off 2nd best.
What about motorcyclists,suppose most of the time it's peds who come off second best.

 

[Cab]

End of the day it’s a legal requirement to have lights on a bike at night. All this ‘the driver should be able to see them, what if it was a pedestrian’. Its not a pedestrian, it’s a cyclist. What if the car driver was to use the same defence.

Surely both points are true? We should have lights on our bikes. Motorists should be driving such that they and others are safe. If the cyclist hasn't got lights in he's in the wrong, if the motorist hits him and claim its 'cos the bike rider had no lights on then he's still potentially in the wrong.

 

[Cab]

The point is that everyone has responsibility, and whilst lights are both important and a legal requirement, it's much more important still to ride and drive safely. That means driving at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, and it seems that very few drivers drive like this nowadays, sadly. Instead they seem to rely on other people/vehicles having lights and reflectors which can be seen from much further away, and use this to let them drive at a much higher and unsafe speed.

Well said.

So... Whats the solution?

 

[BentMikey]

When the peds run out in front of a cyclist without looking.

Happens to cars as well but usually it's the peds who come off 2nd best.
What about motorcyclists,suppose most of the time it's peds who come off second best.

Errr, wrong. The danger was brought by the heavier and faster vehicle, not the pedestrian.

 

[bonj2]

Surely both points are true? We should have lights on our bikes. Motorists should be driving such that they and others are safe. If the cyclist hasn't got lights in he's in the wrong, if the motorist hits him and claim its 'cos the bike rider had no lights on then he's still potentially in the wrong.

If a car hit a bike at night and he could prove the bike didn't have lights, then it'd be unlikely to come out as his fault.

Errr, wrong. The danger was brought by the heavier and faster vehicle, not the pedestrian.

Not if the ped ran out in front of him so suddenly there was no way he could have stopped. In that situation it's the ped's fault. There's loads of accidents that happen every year where a ped runs out in front of a car and no charges are brought against the driver 'cos it wasn't their fault that the ped didn't bother to look or was in too much of a hurry to.

 

[gambatte]

I’m not saying drivers should drive beyond the limits of their ability to stop. Its just there does come a point when all the advice about personel safety has been ignored and you can’t help but feel that theres an element of ‘the Darwin effect’ in force.

Mates mum was a point in case, an alchy who tried to cross a dual carriageway between pubs, whilst pissed.

Who brings the danger? Well if you’re on the road, unlit, at night, can you honestly say you don’t contribute?

 

[BentMikey]

Here's an easy analogy: Take all the vehicles out of your example. Where is the danger now? Easy - your mate's pissed mum doesn't cause any danger in this example.