Rules on Shared Paths and Use of Lights in the Dark

[Oldhippy]

Common sense.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I work on my normal basis that if someone runs me over and says
Sorry mate didn;t see you

as is customary

then I can point to a variety of hi-vis things and, at night, normally at least 5 lights and 2 reflectors plus several reflective strips and provide evidence that they are talking bollox

hopefully not while entering the ambulance/hearse!


and when my wife comes to the hospital to see me she will not do so rolling her eyes as she knows I have gone to rather over the top ends to make myself seen/obnoxious

anyway - that is my aim!!

 

[steveindenmark]

How often can you get to a cycle path that leads to your destination without going on a road?

I think its a no brainer. If its dark. Use lights.

 

[fossyant]

and when my wife comes to the hospital to see me she will not do so rolling her eyes as she knows I have gone to rather over the top ends to make myself seen/obnoxious

anyway - that is my aim!!

Who do you think you are kidding ? Been there, hit in daylight with 3 front lights. The wife did the eye rolling !

 

[mjr]

I work on my normal basis that if someone runs me over and says
Sorry mate didn;t see you

as is customary

then I can point to a variety of hi-vis things and, at night, normally at least 5 lights and 2 reflectors plus several reflective strips and provide evidence that they are talking bollox

Don't worry. They'll just claim you dazzled them, or wore urban camo, or whatever.

Better to do what works than worry about motorist excuses when what they want us to do doesn't work.

 

[I like Skol]

Better to do what works than worry about motorist excuses when what they want us to do doesn't work.

Bizarrely I find myself in agreement with mjr!!

I am also of the school of thought that lights should be adequate for an attentive driver to see without scaring/blinding the shoot out of them.

Providing I have taken reasonable steps to be seen I don't give two hoots about their lame excuses. At the end of the day, if they ain't looking then they won't see you, and no amount of lights will change that.

Still find myself muttering under my breath about unlit cycle commuters and unlit deliveroo riders who seem to think they are oblivious to the inevitable collision that riding busy urban roads, in the dark, during rush hour invites! Lots of them on the road this week.

 

[mjr]

unlit cycle commuters and unlit deliveroo riders who seem to think they are oblivious to the inevitable collision that riding busy urban roads, in the dark, during rush hour invites! Lots of them on the road this week.

And yet, it is not "inevitable" with unlit riders being underrepresented in night collisions. The best possible reason suggested is that they assume people don't see them, but too many of us lit ridets assume motorists see us, yet about a quarter of drivers cannot see well enough.

 

[PK99]

And yet, it is not "inevitable" with unlit riders being underrepresented in night collisions. The best possible reason suggested is that they assume people don't see them, but too many of us lit ridets assume motorists see us, yet about a quarter of drivers cannot see well enough.

Source?

 

[I like Skol]

And yet, it is not "inevitable" with unlit riders being underrepresented in night collisions. The best possible reason suggested is that they assume people don't see them, but too many of us lit ridets assume motorists see us, yet about a quarter of drivers cannot see well enough.

We'll the ones I am referring to are riding along the main road as if they are assuming they can be seen ok. I discount the ones riding on the pavements etc....

 

[mjr]

Source?

This is long settled but I think it's good to check for latest reports.

I was convinced of the weakness of unlit collision risk arguments by an analysis of police reports about 20 years ago for, I think, Cycling England. 22% of collisions involving cyclists occurred at night and under 3% involved unlit riders, but way more than one rider in 7 is unlit (sadly IMO). There are many things we can do to reduce collision rates, but hanging lights on cyclists apparently isn't one.

But that report is no longer online, with Cycling England abolished over a decade ago now. I didn't find news reporting I thought I remembered, but not all publications keep all old news online. I did find similar but different conclusions about London from RDRF at https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/

 

[Alex321]

This is long settled but I think it's good to check for latest reports.

I was convinced of the weakness of unlit collision risk arguments by an analysis of police reports about 20 years ago for, I think, Cycling England. 22% of collisions involving cyclists occurred at night and under 3% involved unlit riders, but way more than one rider in 7 is unlit (sadly IMO). There are many things we can do to reduce collision rates, but hanging lights on cyclists apparently isn't one.

I suspect that depends a lot on location.

In busy city centres with a myriad of other lights around, lights on cyclists probably don't help much. And that is the environment you tend to see most unlit cyclists.

On quieter suburban roads, and certainly on rural roads, I'm sure they make a very big difference.

But that report is no longer online, with Cycling England abolished over a decade ago now. I didn't find news reporting I thought I remembered, but not all publications keep all old news online. I did find similar but different conclusions about London from RDRF at https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/

Interesting read - though again, this is mainly busy urban roads he is talking about.

 

[PK99]

This is long settled but I think it's good to check for latest reports.

I was convinced of the weakness of unlit collision risk arguments by an analysis of police reports about 20 years ago for, I think, Cycling England. 22% of collisions involving cyclists occurred at night and under 3% involved unlit riders, but way more than one rider in 7 is unlit (sadly IMO). There are many things we can do to reduce collision rates, but hanging lights on cyclists apparently isn't one.

But that report is no longer online, with Cycling England abolished over a decade ago now. I didn't find news reporting I thought I remembered, but not all publications keep all old news online. I did find similar but different conclusions about London from RDRF at https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/17/do-bicycle-lights-make-any-difference-to-cyclist-safety/

I suspected the source would be flawed.

Summary refutation:
Accidents happen on busy roads.
Unlit cyclists frequent less busy, residential roads.

I live in a "London Village" Tfl accident stats show zero accidents in the 'village' but frequent accidents on the bounding roads, especially at or near village streets accessing the bounding roads.

 

[mjr]

I suspected the source would be flawed

I'm glad I could assure you otherwise, that it was a kosher but old government report.

Summary refutation:
Accidents happen on busy roads.
Unlit cyclists frequent less busy, residential roads.

Source? It's certainly not what I see. If anything, unlit cyclists tend to use the main roads ( usually the cycleway, or illegally the footway if none), probably because those have the best streetlights.

 

[HLaB]

..and aim the beam down so you're not blinding any oncomers.

edit: Fossy beat me to it

Lol, a bug bear of mine is a local cycle path thats straight for 1km. Its bad enough when a cyclists doesn't angle their lights down but occasionally you get a runner with a really bright chest light or (whatever they are called) coming towards you slowly