# Sort some lights out !



## steve keay (3 Oct 2015)

at dusk tonight I was driving home from a day at Lowestoft with my parents. I couldn't believe how many cyclists had crap lights or missing lights. First was a guy on an expensive looking road bike at the end of a duel carriage way, it was pretty dark he was wearing dark clothes with no lights at all. Then I saw two separate road bikes with lights so dim they were useless. Finally we saw a bike coming the other way with a mega bright light on the front I said to the Mrs that he had the lights I'd want to have on an unlit main rd......... but when he passed I noticed he had no rear light. I'd feel nervous on main roads not properly lit.


----------



## User32269 (3 Oct 2015)

I ride of a night in Liverpool. I carry spare lights as I really wouldn't feel too safe without any on. 
Loads of people bombing about the main roads totaly unlit. 
I have enough crap on roads even when highly visible...wouldn't be on a mission to make myself invisible.


----------



## Hip Priest (3 Oct 2015)

Imagine how many you don't see!


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> @ianrauk, could this be a new source of revenue?




It could be... it's the time of year...


----------



## mustang1 (3 Oct 2015)

What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2015)

User32269 said:


> I ride of a night in Liverpool. I carry spare lights as I really wouldn't feel too safe without any on.
> Loads of people bombing about the main roads totaly unlit.
> I have enough crap on roads even when highly visible...wouldn't be on a mission to make myself invisible.



Which really raises the question of whether there is any point

We have lot of anecdotes of cyclists without lights that have been fine and one highly visible and has problems.....


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.



Probably the same thing as motorists with dark cars?


----------



## User32269 (3 Oct 2015)

I'll get me dark coat


----------



## claudbutler (3 Oct 2015)

No reason for no lights this day and age they are so cheap and v bright


----------



## potsy (3 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> @ianrauk, could this be a new source of revenue?


Only if you can see them well enough to know they weren't waving.


----------



## ianrauk (3 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.




I like wearing dark clothes.


----------



## Drago (3 Oct 2015)

I wouldn't look right in a Hawaiian shirt.


----------



## Tim Hall (3 Oct 2015)

User said:


> I knew we had nothing in common


True.


----------



## jayonabike (3 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.


What's wrong with wearing dark clothes?


----------



## Drago (3 Oct 2015)

jayonabike said:


> What's wrong with wearing dark clothes?



Who said that? Who's there? Show yourselves, dammit!


----------



## howard2107 (3 Oct 2015)

Same here keep seeing lots of cyclists well kitted out and on expensive bikes, but neglect to spend a few quid on lights, and riding on some high speed dual carriageways that are bad enough in daylight. As far as i am aware, we are subject to the same rules of the road as others, and lights are compulsory. But a legal requirement or not, anyone with half an ounce of sense would not go out without them.


----------



## claudbutler (4 Oct 2015)

howard2107 said:


> Same here keep seeing lots of cyclists well kitted out and on expensive bikes, but neglect to spend a few quid on lights, and riding on some high speed dual carriageways that are bad enough in daylight. As far as i am aware, we are subject to the same rules of the road as others, and lights are compulsory. But a legal requirement or not, anyone with half an ounce of sense would not go out without them.


CORRECT .IT IS VERY SIMPLE LIGHT UP AND STAY ALIVE


----------



## Lilliburlero (4 Oct 2015)

I gave a lad at work a set of lights last week. He finishes work at 20:00 and as been riding the 6 miles home through country lanes without any . 

That`s the 3rd set I`v given away to work mates this year.....


----------



## winjim (4 Oct 2015)

Drago said:


> I wouldn't look right in a Hawaiian shirt.


Hawaiian nappies anyone?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

Tim Hall said:


> True.




Isn't that Ronnie Pickering on the left?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

claudbutler said:


> CORRECT .IT IS VERY SIMPLE LIGHT UP AND STAY ALIVE




Shame no-one has told the other road users of this simplistic and nonsensical shouting

Lighting is not a major factor in cyclist deaths, it is the failure of the other vehicle to either look, see what is there, and when they do react appropriately

Anyone who is relying on their lights to keep them safe is dreaming


----------



## Hip Priest (4 Oct 2015)

Two things your hear regularly at this time of year:

"I saw loads of unlit cyclists in dark clothing!"
"I was lit up like a christmas tree and the driver still didn't see me!"

So there you have it. Go dark.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Oct 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Shame no-one has told the other road users of this simplistic and nonsensical shouting
> 
> Lighting is not a major factor in cyclist deaths, it is the failure of the other vehicle to either look, see what is there, and when they do react appropriately
> 
> Anyone who is relying on their lights to keep them safe is dreaming



I rarely have problems commuting there/ back during the dark hours like last night.My lights were perfectly adequate.Due to my shift work a lot of my commutes are during these dark hours.

Must admit I see many cyclists with poor or no lights.Shocking.Also selfish.


----------



## User32269 (4 Oct 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Which really raises the question of whether there is any point
> 
> We have lot of anecdotes of cyclists without lights that have been fine and one highly visible and has problems.....





Cunobelin said:


> Shame no-one has told the other road users of this simplistic and nonsensical shouting
> 
> Lighting is not a major factor in cyclist deaths, it is the failure of the other vehicle to either look, see what is there, and when they do react appropriately
> 
> Anyone who is relying on their lights to keep them safe is dreaming


Any need to be so rude? You think it is unimportant to attempt to make yourself visible of a night? Fine. Wear dark clothing on your unlit bike on badly lit roads. Quote how statistically you had no fault whatsoever while in A &E.
If you don't agree with peoples posts, fine, make a counter point. You basically told me to shut up and called another post nonsense.


----------



## potsy (4 Oct 2015)

I think the moral of this thread is, no need for lights if you are cycling wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt, or have I got that wrong?


----------



## winjim (4 Oct 2015)

potsy said:


> I think the moral of this thread is, no need for lights if you are cycling wearing a loud Hawaiian shirt, or have I got that wrong?


Just remember that those nappies I posted earlier are now, quite literally full of sh!t.


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Oct 2015)

Don't forget,to get/wear some reflective stuff as well as having decent lights, This is interesting. Reflective paint.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQONpcD5N6c

http://www.force4.co.uk/reflective-...TzzzUnhykfBREcQrHHFGlSfiyRkr08AJNDuJToZ7NIaAr


----------



## Accy cyclist (4 Oct 2015)

User said:


> We had a thread about this way back. It is a manufacture of cars seeking to deflect responsibility for the risk their customers bring to the roads from their customers onto the people they put in danger.




That may be so, but i think it's a good product.It's a bit expensive though. Maybe Volvo should sell it at cost price to say/pretend they're doing their bit and the ball is now in the cyclist's court?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

User32269 said:


> Any need to be so rude? You think it is unimportant to attempt to make yourself visible of a night? Fine. Wear dark clothing on your unlit bike on badly lit roads. Quote how statistically you had no fault whatsoever while in A &E.
> If you don't agree with peoples posts, fine, make a counter point. You basically told me to shut up and called another post nonsense.



These are counter points.

Shouting that you will be killed if you don't have lights is nonsense, and if pointing that out is "rude" than that is unfortunate, but will not change the fact that it is nonsense

Equally the fact that lighting is not a major factor and relying on it is unsafe and naive is also a valid counterpoint 

Most accidents occur where the driver fails to look, see or react...... again it is an unfortunate fact that defensive riding with a good awareness of what is around you will prevent more accidents than lights


Peurile threats of doom, disaster, death and A/E visits are neither factual, realistic or making any real point


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

Lets go back to basics then.... how much of a contribution do people think Hi-Viz actually makes at night?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Oct 2015)

This is how farking ridiculous things have become, reflective stripes for animals just becouse motorists won't take the care they ought to.







GC


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

It does get sillier...


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2015)

Oh but wait a minute. I started a thread on here like this a few days ago and what I learnt was from the posts is that if I run over one of these unlit cyclists, then its my fault. I have lights on my car that I should see them with, or I am driving to fast to stop, regardless where they come from, what they do, or what they are wearing.

After all its not the unlit cyclists responsibility to keep safe, its the drivers responsibility to keep the cyclist safe. Because cars kill cyclists and bikes dont kill drivers.

Figure that one out


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

... and in Spain the "Ladies of negotiable virtue" are also expected to wear them!


----------



## Lonestar (4 Oct 2015)

Interestingly enough my latest SMIDSY was during the day not during dusk/night.On a clear junction with no obstructions,guess the van driver lost concentration.

Got to agree with an earlier poster,defensive cycling and good awareness are the best counter measures.Hi-Viz and lights doesn't solve everything.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Oh but wait a minute. I started a thread on here like this a few days ago and what I learnt was from the posts is that if I run over one of these unlit cyclists, then its my fault. I have lights on my car that I should see them with, or I am driving to fast to stop, regardless where they come from, what they do, or what they are wearing.
> 
> After all its not the unlit cyclists responsibility to keep safe, its the drivers responsibility to keep the cyclist safe. Because cars kill cyclists and bikes dont kill drivers.
> 
> Figure that one out




The other question is why drivers are allowed to leave dark unlit cars littering the streets

Surely these are obstacles that should have lights, and reflectives

Shouldn't we be campaigning for lights on these vehicles?

I see hundreds of unlit cars on the roads (and pavement) every evening


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

User said:


> And if it were a deer?


They should be lit!

After all there is some expectation for cows, horses, sheep, chickens and dogs to wear reflectives

Why should deer be exempt?


----------



## RedRider (4 Oct 2015)

@steveindenmark
One dusk some time ago I was stopped at some lights when a taxi driver in a.black cab reversed out of his parking spot and into my rear wheel.
He got out of the cab, saw my lights were lit yet still desperately searching for a way to deflect blame protested that my bicycle was black.*
It doesn't matter what you do or wear they'll still try and blame you.
It doesn't help that cycle forums are full of cyclists excusing motorists for not looking where they're going. "cyclists bring it on themselves" is a dominant narrative (sorry for using that word) that needs to be challenged. That's how I figure it.

*I gave a pointed look towards his cab and he gave me his details, fortunately not needed as no damage was done.


----------



## Drago (4 Oct 2015)

To be fair, I'm a big chap bit even the smallest car is many times my size, and all other things being equal many times more conspicuous a a result.


----------



## Tim Hall (4 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> This is how farking ridiculous things have become, reflective stripes for animals just becouse motorists won't take the care they ought to.
> 
> View attachment 105708
> 
> ...


The final paragraph is telling:


> Rob Steemson, Dartmoor National Park's head ranger, said the authority "fully supports the project to reduce the number of road deaths".
> 
> "These horrible incidents would not happen if motorists drove with greater care and anticipated that Dartmoor grazing stock regularly wander on to the roads."


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

Near Guilford there was an avenue of Canadian Maples in memory of Canadian Servicemen

They had to be removed as despite being mature trees some 3 m from the road they were a "hazard" for motorists

Speaks volumes


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2015)

RedRider. I like to have a balanced discussion and will not throw common sense out of the window just because this is a cycling forum.

What you are describing in your case is an accident not of your making. If the situation was slightly different and you were cycling in the dark without lights and you rode into the side of this taxi, there are many on here who would lay the blame squarely on the taxi for not seeing you and you would be responsible for nothing.

This arguement goes round and round in circles. But I believe, as a cyclist, I am responsible for myself. I am not excusing motorists but I am not naive enough to believe that cyclists are always in the right.

Cunobelin. I am not sure what you mean by " cars littering the streets". Do you mean in streets lit by street lighting?


----------



## winjim (4 Oct 2015)

Recently I have seen:

Two cyclists with crap lights, visible due to their amber pedal reflectors.
One cyclist with crap lights, visible due to his dark silhouette against the brightly lit road.
A car with a single headlamp lit, making it difficult for me to judge its width.
A motorcyclist whose headlamp was lost in the background noise, identifiable due to the reflectives on their jacket.
So it's not always about lights. I for one would prefer cyclists to have no lights at all, rather than those overbright flashing poorly aimed dazzlers. Reflectives are where it's at for night time visibility.


----------



## theclaud (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Oh but wait a minute. I started a thread on here like this a few days ago and what I learnt was from the posts is that *if I run over one of these unlit cyclists, then its my fault*. I have lights on my car that I should see them with, or I am driving to fast to stop, regardless where they come from, what they do, or what they are wearing.
> 
> After all its not the unlit cyclists responsibility to keep safe, its the drivers responsibility to keep the cyclist safe. Because cars kill cyclists and bikes dont kill drivers.
> 
> Figure that one out



Yes. It comes to something when an expectation that car drivers should not run people over warrants sarcasm. Which part of the responsibility not to hit people with your car do you struggle with?


----------



## Dan B (4 Oct 2015)

User said:


> We are up against people operating dangerous machinery in public at the limit of their ability to process visual information. It is akin to trying to talk in a crowded noisy pub where it gets louder and louder but no more easy to make out the conversation you are part of.


Oh come on, megaphones are cheap as chips these days and have much improved battery life over the old days . There really is no excuse for going to the pub without one


----------



## User32269 (4 Oct 2015)

The Highway Code details the legal requirement for cycling between sunset and sunrise. 
This subject seems to bring out the pedants and people with vastly inflated sense of their own intellect in much the same way the great helmet debate does.
Where has anybody stated that having lights/reflectors/hi viz will prevent some careless motorist wiping you out? 
If you wish to arse about with manipulated statistics you can make a case that riding your bike whilst juggling chainsaws is safer than wearing a helmet and having lights.
If your opinion is that ALL the emphasis is on vehicle drivers to avoid accidents and us cyclists should ride around poorly lit streets like barely visible ninjas, then it is nonsensical.
Apart from legal requirements, there are moral obligations on both sides. Any vehicle driver not paying attention, or driving aggressively and putting any other road users or pedestrians in danger should have the right to drive taken away from them. They have what can effectively be a deadly weapon under their control.
As a cyclist during the hours of darkness there is a legal obligation for lights and reflectors. There also exists a moral obligation to attempt to make yourself visible to other road users, and to ride in a safe manned.
I agree that riding in primary position and remaining aware will greatly improve your safety. I personally find my experiences from driving are invaluable, helping me appreciate certain potential hazards when riding.
It is lazy and simplistic to absolve cyclists of all responsibility for their safety.


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2015)

Dan B said:


> Oh come on, megaphones are cheap as chips these days and have much improved battery life over the old days . There really is no excuse for going to the pub without one



Yet again Dan, you have probably lost us all with this one.


----------



## Dan B (4 Oct 2015)

User said:


> You do realise that no one has suggested that it is a good idea to ride at night without lights?


I'm afraid that by pointing out what people have and haven't actually said you are basically guilty of pedanty


----------



## theclaud (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Yet again Dan, you have probably lost us all with this one.


Not really.


----------



## Dan B (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Yet again Dan, you have probably lost us all with this one.


If you're going to drink in a crowded noisy pub then the onus is on you to make yourself heard. You can't expect other people to listen out.


----------



## steve50 (4 Oct 2015)

I totally agree with User32269. We all have a responsibility to ourselves and other road users to try and ensure the chances of an incident occurring are as drastically reduced as possible. A couple of points though, it would seem (imo) that a minority (majority) of motorists / drivers look upon cyclists as nothing more than a hindrance on their journey to wherever, they treat us with contempt and in many cases blame us for everything that is dangerous on todays roads.
I personally believe every non cyclist vehicle driver should attend a driver awareness course, (it'll never happen) perhaps it would teach some of them they are not the only road users out there and it may even surprise some of them to learn that a vast majority of the cyclists they treat with such contempt are also drivers of motorised vehicles.
Regards cyclists themselves i do believe we should make the effort to get ourselves noticed as much as possible when cycling in darkness. I use two sets of lights front and rear of my bike and i always wear bright coloured shirts or at night a florescent tabard over my cycle gear
if we all showed some courteousness to each other on the roads the number of accidents / incidents would be drastically reduced but that takes co-operation from everyone.


----------



## steve50 (4 Oct 2015)

User said:


> They regard other motorists, caravans, tractors etc etc etc the same way.


very true in some cases.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> Cunobelin. I am not sure what you mean by " cars littering the streets". Do you mean in streets lit by street lighting?



Littering - to dispose or or leave a man-made object in a place that is inappropriate, improper or inconsiderate as opposed to being placed properly

Walk round any town and you will see unlit cars on pavements, roads, junctions and green spaces........ fitting the definition


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2015)

Which cyclists?

Were talking about NOT seeing cyclists without lights. You are talking about seeing cars without lights. Not quite the same thing.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> If you can see them whats the problem?



An unlit car isn't a problem, everyone is expected to see it and react appropriately, yet an unlit cyclist in the same place is a problem?

Hundreds of accidents occur each year due to unlit parked vehicles......



steveindenmark said:


> Which cyclists?
> 
> Were talking about NOT seeing cyclists without lights. You are talking about seeing cars without lights. Not quite the same thing.



Which implies that people are seeing these vehicles and still hitting them?


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Oct 2015)

A stationary unlit car is 20 times the size of a bike. An unlit bike is often travelling at 20 kph in darkness. I can see the greater problem, cant you?

You think cyclists are seeing unlit cars and running into them?

I am just curious to know if you have a car.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Oct 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> A stationary unlit car is 20 times the size of a bike. An unlit bike is often travelling at 20 kph in darkness. I can see the greater problem, cant you?



That is the problem, they could be the size of a block of flats, but unlit they are no more or less visible than a cyclist. In fact (theoretically) as moving objects register more than still ones, it could be argued that the cyclist is more visible



> You think cyclists are seeing unlit cars and running into them?



Accidents with parked cars are not uncommon, so something is going wrong 

Leaves two options... If you are arguing that these dark unlit vehicles are "easy to see" then road users are either not looking, interpreting or reacting (in which case lighting will make no difference) or indeed they are seeing them and running into them



> I am just curious to know if you have a car.


Not sure of the relevance, but I travel by car, bus, rail, air and have in the past travelled by hovercraft and worked with Search and Rescue helicopters


----------



## Sara_H (5 Oct 2015)

I always have two rear lights (at least) in poor light/dark. 
Can't understand why you wouldn't. Think lots of people just get out of the habit in summer. Saw loads of drivers without lights on in the fog last week.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Oct 2015)

User said:


> And a deer?




No.... I don't own a deer


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2015)

Yup. What drivers mean when they say they didn't see you (which is never literally true) is that actually they'd like you to signal your presence more emphatically so that they can pay correspondingly less attention. It's an arms race we can only lose. I've gone the other way in the last couple of years - deliberately brought down my lighting and gaudiness levels. And I ride about in all conditions, being seen because I am irreducibly there.


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> Well, no. Have another look at the OP. He saw ALL the cyclists he was complaining about. Same as drivers who see ALL the parked cars with no lights.





My sentence was correct as we had moved on to another conversation but I have removed some of my posts as the thread had become rambling between two of us in the wee small hours. So my sentence did not refer to the OPs original post, but something else.

I appreciate the OP saw all the cyclists with crap lights that he mentioned.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Oct 2015)

The problem isn't with running into the back of cyclists, as they will be illuminated by the cars headlights, just like the reflectors of a parked vehicle.

However, the only problem I can see happening is on poorly lit roads at a T-Junction. With the driver sat waiting to pull out, an unlit bicycle can be missed, especially when the vehicles lights are not facing in that direction. Though I am guessing that this isn't the circumstances in which the OP encountered these cyclists?


----------



## cd365 (5 Oct 2015)

I didn't see an unlit cyclist last night.


----------



## mickle (5 Oct 2015)

cd365 said:


> I didn't see an unlit cyclist last night.



Bastards.


----------



## cd365 (5 Oct 2015)

mickle said:


> Bastards.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2015)

User said:


> And a deer?


A female deer?


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> doh


----------



## fossyant (5 Oct 2015)

Plenty out this morning with no lights


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Probably the same thing as motorists with dark cars?


And the same as those stealth planes! And Airwolf. No wait, Airwolf has a white underside. Those crazy Airwolf people.


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

ianrauk said:


> I like wearing dark clothes.


Me too, it makes me look less fat. I'm not kidding: if I wear black T shirt, I look somewhat OK. White? And it shows the donut.


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

jayonabike said:


> What's wrong with wearing dark clothes?


Makes a cyclist look less visible I think?


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> Yeah right.



It is right. Its quite obvious the OP saw the bikes. Im not known for telling lies on her. If you look at my posts you can see they dont run in order.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Makes a cyclist look less visible I think?



Have you ever heard someone say, "_Well, it's his own fault really; he should have been driving a lighter coloured car..._" ?

GC


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Have you ever heard someone say, "_Well, it's his own fault really; he should have been driving a lighter coloured car..._" ?
> 
> GC


Good point (and i knew it was coming). But I think a cyclist is a lot smaller, so I'd like to brighten myself up as much as possible. 

Ps I believe there is a study to show which car colours are less likely to have an accident due to invisibility. Iirc, yellow was a great colour. I'm on the Porsche website now and they don't even charge extra for it. Woohoo!


----------



## steveindenmark (5 Oct 2015)

User13710 said:


> You took the opportunity to edit your contributions when you realised you'd been arguing a wrong case. It's no big deal to just say, 'Ah, I see what you mean.'



It was not a wrong case. It was a pointless case.


----------



## steve keay (5 Oct 2015)

When I started this post I didn't mean I couldn't see them I just thought it'd be sensible to make your self more visible . Have really enjoyed some of the arguments /discussions. I wouldn't feel quiet as safe if I didn't have decent lights when riding in the dark.


----------



## SeanM (5 Oct 2015)

User said:


> We had a thread about this way back. It is a manufacture of cars seeking to deflect responsibility for the risk their customers bring to the roads from their customers onto the people they put in danger.



Wow! 

B@@#$%ds What a world we live in. I am stunned.


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2015)

SeanM said:


> Wow!
> 
> B@@#$%ds What a world we live in. I am stunned.


What exactly do you disagree with?


----------



## SeanM (5 Oct 2015)

theclaud said:


> What exactly do you disagree with?



The whole statement, but presumably it was well discussed at the time, and that was the outcome. That's fair enough, but i'm happy with my own (less cycnical) view of the world.


----------



## mjr (5 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> Good point (and i knew it was coming). But I think a cyclist is a lot smaller, so I'd like to brighten myself up as much as possible.


If you haven't seen my lights, what I'm wearing is unlikely to make much difference.

[QUOTE 3938007, member: 9609"]I understand the point you make, and I also maintain that if a driver hits an unlit cyclist they need to bear a good deal of the responsibility, you should not be crashing into anything any of the time, no excuses - BUT - as a driver I have seen unlit cyclists and I have seen them far later than I would if they had been wearing hi-viz and using lights, and I think to myself, would someone with poor eyesight, someone playing with a mobile phone, someone not concentrating have spotted these - I just don't trust other drivers, and as such I think anyone not trying to be seen is totally bonkers.[/QUOTE]
There are two confounding factors there: firstly, seeing a cyclist earlier does not necessarily mean that a motorist behaves any better towards them (in fact, there is a theory that seeing them earlier means the motorist is more likely to have dismissed them by the time they pass them, so are more likely to pass too close); secondly, unlit cycling is even a _factor_ in only a tiny fraction of cycle collisions. (2% when http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases reported it.) Motorists with poor eyesight, playing with mobile phones or not concentrating should be removed from the roads before they hit _anything_, not only unlit cyclists!

You can't "be seen". None of us are invisible, not matter how much propaganda tries to suggest otherwise. All road users must be reminded to drive within what they can see to be clear. http://highwaycode.info/rule/126


----------



## 50000tears (5 Oct 2015)

How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about? 

Lights make you more visible than not. Saying that you saw an unlit cyclist is not to say a lack of lights makes him invisible but that you see him later than you would have had he been lit. Most of us who drive can remember times when an unlit cyclist almost appears to come out of nowhere. If we are travelling the same road then headlights will pick them up early but not so if you are looking to turn out of a side road.

As a final point I can guarantee that if you are ever unfortunate enough to get knocked off a bike a night the first question the police, insurers will want to know is whether you had working lights on. Lights are no assurance of being safe but not having them is clearly more dangerous.

Stop flooding threads with arguing just for its own sake.


----------



## MontyVeda (5 Oct 2015)

Any driver that uses 'I didn't see it' as an excuse should really be instantly charged with 'undue care and attention'... no ifs, no buts. Doesn't matter if its a tree, deer, skip, pedestrian or cyclist.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2015)

50000tears said:


> How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about?


Sorry about that. You should complain to the internet.


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2015)

50000tears said:


> How can an argument run for so many pages when there is nothing to disagree about?
> 
> Lights make you more visible than not. Saying that you saw an unlit cyclist is not to say a lack of lights makes him invisible but that you see him later than you would have had he been lit. Most of us who drive can remember times when an unlit cyclist almost appears to come out of nowhere. If we are travelling the same road then headlights will pick them up early but not so if you are looking to turn out of a side road.
> 
> ...



That's a non sequitur. A course of action that makes it more likely that you will be blamed for something has not necessarily endangered you. I used the phrase 'arms race' above, because it's quite obvious if you stop and think about it that lights are not inherently necessary at all - they become necessary in varying degrees in relation to other things. Most sensible people would probably agree that different forms and levels of lighting are suitable for different purposes. I think it was Adrian that mentioned above that the CTC campaigned against the original proposal that lights should be compulsory for cyclists. In my view they were right to do so at the time, and losing that battle was a major setback in the fight to protect people and public spaces from the dominance of motor traffic. We are where we are: lights are now cheaper, much less cumbersome and inconvenient, and more reliable, and most cyclists will find being lit desirable for reasons other than a desire to be more conspicuous to drivers. The downside of this is that as lighting technology becomes more impressive, dedicated commuting cyclists are routinely menacing pedestrians and other riders with their extreme illumination, whilst casual utility cyclists on a low budget who don't have a lighting strategy are being slagged off by other cyclists on supposedly friendly forums for being 'suicidal' and 'idiots' and other such nonsense, even though for all anyone knows they are harmlessly bimbling on a half-mile journey through an area with street-lights, and their battery has just run out. Or perhaps they planned to be home in daylight and got delayed. Or perhaps, as I did today, they swapped bikes in the morning and forgot to switch the front light over. I don't wish to do away with lighting, but it's out of control. In my view we should dramatically reduce the power of vehicle headlights so that they stop dazzling everyone and spoiling the darkness, and so that their drivers are obliged to slow down and look where they are going.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Oct 2015)

The CTC's basic objection against lighting was the change in responsibility from the motorist being responsible for looking to the cyclist being responsible for the motorist seeing them


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2015)

Whilst waiting in the lanes near Llantrithyd on the Cardiff-Swansea FNRttC for a puncture to be fixed at the back of the ride, most of the riders switched off their front lights to look at the stars. It's magical, sometimes, to watch a line of lights snaking through the trees, or to announce our collective presence luminously to astonished drivers in the middle of nowhere, but it's easy to forget what we are missing when our gaze is focused into the narrow beam ahead of us.


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3938610, member: 9609"]the trouble is with "arms races" is they are not really optional, whether you like it or not you have to join in - riding a bike at night with with poor or no lights *would be about as mad as scrapping trident*.[/QUOTE]

So... not M.A.D. at all then, but in fact a rejection of the madness which has kept us in fear.


----------



## vernon (5 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> What's it with cyclists wearing dark clothes.



How many of them didn't you see?


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

vernon said:


> How many of them didn't you see?


I saw all the cyclists whether wearing dark clothes or fully lit up. But the ones who were fully lit up, I saw from quite a distance. The ones with dark clothes, I had to concentrate on them a lot more and were aware of them only when they were a lot closer. 

Since I was on my bike, it wasn't that big a deal as our speed difference is low. And BMWs these days have night vision cameras for those cyclists who like to make themselves as invisible as possible, I'll still be able to see those suckers.


----------



## mustang1 (5 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> If you haven't seen my lights, what I'm wearing is unlikely to make much difference.
> 
> 
> There are two confounding factors there: firstly, seeing a cyclist earlier does not necessarily mean that a motorist behaves any better towards them (in fact, there is a theory that seeing them earlier means the motorist is more likely to have dismissed them by the time they pass them, so are more likely to pass too close); secondly, unlit cycling is even a _factor_ in only a tiny fraction of cycle collisions. (2% when http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases reported it.) Motorists with poor eyesight, playing with mobile phones or not concentrating should be removed from the roads before they hit _anything_, not only unlit cyclists!
> ...


Good points. 
(I genuinely mean that despite my next comment, which is....)

I'll be sure to tell the officer this info if they catch me without rear lights on my car! They might even tell me if i were driving a yellow car they might be able to let me off, but a black car with no rear lights is asking for trouble.


----------



## vernon (5 Oct 2015)

mustang1 said:


> I saw all the cyclists whether wearing dark clothes or fully lit up. But the ones who were fully lit up, I saw from quite a distance. The ones with dark clothes, *I had to concentrate on them a lot more* and were aware of them only when they were a lot closer.
> 
> Since I was on my bike, it wasn't that big a deal as our speed difference is low. And BMWs these days have night vision cameras for those cyclists who like to make themselves as invisible as possible, I'll still be able to see those suckers.



You should be concentrating a lot more when driving a car anyway.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (5 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3938610, member: 9609"]riding a bike at night with with poor or no lights would be about as mad as scrapping trident.[/QUOTE]
Well, truly @theclaud has a point.
If you only ride urban, lit, cycle paths you don't really need more lights.
On a clear night in town even on the roads one is clearly visible.
Of course, street lighting could malfunction, one may need to leave the cycle path, the night could suddenly change from clear and starry to stormy.
Having at least one good set of lights on the bike is desirable.
I feel if we all keep accumulating powerful lights on our bikes, motorist will so get used to them that they'll stop paying attention.
Of course, if you ride off road or on unlit country lanes it's different.


----------



## Drago (5 Oct 2015)

Cyclechatters discuss cycle lights...

View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xWGAdzn5_KU


----------



## mjr (5 Oct 2015)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I feel if we all keep accumulating powerful lights on our bikes, motorist will so get used to them that they'll stop paying attention.


Some of them never started, which is a bigger problem!


----------



## mustang1 (6 Oct 2015)

vernon said:


> You should be concentrating a lot more when driving a car anyway.



Ok. You drive in the lane with the blacked out landmines, and I'll drive in the lane where the landmines are lit up. We'll both concentrate in the road but I think I'll have less of a headache at the end of the drive.


----------



## Drago (6 Oct 2015)

I have noticed that the finest camouflaged military equipment is adorned with cycle lights to make it even less conspicuous.


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Oct 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The CTC's basic objection against lighting was the change in responsibility from the motorist being responsible for looking to the cyclist being responsible for the motorist seeing them


How does that work with car lights then? Should they be on or off?


----------



## winjim (6 Oct 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> How does that work with car lights then? Should they be on or off?


Legally, it's sidelights only in a built up area. If everybody did this, it would be great. But they don't, so it isn't.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> How does that work with car lights then? Should they be on or off?


Front ones on, back ones off.


----------



## MontyVeda (6 Oct 2015)

winjim said:


> Legally, it's sidelights only in a built up area. If everybody did this, it would be great. But they don't, so it isn't.


that makes sense... I shall no longer think/say to myself "look at that idiot driving with only sidelights at this time of night."


----------



## winjim (6 Oct 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> that makes sense... I shall no longer think/say to myself "look at that idiot driving with only sidelights at this time of night."


I did start driving like that myself, since I hate to be dazzled, but my wife went bananas so I went back to dim-dips.


----------



## mjr (6 Oct 2015)

winjim said:


> I did start driving like that myself, since I hate to be dazzled, but my wife went bananas so I went back to dim-dips.


Hand her http://highwaycode.info/rule/113 and tell her she can bloody drive if she wants to break the rules


----------



## Simpleton (6 Oct 2015)

In my experience I find it liberally refreshing to cycle without lights. It eliminates any sort of assumptions that you may have about drivers perhaps seeing you. I only have them on the bike so I don't get stopped and lectured by Five-O, and perhaps fined.


----------



## Simpleton (6 Oct 2015)

User said:


> Beano?



Eh? I read the comic when I was a kid.


----------



## winjim (6 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> Hand her http://highwaycode.info/rule/113 and tell her she can bloody drive if she wants to break the rules


Well, it doesn't demand dim-dip lights, but neither does it preclude them I think so no actual rule breaking. Either way it wouldn't work. By that I mean she'd end up driving and we'd both end up cross.


----------



## theclaud (6 Oct 2015)




----------



## NinjaLemur (7 Oct 2015)

Too much ?


----------



## PeteXXX (7 Oct 2015)

From my truck dashcam a short while ago. This is on an unlit 'A' road.
Shout 'twat' when you spot him/her.


----------



## mjr (7 Oct 2015)

PeteXXX said:


> From my truck dashcam a short while ago. This is on an unlit 'A' road.
> Shout 'twat' when you spot him/her.


Well yes, that's a bit silly, but aren't truck headlights meant to light up a bit more than two dashes ahead of you? Is the dashcam making it look dark?


----------



## PeteXXX (7 Oct 2015)

They are bright enough to see but not dazzle oncoming vehicles. The cam isn't bad for nighttime vision, but the balance isn't always perfect.


----------



## Simpleton (7 Oct 2015)

PeteXXX said:


> From my truck dashcam a short while ago. This is on an unlit 'A' road.
> Shout 'twat' when you spot him/her.




That's a false representation as the quantum efficiency of a camera is far less than the human eye.


----------



## cd365 (7 Oct 2015)

PeteXXX said:


> From my truck dashcam a short while ago. This is on an unlit 'A' road.
> Shout 'twat' when you spot him/her.



He will get his Darwin award soon enough no doubt!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (7 Oct 2015)

PeteXXX said:


> From my truck dashcam a short while ago. This is on an unlit 'A' road.
> Shout 'twat' when you spot him/her.




I spotted the cyclist at 37 seconds, which looked like the same time you saw them. Do I win a prize?


----------



## Drago (7 Oct 2015)

Riding to work on the dark on Monday, was confronted by a gent with a big old CREE pointed into my face and set to flashing. Yes, I could spot him a mile off but the combination of aim, brightness and flashing was such that I had zero hope of estimating his speed, movement or direction of travel, and I was virtually atop him before my eyes could resolve that he was indeed in the same road coming toward me. His efforts to make himself safer had seriously compromised his safety.

I'm all for big, bad lights, but the manner of its use was well beyond the sensible.


----------



## PeteXXX (7 Oct 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> I spotted the cyclist at 37 seconds, which looked like the same time you saw them. Do I win a prize?


Any prize off the top shelf.....


----------

