# All bikes should be fitted with lights!



## chap (24 Jan 2010)

This is more of a debate than a reaction to anything I have read. However, I have seen many people cycling through London at night with no lights on their bikes. Whilst this is generally OK on the long main streets, I seriously think this is an issue at junctions and at less lit up parts.

Therefore my proposal, for this debate, is that it is made law to stock all new bikes with pedal-powered lights. This could be a bike dynamo, or those magnetic lights. Battery powered lights should be available but at an explicitly stated premium where the pedal-powered alternative is also available.

Please discuss.


----------



## Davidc (24 Jan 2010)

I'd go along with that. Those flashing lights powered by a magnet on the wheel and a coil on the frame would do fine, with a hub dynamo as a more powerful alternative. I'd also be in favour of them being always on, day and night.

I always try to have working dynamo and battery lights on my bikes, although in summer the battery ones tend to get left off.

I think riding a bike after dark with no lights requires the same attitude to personal wellbeing as taking up smoking. "It won't happen to me and I don't care anyway".


----------



## Gareth (24 Jan 2010)

Yes,
I totally agree with you, and think that we should follow Germany's shining example (pun intended) regarding Bicycle lights.

*"Germany requires that all bikes over 11 kg are fitted with compliant dynamo lighting systems, but even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing"*


However, after spotting two Norwich Police officers out on patrol on the city centres roads at about 10 pm last night on completely unlit Bicycles, how are they ever going to enforce the bicycle light laws?


----------



## marinyork (24 Jan 2010)

I don't think it's a totally silly idea but would cost too much money to the consumer as manufacturers cash in.

If it was something like the £4 7 LED smart rear light and a slightly more expensive front one that'd be all right. Anything above that cost . So maybe rears as for various understandable reasons they tend to be cheaper.

I don't see many unlit cyclists at all though, it's a bit like RLJing and the london lot getting all excitable.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2010)

Basically where do we start...

Firstly my commuting would not be possible with the magnetic lights as it is against the rules to take a flashing red light on to a train station or ferry

Secondly why should i accept these inferior products - my lights are bright, clear and rechargeable.

Finally battery life.... one of the problems with any decent light is battery life. To have the lights on full time would mean next time I tour carrying some 5 battery packs at £81 a throw and with a 6 hour charge cycle I would have to cary at least three chargers and get up in the middle of the night to change them over!

Not practicable for anyone who believes in being seen.


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

I think that in principle it's a good idea.

We want to be viewd as "proper traffic" but you can't buy a road car without headlights!
You obvoously need to be able to replace or disable the factory fitted" options but a couple of built-in LED's wouldn't be such a big deal to build into a bike surely?


----------



## gaz (24 Jan 2010)

No thank you, just with the dumb bells that come with the bike, i will take them off as soon as i get home!


----------



## snorri (24 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> This is more of a debate than a reaction to anything I have read. However, I have seen many people cycling through London at night with no lights on their bikes.
> Please discuss.


It's outrageous  ,these London cyclists are mollycoddled with all the streetlighting. In other parts of the UK, cyclists have to light up our own little worlds with lights they have bought themselves.


----------



## GrasB (24 Jan 2010)

All new bikes should be supplied with a set of lights conforming to the relevant standards. Beyond that it's probably a good idea to supply lights with new bikes that are powered by the bikes motion. 

Davidc, As for having lights on all the time, exactly what type of lights are you proposing? All the kite marked lights I've seen are effectively useless in daylight. Most lights are useful but not all that visible in day light & those that are are fairly expensive.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> This is more of a debate than a reaction to anything I have read. However, I have seen many people cycling through London at night with no lights on their bikes. Whilst this is generally OK on the long main streets, I seriously think this is an issue at junctions and at less lit up parts.
> 
> Therefore my proposal, for this debate, is that it is made law to stock all new bikes with pedal-powered lights. This could be a bike dynamo, or those magnetic lights. Battery powered lights should be available but at an explicitly stated premium where the pedal-powered alternative is also available.
> 
> Please discuss.



what about all us racers who buy an expensive bike to be light and we never use them at night, what would be the point of putting lights on them then??

we spend alot of money making out bikes as light as possible just to have all of it wasted because lights have to be put on our bikes


----------



## Soltydog (24 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Firstly my commuting would not be possible with the magnetic lights as it is against the rules to take a flashing red light on to a train station or ferry



I've never been told I cant have a red flashing light on at the train station  i always turn my lights on whilst at the station before setting off home.

If they were to be fitted to all bikes, imagine how good you brand new full carbon race bike would look with el cheepo lights fitted as standard


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Basically where do we start...
> 
> Firstly my commuting would not be possible with the magnetic lights as it is against the rules to take a flashing red light on to a train station or ferry
> 
> ...



You could always just bin the lights taht came with the bike and buy your own though. I think the point of the thread is that a law that bikes were supplied with lights would mean that no one had an excuse to be riding around unlit, rather than forcing everyone to use crap lights.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> what about all us racers who buy an expensive bike to be light and we never use them at night, what would be the point of putting lights on them then??
> 
> we spend alot of money making out bikes as light as possible just to have all of it wasted because lights have to be put on our bikes



You could always take them off.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> You could always take them off.



but adding items like lights onto bikes will make them more expensive as well so whats the point on putting them on high level bikes that wont need them?? i just dont get the point in it!!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> but adding items like lights onto bikes will make them more expensive as well so whats the point on putting them on high level bikes that wont need them?? i just dont get the point in it!!



I can't see that sticking a five quid set of LED lights onto a two grand Trek is going to be a financial incentive for folk to take up a different hobby. But perhaps there could be an exception for bikes which are clearly intended for racing, in the same way that F1 cars aren't fitted with lights.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I can't see that sticking a five quid set of LED lights onto a two grand Trek is going to be a financial incentive for folk to take up a different hobby. But perhaps there could be an exception for bikes which are clearly intended for racing, in the same way that F1 cars aren't fitted with lights.



i think its a good idea on hybrids but not road bikes,

thinking about it though you would find it hard to fit a rear light to my madone because of its aero seat post


----------



## Gareth (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> what about all us racers who buy an expensive bike to be light and we never use them at night, what would be the point of putting lights on them then??
> 
> we spend alot of money making out bikes as light as possible just to have all of it wasted because lights have to be put on our bikes



*"even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing"*


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Gareth said:


> *"even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing"*



dude ermmmm try and fit a rear light to an aero seatpost


----------



## GrasB (24 Jan 2010)

Lets face it we're picking at straws here, if you're buying a nice lightweight race bike you're almost certainly going to have a training bike & possibly other bikes, so why not pull the lights off your race bike & use them on that one (you now know you're road legal in terms of lighting regardless of what other lights you have on the bike). Are you trying to tell me there's no way you're going to be riding any bike during light-up hours, because I don't really believe that.

As for aero tubing etc, if there's a will there's a way. Pieces of rubber cut to shape should allow you to mount anything to the front & back of your bike if required.


----------



## Davidc (24 Jan 2010)

I think a lot of people have missed the point.

The German rules are as close to sense as anyone will ever get.
The vast majority of bikes are for transport or general recreation. They have to have lighting, and it has to come from a dynamo.

those bkes which are specialist can have lightweight battery lights.

When racing the ligts can come off.

So: 99.999% of bikes will have dynamo lighting helping their riders avoid being killed or injured because they havent been seen.

0.00089% same applies but it's battery lights

0.0001% are racing

0.00001% are flattened - they forgot to put new batteries in.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> Lets face it we're picking at straws here, if you're buying a nice lightweight race bike you're almost certainly going to have a training bike & possibly other bikes, so why not pull the lights off your race bike & use them on that one (you now know you're road legal in terms of lighting regardless of what other lights you have on the bike). *Are you trying to tell me there's no way you're going to be riding any bike during light-up hours, because I don't really believe that.*
> 
> *As for aero tubing etc, if there's a will there's a way. Pieces of rubber cut to shape should allow you to mount anything to the front & back of your bike if* required.



1. i have never riden my race bike in low light levels because surprisingly races are held when theres light 

2. im assuming that the fitting wouldnt be alloud to be "home made" by a bike shop due to safety reasons


----------



## Gareth (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> dude ermmmm try and fit a rear light to an aero seatpost



"One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind."





So that also includes the frame's off-side seat stay.


----------



## GrasB (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> 1. i have never riden my race bike in low light levels because surprisingly races are held when theres light
> 
> 2. im assuming that the fitting wouldnt be alloud to be "home made" by a bike shop due to safety reasons


Unless we invent a whole new suite of laws Gareth answered this one for me:


Gareth said:


> "One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind."


I don't remember anything being said about HOW the light is mounted to the bike only that it is!


----------



## Young Un (24 Jan 2010)

I'm sorry, but NOO!


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

Surely tiny LED lights could be intergrated into the frame though? Could look very nice


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Panter said:


> Surely tiny LED lights could be intergrated into the frame though? Could look very nice



ermmmmmm i dont want lights in my nice light carbon frame!!


----------



## Dan B (24 Jan 2010)

Panter said:


> We want to be viewd as "proper traffic" but you can't buy a road car without headlights!


"What do you mean '_we_', paleface?" 

We are already proper traffic, and we've been proper traffic (along with horses, carriages and foot passengers) since long before the motorcar came along and tried to recast the road use agenda on terms advantageous purely for them. If you can make the case for compulsory cycle lighting on actual safety or social grounds then fair enough, but arguing on the basis "cars do X so why don't we?" - for _any_ value of X - is just falling into the car supremacists trap


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

coruskate said:


> "What do you mean '_we_', paleface?"
> 
> We are already proper traffic, and we've been proper traffic (along with horses, carriages and foot passengers) since long before the motorcar came along and tried to recast the road use agenda on terms advantageous purely for them. If you can make the case for compulsory cycle lighting on actual safety or social grounds then fair enough, but arguing on the basis "cars do X so why don't we?" - for _any_ value of X - is just falling into the car supremacists trap



Just seems a bit unfair.
The poor old motorist has to have them, why shouldn't we?







I see what you'e saying but I can't see a downside to making bicycle lighting mandatory.
Ok, there's the policing issue but that shouldn't be grounds for not doing something in my book.


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

coruskate said:


> "What do you mean '_we_', paleface?"



That deserved a special mention


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jan 2010)

I don't want a dynamo as it is inadequate.... I now have to spend another wadge of cash on a new wheel for my brand new bike.

As for frame fitting - where?
Can I still use a bar bag as it obscures the front light or a saddlebag as it obscures the rear?
Are the panniers excluded if it is rear frame mounted?


----------



## chap (24 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> I think a lot of people have missed the point.
> 
> The German rules are as close to sense as anyone will ever get.
> The vast majority of bikes are for transport or general recreation. They have to have lighting, and it has to come from a dynamo.
> ...




This is pretty much my line of thought. I would prefer if *peddle-powered* (magnetic or dynamo driven) lights were used, this is why I mentioned the extra premium if battery lights were to be used (or some agreement if one was to use their own.) However, I don't personally mind if people buy battery lights - I use them myself, however many people would not take care to ensure that the batteries are replaced, unlike the fine fellows of this board and myself, which is why I have a preference for alternatives. 

There are interesting exceptions, such as the racing cyclists, although as many have said if you don't like the lights on you can take them off. I do not envisage many trying to rip off customers, especially with market forces allowing for a complete set of reasonable lights to be bought for under £10.

Most of the cyclists I see around London (unlit) tend to be riding various mountain bikes - presumably bought from Halfords (which is good since they could be used to benchmark the progress). They have the bike and just want something to get them from A to B. Therefore why not have the stores fit them with no-fuss 'inconspicuous' lights which will mean that they can go around the place all the same without any issue, yet safer.

I like the Vélib scheme bikes (and the soon to arrive London Cycle Scheme ones) they have 'always-on' lights and people soon get used to them. The same can be said if these were to be introduced on new bikes. If there was proper legislation passed, and the minimal requirements for these lights were made out, then there would be no problem.

Currently you can buy a set of 'always-on' magnetic lights for about £20. If demand was increased substantially (e.g. law) then then this already cheap price would be knocked down substantially. Furthermore, when people get used to having such positive features, they are rather reluctant to have them removed. It is just a case of breaking through the inertia.


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> I don't want a dynamo as it is inadequate.... I now have to spend another wadge of cash on a new wheel for my brand new bike.
> 
> As for frame fitting - where?
> Can I still use a bar bag as it obscures the front light or a saddlebag as it obscures the rear?
> Are the panniers excluded if it is rear frame mounted?



I don't have any actual _answers_, just ideas 

I just think that in this modern era of carbon monocoque frames and tiny, but insanely powerful LED's, it shouldn't be that difficult to either make something that either looks really good, or, is completely invisible until swithched on.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Panter said:


> I don't have any actual _answers_, just ideas
> 
> I just think that in this modern era of carbon monocoque frames and tiny, but insanely powerful LED's, it shouldn't be that difficult to either make something that either looks really good, or, is completely invisible until swithched on.



i guess you could put them on the rear forks


----------



## Panter (24 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> i guess you could put them on the rear forks



There you are you see, we're brainstorming 
Let's just hope the manufacturers are reading this


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Panter said:


> There you are you see, we're brainstorming
> Let's just hope the manufacturers are reading this



haha we best get royalties


----------



## thomas (24 Jan 2010)

I suppose I should also have some lights embedded into my body too? For those times I'm walking home drunk.

The bell rule is stupid, when the law says that being able to yell is good enough. Why would I want a new bike to be fitted with some lights that cost a couple quid, when I already have £100+ worth of lights on my bike/helmet?

If someone else is too stupid to have lights, I'm sorry, but why should I be penalised for that?


----------



## Davidc (24 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> I suppose I should also have some lights embedded into my body too? For those times I'm walking home drunk.
> 
> The bell rule is stupid, when the law says that being able to yell is good enough. Why would I want a new bike to be fitted with some lights that cost a couple quid, when I already have £100+ worth of lights on my bike/helmet?
> 
> If someone else is too stupid to have lights, I'm sorry, but why should I be penalised for that?



The whole point of the post is that compulsory always-on lights would help the majority (many of whom are demonstrably stupid).

Your requirement (as with a number of others above) is specialised, and you don't appear to be stupid - certainly not at the level of night riding without lights.

You'd just end up like me, with a few spare wheels around. You'd have your bike with battery lights and you'd claim to be a racer.

I have 2 front wheels in the garage - one from each bike, a 26" and a 700c, which don't have dynamos and don't get used. Any offers?


----------



## snorri (24 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> Most of the cyclists I see around London .
> 
> I like the Vélib scheme bikes (and the soon to arrive London Cycle Scheme ones) they have 'always-on' lights and people soon get used to them. The same can be said if these were to be introduced on new bikes. If there was proper legislation passed, and the minimal requirements for these lights were made out, then there would be no problem.


Most of the cyclists seen around London need to have their collars felt as far as lights are concerned, but they are not typical of the country at large.
I don't think we should be encouraging any 'always on' lights, it's just another thing to make cycling more problematical. Do they illuminate the road sufficiently anyway?


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> *The whole point of the post is that compulsory always-on lights would help the majority (many of whom are demonstrably stupid).*
> 
> Your requirement (as with a number of others above) is specialised, and you don't appear to be stupid - certainly not at the level of night riding without lights.
> 
> ...



i think you will find that a MAJORITY of people have bikes that dont ever see that dark so it would be a waste of time fitting them with lights wouldnt it  or are you trying to tell me that even if you never ride your nice light racing bike at night you need lights on it


----------



## chap (24 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> I suppose I should also have some lights embedded into my body too? For those times I'm walking home drunk.
> 
> The bell rule is stupid, when the law says that being able to yell is good enough. Why would I want a new bike to be fitted with some lights that cost a couple quid, when I already have £100+ worth of lights on my bike/helmet?
> 
> If someone else is too stupid to have lights, I'm sorry, but why should I be penalised for that?



Generally, pedestrians do not walk along the road.

Not everyone has the same vocal strength, the bell is more or less to a standard pitch, and almost universally distinguishable and recognised, therefore it is perfect for pedestrian (and cyclist) moments. If one is dealing with cars regularly then the air horn is probably your best bet. Admittedly, I think that lights are a more pertinent bicycle accessory than bells.

So the crux of your argument is that this hypothetical law is superfluous due to its potential implementation? This is exactly why certain opt-out clauses would be reasonable. The idea is to fit them as standard and those who do not require them (day-time racers) can pursue alternatives. If this was the case then we could tackle the problem of cycling without lights more effectively. It may push up the cost of the bike, but to get back to your concluding sentence you would be bringing down the national costs that, at present, could be attributed to other peoples stupidity.


----------



## Davidc (24 Jan 2010)

Always on lights aren't there to illuminate the road, theyre to improve visibility (ie makle the motons see us in time).

I always have lights on in daytime unless I forget to turn them on! A flashing Smart 1/2 watt one at the back and a 5 LED electron flasher at the front. The dynamo lights are on as well if the sun isn't out. It occasionally gets a comment (Oi, your lights are on mate) but appears to keep cars at a better distance than they would otherwise be at.

Most bikes may only be used in daytime. Daytime lights are an excellent idea and reduce accidents, so why not make always-on lights compulsory? (See German, Danish, French, Netherlands, etc. research)

Riding withot lights after dark should qualify for an automatic Darwin award, but forcing bikes to be sold with a minimum level of always-on lights would make a lot more sense than pedal or wheel reflectors do. (IM not at all HO)


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (24 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> Always on lights aren't there to illuminate the road, theyre to improve visibility (ie makle the motons see us in time).
> 
> *I always have lights on in daytime unless I forget to turn them on! *A flashing Smart 1/2 watt one at the back and a 5 LED electron flasher at the front. The dynamo lights are on as well if the sun isn't out. It occasionally gets a comment (Oi, your lights are on mate) but appears to keep cars at a better distance than they would otherwise be at.



ermmmmmm you have your lights on in daytime  how many batterys do you go through in a week


----------



## snorri (24 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> Generally, pedestrians do not walk along the road.


Oh!  Where do they walk then? There are not footpaths and pavements everywhere.

The idea of 'always on' lights on bikes is just as wrong as that of day lighting on cars.


----------



## Gareth (24 Jan 2010)

Daylight Running Lights; DLRs are being introduce on all new motor vehicles sold in Britain from 2011/12, so why not on all new Bicycles sold from then as well?


----------



## chap (24 Jan 2010)

snorri said:


> Most of the cyclists seen around London need to have their collars felt as far as lights are concerned, but they are not typical of the country at large.
> I don't think we should be encouraging any 'always on' lights, it's just another thing to make cycling more problematical. Do they illuminate the road sufficiently anyway?




I would agree that London is not typical of the country at large, chiefly because cycle usage is noticeably increasing rather dramatically (just wait until May.) Although, my initial observation also holds water in many other places I have been to around the UK.

I have noticed in London (and many other cities and towns) that I only need enough light to be seen. In the country-side, on a New Moon, one definitely requires a little more 'muscle'. However, I would imagine that those that cycle in the country-side at night would (out of necessity) already opt for very bright, or more lights. It is the people in developed area which are the problem since they can see just fine without lights at night and cannot be bothered to either buy a set or keep the batteries charged, these are the people for whom such legislation would benefit most (if not those who could otherwise be the unfortunate ones to be involved in an accident with such people.)


----------



## chap (24 Jan 2010)

snorri said:


> Oh!  Where do they walk then? There are not footpaths and pavements everywhere.
> 
> The idea of 'always on' lights on bikes is just as wrong as that of day lighting on cars.



I see the power of the comma was lost here. To reiterate:
*'Generally*, pedestrians do not walk along the road.' ​However when they do, there are a series of considerations that usually take place. For a start, they are more mindful of cars since they are not on their usual territory - thus will tend to keep to the side, especially when they hear an approaching vehicle. This is why it can be a problem when cycling on country lanes, as you startle the pedestrians who either turn and see an object close up and approaching, or assuming they are the only ones there suddenly hear a 'Good Morning / Afternoon'.

In rural areas the more sensible citizens usually carry a torch at night, when going for a walk. Some even wear reflectives. So if they can afford to take such precautions when they are walking (bear in mind that you are much more agile when on foot than any other mode of transportation) then surely it makes sense to at least adopt the minimal of them (mandatory lights) when on a bike. Bearing in mind that anybody, regardless of skill, could walk into Halfords, buy a bike, then cycle on to the road.


----------



## Panter (25 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> *I suppose I should also have some lights embedded into my body too? For those times I'm walking home drunk.*
> 
> The bell rule is stupid, when the law says that being able to yell is good enough. Why would I want a new bike to be fitted with some lights that cost a couple quid, when I already have £100+ worth of lights on my bike/helmet?
> 
> If someone else is too stupid to have lights, I'm sorry, but why should I be penalised for that?



We're getting a little silly now aren't we.
Bicycles are made to be ridden on the road, except for MTB's of course.

The OP was to discuss the merits of compulsory bicycle lighting which, I think, is a good idea.
Sure, you should have the option to upgrade your lights, and I imagine that most people will, but if there are discreet, built in LED lights in the frame, what is the problem with that? how does that penalise you?


----------



## Panter (25 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> I see the power of the comma was lost here. To reiterate:
> *'Generally*, pedestrians do not walk along the road.' ​However when they do, there are a series of considerations that usually take place. For a start, they are more mindful of cars since they are not on their usual territory - thus will tend to keep to the side, especially when they hear an approaching vehicle. This is why it can be a problem when cycling on country lanes, as you startle the pedestrians who either turn and see an object close up and approaching, or assuming they are the only ones there suddenly hear a 'Good Morning / Afternoon'.
> 
> *In rural areas the more sensible citizens usually carry a torch at night, when going for a walk. Some even wear reflectives. So if they can afford to take such precautions when they are walking (bear in mind that you are much more agile when on foot than any other mode of transportation) then surely it makes sense to at least adopt the minimal of them (mandatory lights) when on a bike. Bearing in mind that anybody, regardless of skill, could walk into Halfords, buy a bike, then cycle on to the road*.



+1 to all of that.

My commute takes in a lot of quiet, rural lanes but there are still a surprising number of walkers, joggers etc out.

The vast majority of them carry a torch pointing at the ground at the very least, whilst most wear hi-vis and carry lights.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.

The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.

While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't _that_ big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.


----------



## Davidc (25 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> 2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.
> 
> The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.



An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.

It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.

Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.


----------



## Panter (25 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> 2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.
> 
> The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.
> 
> While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't _that_ big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.



Completely agree with that.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.
> 
> It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.
> 
> Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.



Couldn't disagree more. 

Having lights or not is not demonstrably a contributory factor in many accidents for cyclists. It isn't whether we're lit up or not, it isn't whether the motorist has lights on, its whether they look. Not whether they just gawp in our direction, its whether they _look for_ cyclists. 

If a cyclist is too thin to be seen, it could be because of poor road positioning at a junction, or it could be that the observational skills of the motorist aren't good enough to justify being allowed to propel a serious mass of metal and glass at high speed in public. Not caring? Sometimes. Not understanding or having sufficient competence? Frequently. Not seeing because of a lack of lights? Happens, but it is almost vanishingly rare. 

Really, I support having lights on bikes. But we need to get a grip here and stop blaming cyclists for a tiny minority cause of accidents.


----------



## Dan B (25 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.
> 
> It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.


But this is basically self-defeating: anything you wear or attach to your bike that makes you "stand out" is only useful if nobody else is doing it. If everyone else has got one too, you're lost in the crowd again. And if the car drivers can run theirs off a 70 amp alternator while the cyclist is limited to the batteries he can carry or a hub-mounted dynamo, this is an arms race that in the long term, the cyclist will lose.


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

Forcing bike lights is stupid. If they require batteries then they won't last forever. If they require dynamos they will probably put people of cycling.

Either way, if they can be turned on and off, people may still not use them (out of laziness).



chap said:


> It may push up the cost of the bike, but to get back to your concluding sentence you would be bringing down the national costs that, at present, could be attributed to other peoples stupidity.



What national cost? The bill from the NHS? I don't think that the bill from the odd cyclist without lights actually costs the country more than a few peanuts in the scheme of things.



Panter said:


> Sure, you should have the option to upgrade your lights, and I imagine that most people will, but if there are discreet, built in LED lights in the frame, what is the problem with that? *how does that penalise you?*



Because I'm forced into having something of no benefit to me and something I don't want.



Cab said:


> 2% of cyclist deaths are down to not having lights.
> 
> The vast bulk of deaths and injuries happening to adult cyclists are due to motorist error; either not looking or not caring enough to act safely on the roads.
> 
> While I agree that we should have lights at night, we need to get a sense of perspective. Ain't _that_ big a deal. If one tenth of the time and effort devoted to making cyclists act better were devoted to making motorists act better, we'd be far better off.



+1!!! 



Davidc said:


> An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.



It doesn't work like that though. Motorcyclists generally have lights on more of the time, yet my Dad (who does less miles on his motorbike than I do on my bike) has had 2 (daytime) accidents in the past couple of years, where as I've been lucky enough not to be injured. One was with a, very loud Harley. You couldn't miss that even if you didn't look, but he still had someone reverse into him.

It's like drivers who use full beam all the time. If everyone does it, everyone blends in.

Much better to only allow people to drive if they can drive safely and *look* before pulling out at junctions. it's much simpler to look than it is to force every bicycle to have compulsory lighting.


Around here there are a lot of students on bikes, many without lights. There are a couple main routes, put some police on them for a couple days over a few weeks and either giving people a £30 fine or option to buy lights would be a lot more beneficial. Very few of the students would be buying a new bike with inbuilt lights, but a second hand out without. You would probably find any law wouldn't require older bikes to be modified with a lighting system and therefore a large amount of people without lights wouldn't benefit.


----------



## gavintc (25 Jan 2010)

I think nanny would like this idea. 

Nanny likes safety things. Nanny thinks you can never be safe enough.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Around here there are a lot of students on bikes, many without lights. There are a couple main routes, put some police on them for a couple days over a few weeks and either giving people a £30 fine or option to buy lights would be a lot more beneficial.



While I think that anyone caught out at night without lights has no room to complain (its a fair cop!), I don't approve of specifically targeting cyclists without lights in this way. The stats on the causes of accidents do not support the argument that such is a good way to spend police time and resources.

Better to use the same resources to target the cause of what is, statistically, the most likely cause of cycling accidents; bad motoring.


----------



## thomas (25 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> While I think that anyone caught out at night without lights has no room to complain (its a fair cop!), I don't approve of specifically targeting cyclists without lights in this way. The stats on the causes of accidents do not support the argument that such is a good way to spend police time and resources.
> 
> Better to use the same resources to target the cause of what is, statistically, the most likely cause of cycling accidents; bad motoring.




It did used to bother me a bit, but now I couldn't really care less. They can all be seen. I was more pointing out, that it seems to make more sense to actually enforce existing laws than making up new ones about bicycles having to legally have lights, even if not ridden at night/dusk.

I reckon if the police were positioned along the avenues for a night they could easily stop 20-50+ cyclists without lights....however, it's well lit up throughout and usually cyclists are bunched up so 'safe in numbers'. Put a few PCSOs on it...it wouldn't be a waste of police resources as they only seem to walk around aimlessly not doing a lot anyway 

Certainly a quick trip around the ring road and you'll spot a number of cars with faulty brake lights which is a pet hate of mine.


----------



## GrasB (25 Jan 2010)

while existing road traffic laws are more than up to the job I still think that every new bike should be fitted with road legal lights. Just like a bell you can take them off but you then really don't have much of an excuse for not being road legal with regard to lights. For people who like 'big' lights you've got your self a set of 'bobby beaters', you only need one of your lights at either end of the bike to be legal any other lights are considered extras & don't have to be 'road legal'.


----------



## snorri (25 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> An excellent and compelling reason for always on lighting to be used. Give drivers all possible help in seeing cyclists.
> It's no good saying that they should be looking and see cyclists anyway. Drivers have loads to take in, and bikes are a very thin target to notice.
> Not caring would only apply to a tiny proportion of drivers. Most do care, they're just not good enough to drive safely.


I totally disagree.
You are caliing for cyclists spend their own money on dubious safety equipment instead of campaigning for suitable punishment on errant drivers. 
Bump up fines and reduce the number of points required to disqualify reckless drivers, make the guilty pay, not the innocent.


----------



## Davidc (25 Jan 2010)

snorri said:


> I totally disagree.
> You are caliing for cyclists spend their own money on dubious safety equipment instead of campaigning for suitable punishment on errant drivers.
> Bump up fines and reduce the number of points required to disqualify reckless drivers, make the guilty pay, not the innocent.



No, just suggesting that cyclists can do a bit to help themselves at negligible cost.

My views on punishments for errant drivers are elsewhere on the forum. Generally if I had my way they'd be off the road for at least a year on a first offence, with a minimum £1k fine, for most moving traffic offences.

It's an unconnected issue.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> Daytime lights are an excellent idea and reduce accidents, so why not make always-on lights compulsory? (See German, Danish, French, Netherlands, etc. research)



Be careful as this is not entirely true, i depends on the accident type

The studies as a whole are varied, some types of accidents such as rearend collisions actually increased by 20% in one study(1) and a 16% pedstrian / vehicle accident increase (2)



1. Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993).

2. Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights in Denmark--Evaluation of the safety effect. Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Copenhagen, 1993; Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights: Experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Fersi Conference, Lille, 1994. 



2.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (25 Jan 2010)

im sorry but how the hell can aways on light be a good idea :s

this just means that the dam things will have run out off battery when you actually need them shorly


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2010)

Of course the whole point being missed is that lights are totally ineffective!

 For example

A 720 lumen off road cycle light on full beam and I still cannot be seen. What would be the point of a frame mounted LED?


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Jan 2010)

Funnily enough if you read the 2005 Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations:



> The only case of exemption from regulations is for cycles which are used ONLY in good visibility during daytime. These cycles are not required to be fitted with lights.


Department for Transport Guidance about lights on pedal cycles


----------



## Davidc (25 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> im sorry but how the hell can aways on light be a good idea :s
> 
> this just means that the dam things will have run out off battery when you actually need them shorly



If they run from any form of dynamo they won't run out, if on batteries then they need changing. If the batteries are rechargeables then they cost half of b***** all to run.

German regulations require bikes to be ftted with a dynamo. No reason why ours shouldn't.


----------



## Davidc (25 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course the whole point being missed is that lights are totally ineffective!
> 
> For example
> 
> A 720 lumen off road cycle light on full beam and I still cannot be seen. What would be the point of a frame mounted LED?



That one idiot drives backwards without looking doesn't mean that lights are totally ineffective. It means they are only 99.99% effective rather than 100%. We all know that there are drivers around who are clinically blind. In the case of that driver it's unlikely that a football ground floodlight would have any effect. A large fine and a long driving ban for lack of due care and attention might be more useful if he/ she took any notice of it.

The point of the OP, before getting into the pros and cons of daytime lights, was that if movement powered lights were compulsory as original equipment on standard bikes, at a basic level, there would be less unlit bikes around, and less night time problems. Of course it isn't a cure all for night time cycling issues, but it would help with overall cycling safety.

In all this it's easy to lose sight of the fact that cycling has probably never been safer than it is now - but that shouldn't stop measures to improve it further.


----------



## Cab (25 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> The point of the OP, before getting into the pros and cons of daytime lights, was that if movement powered lights were compulsory as original equipment on standard bikes, at a basic level, there would be less unlit bikes around, and less night time problems. Of course it isn't a cure all for night time cycling issues, but it would help with overall cycling safety.



Lack of lights is a _tiny_ contributory factor in cycling casualties. 2%. 

Of all of the things that could be done to improve cycle safety... I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying that the amount effort and discussion concentrating on this is way out of proprotion. If anything, we're getting to the point where further discussion on this among cyclists lends a disproportionate credibility to the false claim that its all our own fault.


----------



## chap (26 Jan 2010)

I notice that there seems to be a certain amount to repetition going on, primarily because people either have not read the original post, or have ignored several illuminating posts by others. So hopefully with the use of colour - this one shall stand out.



 The post recommends *non-battery lighting *i.e. pedal-powered
 Always on lighting by definition cannot feasibly be battery powered
 There would be exceptions (e.g. racers or those who insist on batteries)
 It would not be extremely expensive (currently with little demand a set of Reelights cost £2030-40 )
If they proved popular, then the price of these electromagnetic lights would be driven down.
 Popular public cycle schemes e.g. Vélib use always on lighting
 Londons public cycle scheme shall use always-on-lights (unfortunately in true TfL fashion, the website reveals precious little)
 Germany *already* has these laws
 Generally, *Cycling is more popular and widespread in Germany* than here
From that font of knowledge, Wikipedia:

Under the International Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) of the United Nations, *a bicycle is a vehicle.* Article 44 of the Convention stipulates that: "Cycles without an engine in international traffic shall: (c) Be equipped with a red reflecting device at the rear and with devices such that the cycle can show a white or selective-yellow light to the front and a red light to the rear." In some countries, for example France, it may be an offence to even sell a bicycle not fitted with legally compliant lighting system. *Germany requires that all bikes over 11 kg are fitted with compliant dynamo lighting systems, but even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing.*


----------



## GrasB (26 Jan 2010)

There seems to be a common theme, not just here, but all through the campaigning to get new laws on the statute book or increase to reinforce or enhance laws/restrictions that already aren't properly enforced. So how about we just add in a simple, relatively easy to enforce law that gives no one an excuse not to have road legal lights as they're supplied with a set when they get their bike?


----------



## Cab (26 Jan 2010)

The law would neither be enforced nor make things measurably better for cyclists, and it would be another institutionalised insistence that cycle accidents are caused _by_ cyclists, an insidious, ever more pervasive myth. 

Hire bikes in Cambridge (and there are a lot of them) from the biggest supplier have dynamos. And they're easy enough to use, as we all know. Yet you look at them on the streets (they're easy to spot, distinctive bikes) and they're just not used. Unless you're going to put massive effort into enforcing the use of such things (which _cannot_ be justified based on safety data) then a rule like that is meaningless; it just becomes another stick for the petrolhead media to beat cyclists with.


----------



## snorri (26 Jan 2010)

Wot Cab said.


----------



## Davidc (26 Jan 2010)

That's easy Cab, if they're hub dynamos just take off the switches.

You are very very wrong Cab, a compulsory lights measure would greatly REDUCE the excuse for claiming that cyclists cause cycle accidents (unlike helmet propaganda which increases it) by decreasing the number of unlit bikes around.

Can't do any more but agree with Chap and GrasB


----------



## MacB (26 Jan 2010)

there is the difference between leisure and utility riding here, as keen hobbyists, cycle forum users are unlikely to fall strictly into the one category. Whether it should be a legal requirement or not is one argument. But making dynohubs, lights, guards and a rack, standard, rather than optional extras, on new commute/utility style bikes, makes sense to me. If you need to add all of these to a bike you're not getting any change out of £250. Even taking the cheapest options will still set you back £50+ to kit a bike out. 

The only bikes I conceivably wouldn't want these options on would be proper racers and MTB's. Neither of which I consider particularly versatile for alternate use, though they can be modified, slicks on MTB's, seatpost racks on racers, etc.


----------



## Davidc (26 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> If you need to add all of these to a bike you're not getting any change out of £250. Even taking the cheapest options will still set you back £50+ to kit a bike out.



I think there's an important issue with this.

If you look at the lowest web pricing for all the components on a bike, bought separately, they add up to much more than the web price of the bike. It's cheaper to buy a new bike now than to replace a few standard components.

If a set of always on lights is £30 including VAT (as quoted above) it's reasonable to assume that they'd be £0.30 or less OEM price, and add less than £1.00 to the final cost of the bike.

Because the market would be small you'd then be paying £50 to replace broken ones though.


----------



## MacB (26 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> I think there's an important issue with this.
> 
> If you look at the lowest web pricing for all the components on a bike, bought separately, they add up to much more than the web price of the bike. It's cheaper to buy a new bike now than to replace a few standard components.
> 
> ...



It's a good point and I've tried this out re a Fahrrad T900 Rohloff from Bikefix, which costs you £2k. This comes with Rohloff rear hub, SON front hub, lights, guards, rack, kickstand and Brooks saddle. It's a semi compact steel frame and probably not the lightest complete bike in the world. But just to buy a Rohloff/Son wheelset is going to hit you for £1600. Even going cheap and nasty, I can't build similar for less than £2400.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (26 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> If they run from any form of dynamo they won't run out, if on batteries then they need changing. If the batteries are rechargeables then they cost half of b***** all to run.
> 
> *German regulations require bikes to be ftted with a dynamo. No reason why ours shouldn't*.



ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i can think of many reasons why dynamos shouldnt be required on bikes, main reason of which is the amount of extra drag there is when using one, this is bound just to put people off cycling?? the second reason is weight i dont want a stupid dynamo on my racing bike  such a stupid idea!!


----------



## Cab (26 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> That's easy Cab, if they're hub dynamos just take off the switches.



The ones on the streets here aren't hub ones. And if hub dynamos were compulsory the cost would of construction would be higher and you'd see less people buying and riding bikes. They'll also break or be broken to make riding easier; its doomed to failure.



> You are very very wrong Cab, a compulsory lights measure would greatly REDUCE the excuse for claiming that cyclists cause cycle accidents (unlike helmet propaganda which increases it) by decreasing the number of unlit bikes around.



No it wouldn't. I refer you to my previous description of hire bikes in Cambridge and to safety data regarding unlit bicycles; there isn't a safety argument for this and there isn't a practical argument for it.


----------



## MacB (26 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm i can think of many reasons why dynamos shouldnt be required on bikes, main reason of which is the amount of extra drag there is when using one, this is bound just to put people off cycling?? the second reason is weight i dont want a stupid dynamo on my racing bike  such a stupid idea!!



Still missing the point where specific bikes are excluded from this?


----------



## thomas (26 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> German regulations require bikes to be ftted with a dynamo. No reason why ours shouldn't.



Plenty of good reasons. First one is that it's a stupid idea which we don't need. 



chap said:


> Germany *already* has these laws
> Generally, *Cycling is more popular and widespread in Germany* than here




The last point isn't really relevant unless you believe cycling would be more popular here if bikes came with compulsory lights.



MacB said:


> Still missing the point where specific bikes are excluded from this?



Better to just exclude all bikes as our wonderful legal system does 

The police ignore cyclists at the moment without lights, so why would they care if cyclists didn't have 'compulsory lights' on their bike.

I'm very much against a dynamo system, and I see no reason for me to spend more buying a new bike due to it having to come with lights, which I already own.

As Cab has pointed out a number of times, there isn't really any benefit to this point. Much better to just enforce existing laws of having lights at night (if you're going to do something).


----------



## MacB (26 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Plenty of good reasons. First one is that it's a stupid idea which we don't need.
> 
> [/LIST]The last point isn't really relevant unless you believe cycling would be more popular here if bikes came with compulsory lights.
> 
> ...



But the whole pointhere is that the sort of bike you'd be looking at wouldn't come with a dynamo system


----------



## thomas (26 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> But the whole pointhere is that the sort of bike you'd be looking at wouldn't come with a dynamo system




How do you know? I might want some crappy heavy bike .

I wouldn't want any of my bikes to have to be fitted with lights. Generally I have my set with me, but in the middle of summer if I was going out for a spin at lunch there seems no need for the extra accessories.

I'm not fussing that the lights weigh a bit, because I weigh a bit, but I'd rather not have extra accessories which can come off and get broken, or if I left my bike somewhere, stolen.

In Germany are the battery lights removable (but you don't remove them, other than to change batteries and things)? Because if they are removable it wouldn't surprise me if they got quickly nicked over here.


----------



## Norm (26 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> I wouldn't want any of my bikes to have to be fitted with lights. Generally I have my set with me...


This would be my concern. I have splurged on a very decent (IMO) set of lights and a handful of brackets so that I can clip them to whichever bike I am riding. 

Aside from the unnecessary waste which would arise from having a set of lights on each of my bikes, I'd rather have the option to spend the money on one set of transferable lights, rather than having a multitude of lights, cables, hubs etc to keep in good shape.

I have no concerns with a legal requirement to have lights, even if we were required to have lights fitted at all times, but for the law to say that I have to have as many sets of lights as I have bikes seems a bit OTT.

I also agree that it should also be a requirement to make it more obvious whether or not lights were legal lights at the point of sale. Or, rather, to make it obvious if lights do not meet the legal requirements. For off-road use, I can understand that some lights might be too powerful, but I think it should be made very clear which lights are legal and which are not, so that I can have at least one set fitted which could close off any potential wriggle-room for a murdering driver's insurance company.


----------



## thomas (26 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> I have no concerns with a legal requirement to have lights, even if we were required to have lights fitted at all times, but for the law to say that I have to have as many sets of lights as I have bikes seems a bit OTT.
> 
> *I also agree that it should also be a requirement to make it more obvious whether or not lights were legal lights at the point of sale.* Or, rather, to make it obvious if lights do not meet the legal requirements. For off-road use, I can understand that some lights might be too powerful, but I think it should be made very clear which lights are legal and which are not, so that I can have at least one set fitted which could close off any potential wriggle-room for a murdering driver's insurance company.



My main light, which sometimes might be my only front light (is good!) requires another light to conform with the law due to some silly loop holes in the legislation. It's in small print somewhere on the box. The light is better than my other light, which would be legal by itself. Law's silly. Be good to cut down some of the rubbish like that too!

Seems a bit pointless to always have lights fitted, much better just to enforce existing laws which if done properly, would keep about 2% of cyclists who would of had accidents a bit safer.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2010)

Again my problem, my present light setup(s) consist of a set of "bobby dodgers" at abouth £20 and a set of "decent lights" at about £400.

Do I really have to stop usingthe better lights and decrease both my visibilty and ability to see?


----------



## Bay Runner (26 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Again my problem, my present light setup(s) consist of a set of "bobby dodgers" at abouth £20 and a set of "decent lights" at about £400.



That’s my set up, the bobby dodgers came with my Giant CRS Sports Hybrid. 

My cateyes cost £60-70 approx

What happens in claim if my front bobby dodger was found to be obscured by my front cateye?


----------



## Cab (26 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> But the whole pointhere is that the sort of bike you'd be looking at wouldn't come with a dynamo system



Says who? Every day I ride a bottom of the range Giant Expression; I need something to function well, something I can get to a decent speed, something robust, and something that in the near inevitable eventuality of theft or vandalism is no great loss. And I don't want dynamo lights on it; why should I?


----------



## Bay Runner (26 Jan 2010)

Is dynamo system legal?
Surly not, the lights go out when you stop?


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2010)

Bay Runner said:


> Is dynamo system legal?
> Surly not, the lights go out when you stop?



Yes it is legal.... if you stay at the left of the road.

Also many systems now have a small LED "standlight" charged from the dynamo that will stay on for up to an hour when the bike is stop


----------



## MacB (26 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> Says who? Every day I ride a bottom of the range Giant Expression; I need something to function well, something I can get to a decent speed, something robust, and something that in the near inevitable eventuality of theft or vandalism is no great loss. And I don't want dynamo lights on it; why should I?



I didn't say it should be law just that I'd personally like to see them as standard, rather than high price upgrades, for a lot of bikes.


----------



## Davidc (26 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> Says who? Every day I ride a bottom of the range Giant Expression; I need something to function well, something I can get to a decent speed, something robust, and something that in the near inevitable eventuality of theft or vandalism is no great loss. And I don't want dynamo lights on it; why should I?



In Britain you don't have to. In Germany you would. Theft would be unlikely once they were ubiquitous. Dynamo lights aren't removable and don't generally get nicked. Vandalised occasionally yes. As I said above your hire bikes just need the switches taken off.

The Germans are as usual way ahead of us. They take safety seriously where we don't, and therefore have good and sensible laws governing bike lighting. I will be delighted if their rules come in here by international agreement, because they make sense in terms of both road safety and the perception of cyclists among non-cyclists. In the meantime I can take advantage of the excellent lighting products available as a direct result of their regulations.

You won't agree as you are quite happy to have bikes going round in the dark without lights. That's the inevitable consequence of not having compulsory aways on lighting. You seem to think they're a good idea on your bike though.

You clearly know more about safety issues than any researchers, road safety professionals or the German government. Nonetheless I'd rather take notice of them.


----------



## chap (26 Jan 2010)

*thomas on bicycle lights*



thomas said:


> Plenty of good reasons. First one is that it's a stupid idea which we don't need.
> 
> The last point isn't really relevant unless you believe cycling would be more popular here if bikes came with compulsory lights.



It still bears relevance as the main point raised was that it would hardly be a deterrent. Now compulsory bicycle helmets, there is another issue which the New Zealanders on site could tell you about.



thomas said:


> Better to just exclude all bikes as our wonderful legal system does



 Only because many of your posts have shown the same attitude.



thomas said:


> The police ignore cyclists at the moment without lights, so why would they care if cyclists didn't have 'compulsory lights' on their bike.



A bit of a generalisation there. Perhaps the police have more immediately pressing issues where you are, although I have seen many people pulled aside by the police for this, and less.



thomas said:


> I'm very much against a dynamo system, and I see no reason for me to spend more buying a new bike due to it having to come with lights, which I already own.



Once again, please read the OP, my last post, or many of the fine posts by other members.



thomas said:


> As Cab has pointed out a number of times, there isn't really any benefit to this point. Much better to just enforce existing laws of having lights at night (if you're going to do something).



Thus, if you are going to enforce these laws, then wouldn't that make them mandatory in the first place? 

To be honest, you may have a point, somewhere. There are exceptions to the rule. Why pay extra for a light if you will never use it during night (e.g. racing bike)? Why buy the lowest priced set when you already have a super-dazzling pair at home. These clearly are exceptions, which many of the posters have stated would have to exist. If every new bike is to come with lights, that implies that a focus shall be put on ensuring night riders use them. To ensure that there are no excuses, and that the people are not left out of hand, it would be best to have pedal-powered lights. This *could* be by dynamo but does *not* have to be so. Magnetically induced lighting is an affordable and effective technology, which will become cheaper if there is demand. This is not to say that battery-powered lighting should be banned. It is a perfectly feasible alternative - just not hassle free.

Where I may agree with you is on the outdated laws concerning certain forms of lighting. However, I will have to temporarily plead ignorance on that point, thus research it at my convenience. 

Hope that cleared things up


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (26 Jan 2010)

this thread is getting abit stupid now, some people think this is a good idea some think its isnt, there is NO way that the police would be able to enforce this or be able to fine cyclist for no having "always-on lights" on there bike


----------



## redfalo (26 Jan 2010)

Beeing a German who recently moved to London, I find this discussion quite interesting.
In general, I totally subscribe to the idea that all new bikes should be equipped with lights. (In Germany since recently the law even demands that the rear light of new bikes have standlight functions.) To be honest I am stunned how many badly lid bikers are around here. The most intersting difference is that in Germany almost nobody ever uses Hi-viz clothes while here they are ubiquitous. It´s vice versa with regard to dynamo lights. 

With regard to road bikes it´t true that the German law requires the rider to carry battery lights when it´s not an offical race. But that´s pure theory. I have never heard that this part of the law has ever been enforced. Additionally nobody cares if you ride without a dynamo but have proper battery lights (it might mattern in case of an accident, however).

Somebody mentioned that mandatory lights would drive up the costs of bikes to much. I don´t think that´s really an issue. You can buy cheap bikes for 149 Euro in Germany which have a (rather rubbish) dynamo and front and rear lights. Aldi once even sold a cheap bike with a hub dynamo for somethink like 199 Euro. (When those bikes were tested one magazine wrote: It´s all rubbish - only the dynamo is fine!)

However, not everything is perfect in Germany. First of all, a lot of those dynamo lights are broken. You see plenty of bikers without lights in Germany as well. And the Police nowadays does not really care. 

The biggest problem in Germany right now is that the Highway act is pretty much outdated with regard to bike lights. For example, it is not allowed to install a 12 Volt dynamo to your bike. This means it´s for example officially forbidden to have a hub dynamo with 2 front lights (which increases safety, doesn´t it?). The German equivalent to the CTC -the ADFC- really goes crazy about those laws. The discussion about a modernization of the law goes on for years and years and is leading nowhere. 

Personally, I think a hub dynamo with an LED light in the front and in the back is the best you can get (and a way to have always on light, BTW) This is why when I recently bought a Brompton I ordered it with a SON. The first thing I did after it was delivered was to replace the shabby halogen light with a 60 Lux Cyo by Busch & Mueller.


----------



## thomas (26 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> Thus, if you are going to enforce these laws, then wouldn't that make them mandatory in the first place?



Cars have to have lights don't they? Yet how often do I see people driving around at dusk or night without their lights on or with broken lights? Mandatory lighting at work.



chap said:


> A bit of a generalisation there. Perhaps the police have more immediately pressing issues where you are, although I have seen many people pulled aside by the police for this, and less.



Well done! You see my point. The police have better things to do, so aren't going to give a toot about mandatory lighting when riders ride with broken ones (which *would *become common).

I'm not against the police stopping people and giving them advice and a £30 FPN which doesn't need to be paid if you turn up with working bike lights. It seems a good idea.



> To be honest, you may have a point, somewhere. There are exceptions to the rule. Why pay extra for a light if you will never use it during night (e.g. racing bike)? Why buy the lowest priced set when you already have a super-dazzling pair at home. These clearly are exceptions, which many of the posters have stated would have to exist.



Point here is, if you have all these exceptions it makes it a very difficult law to enforce. Allowing shops not to fit lights if customers have lights would become very difficult....and people would no doubt borrow a set of a mate to save a couple of quid. For people buying an ASDA bike a, what they cost? £50-100? Another fiver or tenner on lights does add up.



MadoneRider1991 said:


> this thread is getting abit stupid now, some people think this is a good idea some think its isnt, there is NO way that the police would be able to enforce this or be able to fine cyclist for no having "always-on lights" on there bike



+1.



redfalo said:


> However, not everything is perfect in Germany. First of all, a lot of those dynamo lights are broken. You see plenty of bikers without lights in Germany as well. And the Police nowadays does not really care.



This is exactly what would happen here. The police wouldn't care, bikes would be fitted with broken lights and they'd be no major benefit.

Seriously, I would love that every cyclist who goes out during dusk, night, through bad weather and so on to use lights. It would be fantastic! 

I've seen the aftermath of a cyclist, without lights being hit by a car (probably at around 60mph) and it is horrible. Body, lifeless in road....10 meters further up, a car, bicycle wedged in the grill.

As a country we already have existing laws on bike lights which are easily to enforce if there is a want or need.

I can see why you'd think that compulsory bike lighting would be good and I thought about it in the past, but believe it has too many flaws. Anyway, thankfully on this one our Government is too lazy to care so all you who want it, won't get it


----------



## Cab (26 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> In Britain you don't have to. In Germany you would. Theft would be unlikely once they were ubiquitous. Dynamo lights aren't removable and don't generally get nicked. Vandalised occasionally yes. As I said above your hire bikes just need the switches taken off.



And the bikes sold would quickly just have the dynamos disconnected in the same way that the hire bikes do. You know this is true. 



> The Germans are as usual way ahead of us. They take safety seriously where we don't, and therefore have good and sensible laws governing bike lighting.



It is proven that lack of bike lights does not constitute a major cause of cycling related deaths or injuries. It isn't that big a safety issue. Why do you persist with this line when you know this?

(cut)



> You won't agree as you are quite happy to have bikes going round in the dark without lights.



Errm, no... Justify that claim.



> That's the inevitable consequence of not having compulsory aways on lighting. You seem to think they're a good idea on your bike though.



The inevitable consequence of cycle lights not being that big a deal in improving safety is that many people won't use 'em. Its got nothing to do with a lack of compulsory dynamos.



> You clearly know more about safety issues than any researchers, road safety professionals or the German government. Nonetheless I'd rather take notice of them.



2% of cycling casualties are caused by this. The _vast_ bulk of adult cyclist deaths are caused by motorists. Are these professionals of which you speak arguing that this is not the case?


----------



## chap (27 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Cars have to have lights don't they? Yet how often do I see people driving around at dusk or night without their lights on or with broken lights? Mandatory lighting at work.



Exactly, I think I covered that one earlier, perhaps they are preoccupied by other matters where you are. Over here, the police will pull you over for having dodgy lights. Then again, the standard is not ubiquitous.





thomas said:


> Well done! You see my point. The police have better things to do, so aren't going to give a toot about mandatory lighting when riders ride with broken ones (which *would *become common).



 




thomas said:


> I'm not against the police stopping people and giving them advice and a £30 FPN which doesn't need to be paid if you turn up with working bike lights. It seems a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Point here is, if you have all these exceptions it makes it a very difficult law to enforce. Allowing shops not to fit lights if customers have lights would become very difficult....and people would no doubt borrow a set of a mate to save a couple of quid. For people buying an ASDA bike a, what they cost? £50-100? Another fiver or tenner on lights does add up.



Ah, is that common ground I sense, or shifting posts  The racing exceptions would make sense, the bike light exceptions would be harder to enforce, it is that which would profit more from the law. 



thomas said:


> +1.







thomas said:


> This is exactly what would happen here. The police wouldn't care, bikes would be fitted with broken lights and they'd be no major benefit.



Not necessarily, although as the kind poster mentioned it would matter in an accident.



thomas said:


> Seriously, I would love that every cyclist who goes out during dusk, night, through bad weather and so on to use lights. It would be fantastic!
> 
> I've seen the aftermath of a cyclist, without lights being hit by a car (probably at around 60mph) and it is horrible. Body, lifeless in road....10 meters further up, a car, bicycle wedged in the grill.
> 
> ...



Excellent a happy note, well if the government is too lazy then they would love to whack out an idea approximating our suggestions. The onus is on the cyclist, and the cycle-store. It's a potential money-making scheme too, for the sceptics amongst us 

It's been an interesting debate Thomas, and I'm glad that we're more or less thinking somewhere along the same lines, if not just on the tabloid issue that something needs to be done. I guess, our sparring shall be taken further if somebody posts an e-petition or something , or maybe some ambitious politician might make an issue of it following the huge success that shall hopefully follow immediately after the launch of the London Cycle Scheme.


----------



## thomas (27 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> Exactly, I think I covered that one earlier, perhaps they are preoccupied by other matters where you are. Over here, the police will pull you over for having dodgy lights. Then again, the standard is not ubiquitous.



They do, I saw a police cop action type show and some guy had I think 1 working brake light (no rear side lights) and maybe half a front head light or something....it was seriously bad! Police pulled him over and just gave him advice to fix it. He could of been on his way, scot free. Yet, he starts arguing that he's too busy to fix his car. Quite surprisingly , this didn't go down well with the Police who pulled him over so they gave him 3 points and a £60 fine.....and he still had to get the car fixed 

Though, back to the debate. There aren't really enough Police cars out on the road to stop all these cars with dodgy headlights and things...and part of the reason for it is that it can suggest the car is being used uninsured, by criminals, etc which is a bigger issue. Therefore I don't think the Police would be as interested in a cyclist with broken, mandatory lights.




chap said:


> Excellent a happy note, well if the government is too lazy then they would love to whack out an idea approximating our suggestions. The onus is on the cyclist, and the cycle-store. *It's a potential money-making scheme too, for the sceptics amongst us*
> 
> It's been an interesting debate Thomas, and I'm glad that we're more or less thinking somewhere along the same lines....



I don't really think it would make that much money. I think I could buy a set of battery lights for £3 at poundland. Possibly £2 if it is a set, half that being batteries. Now shops would be able to get a discount on that so it doesn't really make any money. The VAT on that would be peanuts...especially when most shops would just subsides it if they could get a good enough deal on the lights (get them to cost about the same as the compulsory bell).

I think ultimately we can agree that it'd be great to see more cyclists with lights. But you're wrong on the best way of doing that


----------



## redfalo (27 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> 2% of cycling casualties are caused by this. The _vast_ bulk of adult cyclist deaths are caused by motorists. Are these professionals of which you speak arguing that this is not the case?



No offences but this figure looks incredibly low to me. Where does it come from? Additionally, If I´m not quite sure what it really says. Are fatalaties really the best "currency" to look at? When I hit another biker without lights neither of us hopefully dies - but it´s a nasty experience, anyway. Furthermore one has to take into account that the huge majority of bikers rides in the summertime and in the daytime, so it´s no real wonder the the relative proportion of deaths is rather low. In Germany, for example, a few years ago the statistics office attributed a decline in the deaths of cyclists to a particularily rainy summer where less people biked.


----------



## Cab (27 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> No offences but this figure looks incredibly low to me. Where does it come from?



TRL report for Deparment of Transport, which has been quoted and cited numerous times on this board. Same report that said that 60-75% of cyclist casualties are in accidents where blame can be entirely apportioned to motorists.

Its pretty solid.


----------



## jonesy (27 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> *No offences but this figure looks incredibly low to me.* Where does it come from? Additionally, If I´m not quite sure what it really says. Are fatalaties really the best "currency" to look at? When I hit another biker without lights neither of us hopefully dies - but it´s a nasty experience, anyway. * Furthermore one has to take into account that the huge majority of bikers rides in the summertime and in the daytime, so it´s no real wonder the the relative proportion of deaths is rather low.* In Germany, for example, a few years ago the statistics office attributed a decline in the deaths of cyclists to a particularily rainy summer where less people biked.



Er, you can't have it both ways!


----------



## redfalo (28 Jan 2010)

jonesy said:


> Er, you can't have it both ways!



Well, what I wanted to express is that I don´t think this statistics is really revealing much, even if it is quotes correctly. BTW just tonight I almost crashed into an unlighted biker.


----------



## thomas (28 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> Well, what I wanted to express is that I don´t think this statistics is really revealing much, even if it is quotes correctly. BTW just tonight I almost crashed into an unlighted biker.




Of course the statistics reveal something. More so than some antidote from your ride home.


----------



## Ian H (29 Jan 2010)

Much as I dislike cyclists who can't be bothered to fit lights, I do notice that under street lighting an unlit cyclist is pretty much as visible as a lit one. Quite as visible as, say, pedestrians on zebra crossings.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Jan 2010)

Ian H said:


> Much as I dislike cyclists who can't be bothered to fit lights, I do notice that under street lighting an unlit cyclist is pretty much as visible as a lit one. Quite as visible as, say, pedestrians on zebra crossings.



The problem with that point of view - which is true enough as far as it goes - is that drivers have other visual clues as to the possibility of a pedestrian at a zebra crossing: the black and white paint, the Belisha beacons, the zig zag road markings. None of these apply in the case of an unlit cyclist.

Now, I agree that an unlit cyclist may well be visible under streetlights, but only if the driver happens to be looking in that direction. Anyone who drives regularly will know that a driver is often looking in the mirrors, keeping an eye on that motorcyclist coming up to the junction 30 yards up the road on the left, watching that group of schoolchildren on the pavement to see if any of them are going to try and cross the road ... in the real world, an unlit cyclist stands little chance of being seen until the last minute. A cyclist with good lights will stand out and can be seen even in a driver's peripheral vision, which is as it should be. 

In short, being passively visible is not really good enough, not when you're competing with the multitude of other things which clamour for a driver's attention in a busy city street. You need to shout to make yourself heard, if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors a bit.


----------



## chap (29 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief, you raise some good points. This would in fact show why blinking lights are in fact very useful to have from the perspective of being seen, since they demand ones attention.

To extend your first point about Zebra crossing, there is the fact that there are several cues to direct the drivers attention they will long see the flashing 'lollipop lights' before the crossing, or in some cases the actual pedestrians. Then there is the association with particular places, given the 'structured' layout where people get to know where to anticipate these walking 'obstacles'. With a bike, to the driver you are i their territory, and as such in many cases they will not expect to see you there. Alas, the critical mass has not been reached where steady concentrated flows of cyclists commute (unlike Copenhagen) so there are no associations with cyclists, other than the odd bike lane to park in - if you can't find a suitable spot with less broken glass.

Being well lit up would increase visibility, and if it is a common enough occurrence, may highlight to many road-users that the car is not the only way.


----------



## Cab (29 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> Well, what I wanted to express is that I don´t think this statistics is really revealing much, even if it is quotes correctly. BTW just tonight I almost crashed into an unlighted biker.



The stats are hugely revealing; they show unequivocally that riding without lights is not a major cause of cyclist injury or death. The more we concentrate on these red-herrings, the more we take our eye off the major causes of cycling accidents.


----------



## Ian H (29 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Now, I agree that an unlit cyclist may well be visible under streetlights, but only if the driver happens to be looking in that direction.



Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.

My experience from behind a steering wheel is that, in a visually 'busy' environment (loads of bright objects as in a typical city street), lots of lights and reflectives can actually make a cyclist less visible, acting rather like dazzle camouflage.


----------



## Norm (29 Jan 2010)

Ian H said:


> Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.


Not necessarily, as a flashing light will be picked up in peripheral vision.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Jan 2010)

Ian H said:


> Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.
> 
> My experience from behind a steering wheel is that, in a visually 'busy' environment (loads of bright objects as in a typical city street), *lots of lights and reflectives can actually make a cyclist less visible, acting rather like dazzle camouflage.*



That's utter codswallop, I'm afraid. I certainly won't be dilligently turning off my bicycle lights every time I enter an area with streetlights.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> Not necessarily, as a flashing light will be picked up in peripheral vision.



Quite, that's my point. A cyclist (or a car driver: cars using only sidelights are no good either) needs to grab a driver's attention, wherever the driver is looking.


----------



## Ian H (29 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That's utter codswallop, I'm afraid. I certainly won't be dilligently turning off my bicycle lights every time I enter an area with streetlights.




I'm not suggesting riding lightless. I am suggesting choosing carefully what illumination you use. Also trying to ensure that your overall shape is not broken up by too much random reflective stuff.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Jan 2010)

Ian H said:


> I'm not suggesting riding lightless. I am suggesting choosing carefully what illumination you use. Also trying to ensure that your overall shape is not broken up by too much random reflective stuff.



Right, OK. Your point about not breaking up shapes is a good one - the essence of camouflage is in disguising familiar shapes, after all - and it's why I use a roadworker's hi vis tabard. Well, the other reason is that I get them free from work. As for illumination, anything good and bright is better than nothing, but a constant light backed up by a flasher front and back would be my minimum.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that replica team kit, or highly patterned cycle clothing, can act as camouflage in daylight because it breaks up the outline of the rider. It was in C+, I think, a few years back.


----------



## redfalo (29 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> The stats are hugely revealing; they show unequivocally that riding without lights is not a major cause of cyclist injury or death. The more we concentrate on these red-herrings, the more we take our eye off the major causes of cycling accidents.



Can anyone email me the TLR report? [o dot storbeck at vhb dot de] Unfortunately they charge 20 quid for it.

I doubt that it is really possible to attribute the cause of an accident/fatality to one single source. When you´re run over by a car which takes your right of way, it's definetly the drivers fault even when you ride without lights. Such a crash will probably enter the statistics as "run over by motorized vehicle" or something like that. However, when you´re not run over because the driver sees you, you won´t appear in the death statistics.


----------



## tyred (29 Jan 2010)

I just don't see why anyone would have a problem with fitting lights to new bikes. Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment, I would consider it incredibly selfish for anyone to not try and make themselves as visible as is reasonably possible while using a public road. I have both dynamo lights and battery lights on the two bikes I normally ride. The battery lights will be removed for the summer but the dynamo lights will stay, always ready should I ride somewhere in the evening and find myself held up (and I carry spare bulbs for these lights inside the headlight casing). I always carry spare bulbs in my car and have stopped at the roadside to replace a fused bulb. If I'm walking on an unlit road (living in the countryside, I do this quite a bit), I will always wear reflectives so motorists can see me. I just consider it common courtesy and I consider it reasonable to expect others to do the same.


----------



## thomas (29 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> Rhythm Thief, you raise some good points. This would in fact show why blinking lights are in fact very useful to have from the perspective of being seen, since they demand ones attention.



Another thing with blinking, or flashing lights for cyclists is that if there's a flashing red light on the road it's nearly bound to be a cyclist, so drivers may subconsioucly see a flashing light and be aware they'll need to slow down/overtake with some space as there's a cyclist ahead.



redfalo said:


> Can anyone email me the TLR report? [o dot storbeck at vhb dot de] Unfortunately they charge 20 quid for it.



I believe there's an article in The Guardian that uses the statistics. Try and find that.


----------



## Cab (29 Jan 2010)

tyred said:


> Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment,



Why?

Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?

I'm in favour of using lights when its dark. I always do so. But when discussing the value of changing rules to make it mandatory for bikes to be sold with lights, why would we, even for a second, leave accident statistics aside? 

We're going ever more towards a culture where the most vulnerable party in any incident is the one to blame. We're seeing children encouraged to wear hi-viz as _pedestrians_, we're seeing ever greater emphasis on cyclists to be visible. And while I accept that its wise and courteous to be well lit, its easy to lose all sense of perspective here unless we bear in mind the simple reality that there is _not_ that great an improvement in safety from using lights.


----------



## tyred (29 Jan 2010)

Cab said:


> Why?
> 
> Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?
> 
> ...



I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.


----------



## redfalo (29 Jan 2010)

tyred said:


> and I carry spare bulbs for these lights inside the headlight casing).


I´d strongly suggest to LED lights. They are much brighter and last forever 



thomas said:


> I believe there's an article in The Guardian that uses the statistics. Try and find that.



I got it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

It really mentions the 2% figure. 

Interestingly, CTC says that 80% of all bike crashs happen in daylight (http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/Cycling_Statistics.pdf) This means that the failure-of-using-light cause only relates to 20% of all bike accidents. If both numbers are true (and one makes the simplying assumption that the probabilities of dying in a crash which happens in daytime and at night are the same) that means that at night the failure to use lights is the cause for 10% of all fatalities. 



Cab said:


> Why?
> 
> Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?



My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (29 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> I´d strongly suggest to LED lights. They are much brighter and last forever



i would like to see some LED lights that last forever!!


----------



## redfalo (29 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> i would like to see some LED lights that last forever!!




http://www.nabendynamo.de/produkte/Edelux.html (website is only available in German, I´m afraid) 

http://www.bumm.de/index-e.html?docu/175q-e.htm

Admittedly, I had a problem with one LED headlight from the first Generation after probably 3 years, right after warranty had expired. BUMM sent me a new one without any further question


----------



## MadoneRider1991 (29 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> http://www.nabendynamo.de/produkte/Edelux.html (website is only available in German, I´m afraid)
> 
> http://www.bumm.de/index-e.html?docu/175q-e.htm
> 
> Admittedly, I had a problem with one LED headlight from the first Generation after probably 3 years, right after warranty had expired. BUMM sent me a new one without any further question



the power source is lasts forever, but the LED bulb doesn't thats what i was talking about


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jan 2010)

tyred said:


> I just don't see why anyone would have a problem with fitting lights to new bikes. Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment, I would consider it incredibly selfish for anyone to not try and make themselves as visible as is reasonably possible while using a public road.





My idea of "visible as reasonably possible" lighting is a Dinotte rear light with Cateye for legality and a CAtey front light for legality accompanied by an Expousre Maxx Enduro - Total cost over £500.

Is anyone who spends less selfish or practicable.

Do I decrease my visibility and increase my risk simply to pander to someone else's idea of what a bicycle should have?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Another thing with blinking, or flashing lights for cyclists is that if there's a flashing red light on the road it's nearly bound to be a cyclist, so drivers may subconsioucly see a flashing light and be aware they'll need to slow down/overtake with some space as there's a cyclist ahead.



A thought...... There is evidence that drivers who see cyclists as "serious" feel that they do not need to decrease speed or give a wide space when overtaking as the cyclist is able to cope.

Does the same happen with lights?

I certainly get the same close overtakes when lit as I do when out in the daytime.


----------



## Cab (29 Jan 2010)

tyred said:


> I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.



So, because motorists (who are causing the risk) aren't able to safely negotiate without harming everyone and everything else, its the responsibility of everyone else not to get in their way and to be so brightly lit they're not possibly going to inconvenience motorists by getting stuck under their cars? The phrase 'ignoring the bull' is, I think, frequently used on Copenhagenzine to describe your argument.


----------



## Cab (29 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.



I don't see _anyone_ arguing that lights at night should not be a requirement.


----------



## thomas (29 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> A thought...... There is evidence that drivers who see cyclists as "serious" feel that they do not need to decrease speed or give a wide space when overtaking as the cyclist is able to cope.
> 
> Does the same happen with lights?
> 
> I certainly get the same close overtakes when lit as I do when out in the daytime.



Well....I was kinda hoping the end part . Certainly, if I was driving along the road, not paying a whole lot of attention (as I frequently do ) and there was a flashing red light in my peripheral vision, that would instantly stand out as a cyclist. I couldn't say what action, the hypothetical inept driver that I am would do.


If for instance, on a completely dark road all that could be seen was a flashing red light, or a solid light, someone might confuse the solid with a (faster moving) motorbike and end up rear ending a cyclist. Maybe I'm going a bit far with this idea though....


----------



## thomas (29 Jan 2010)

redfalo said:


> My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.



No one is saying lights don't make you safer. The statistics don't even say that. However, there's only 2% of cases where cyclists without lights caused themselves an injury or death. I think Cab's point is that there are better things to focus on.

If you were to focus your efforts on something, do you do it on something which benefits 2%, or 40%, or another higher statistic.


----------



## chap (29 Jan 2010)

tyred said:


> I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.




I agree with you to a point. It is of course common sense to make yourself visible. Those that live in the country-side (and are wise) usually carry a torch around with them more for seeing than to be seen, but it doubles as such. Generally, if one has to normally walk through country roads, its a simple case of self-preservation, as your average lout will not stop if nobdy saw them mow you down at 60mph.

However, and I am not suggesting that you implied this, this should not be made legislation. There are plenty of tireless arguments which take the form of 'why should we be forced to adopt common-sense precautions, what about them'. There is a huge inequality in law, financing, and implementation in the favour of the motor vehicle and this must be dealt with - as it is costly in all regards and certainly not sustainable nor at all scalable. Although, as your post indicates, we must realise that these dangerous machines are almost omni-present (even where they are not best suited) and in the end if it came to a collision between a human, and another behind a ton of steel, then the more former would bear the brunt of the damage and no amount of finger wagging shall correct that - it is just the way it is.


----------



## redfalo (29 Jan 2010)

MadoneRider1991 said:


> the power source is lasts forever, but the LED bulb doesn't thats what i was talking about



Well, according to the manufacturers they have a 
Life Cycle of 20000 hours. That's almost forever, isn't it?


----------



## summerdays (30 Jan 2010)

If you are going to make a generalisation about the type of cyclist who rides without lights, then look at the type of brakes on that sort of bike has - usually disconnected. I think even if you sold the bikes with lights, that almost the same subset of people would be riding without lights after they broke.

For me I love it when its summer and I don't have to think about dragging lights around with me (apart from the occasional late night). As I usually have 2 rear lights and 2 or more front lights, stopping and locking up my bike at this time of year is a faff. And I like the fact that my lights aren't in the bottom 50 % for visibility.


----------



## chap (30 Jan 2010)

summerdays said:


> If you are going to make a generalisation about the type of cyclist who rides without lights, then look at the type of brakes on that sort of bike has - usually disconnected. I think even if you sold the bikes with lights, that almost the same subset of people would be riding without lights after they broke.
> 
> For me I love it when its summer and I don't have to think about dragging lights around with me (apart from the occasional late night). As I usually have 2 rear lights and 2 or more front lights, stopping and locking up my bike at this time of year is a faff. And I like the fact that my lights aren't in the bottom 50 % for visibility.




Yes, darn fixie riders 

Obviously, you could legislate saftey into almost every facet of ones life, however after that you pass the responsibility onto the user. In certain cases this cannot be afforded hence MOT tests, admitely for us cyclists it is less important since we are more likely to only get ourselves hurt.

Nonetheless, we are not only talking about chavs here. There are plenty of decent people who for whatever reason do not cycle in the most sensible way. Most of these people I refer to are not even teenagers but adults who are using the bike not for stunts or the cool factor, but as an affordable means of transporting theirselves from A to B without paying £1.20 each way by bus.

I am sure that if peddle-powered lights were to be installed on these bikes then they would get used to them, and start to enjoy the benefits. This will be especially true when they know that they now have a full legal right to be on the road. 

People are ultimately the same world-wide and it is usually the prevailing culture that shapes them, this is why we often look to the Netherlands (esp. Amsterdam), Copenhagen, and parts of Germany for ideas of how to reintroduce a cycle-friendly culture in motorised Britain. These are places with inspirational schemes such as the Green Wave, bicycle parks, proper bicycle lanes (both segregated and shared), and widespread cycle schemes (as opposed to the *hotch-botch* which is our Cycle-to-work 'scheme' that many multi-national companies know nothing of nor see the benefit of introducing despite a strain on car-parking resources.) The citizens of these areas will be like those of ours, some intelligent, others not so, however bicycle use is much more widespread there therefore the similarities concerning attitudes to cyclists, and cycling end there.

In London, we are approaching a critical mass, if bicycle usage is to be highly adopted here, then along with Oxford, York, and Cambridge, there will be little, if any, excuse for other cities to follow suit, this extends to towns, and villages. However, for bicycle use to properly take off they have to be seen as more efficient and beneficial than using the car. This is why the introduction of good bikes from the Velon scheme is a marvelous idea, and likewise if bikes are sold with good inexpensive lighting then this will definetly help the cause.


----------



## Ian H (31 Jan 2010)

chap said:


> I agree with you to a point. It is of course common sense to make yourself visible. Those that live in the country-side (and are wise) usually carry a torch around with them more for seeing than to be seen, but it doubles as such...




I live some of the time in the country. I hate using a torch because it spoils the pleasure of being out in the darkness. I do carry one, just to flash at cars if needed. My normal outdoor wear is not hi-viz, and I'm not about to buy such stuff just to go for a walk.

On the bike I use one or sometimes two steady rear lights, and a steady front. No flashing jackets or reflective tabards. But the lights are bright, fitted properly, and face in the right direction, not at either the floor or the sky.


----------



## slowmotion (31 Jan 2010)

I read this thread from end to end, but I'm no expert on this subject. I have been back in the saddle for only seven months. My experience is limited to riding in Central London traffic on commutes, sometimes after dark. Here goes...

My safety is my responsibility, and I am unlikely to change the behaviour of motorists hereabouts in the near distant future. Legislation for cyclists or motorists is a complete pipe-dream. Why not stop whingeing? There will always be "stealth cyclists" on all kinds of kit. Some are kids, and some are on seriously expensive bikes. They are immortal, they believe.

I am impressed by the consideration that most motorists give me, and that includes WVM, amongst whom I am numbered.

Get some good lights, front and rear, a nice bright Hi Viz, and do not ponce about.

Stop at red lights and zebras. Cyclists running them really piss off motorists, me included.

Oh yeah, never rely on legislation from the Government to sort out your problems. Stop whining and buy your own lights. Your life. Delegate that to others at your own peril.

Crikey, end of rant.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Feb 2010)

I apologise for that rant. It reads as aggressive and unpleasant. I had had my first really hairy moment on the bike a few hours earlier, and it was entirely my own fault, not the motorist's, but that is no excuse for my incontinent blast hereabouts. It made me think of my own mortality in a somewhat gloomy way. I will try to do better.

Ride safely, and best wishes to all.


----------



## porteous (28 Feb 2010)

An interesting thread which, as usual, generates some heat (With, or without, light).

It seems to me, having been around since the 50s, that existing laws are clear. After lighting up time, which is well before dusk, cycles should have a functioning rear and front light, and they should be on.

Arguing about whether they are built into the bike, attached to the bike, or carried in your pocket when NOT required by law to be fitted and on is, surely, immaterial? 

Attempts by government to compel permanant fixed lights as an integral part of the bike miss the point and are an unwelcome and (IMHO) unacceptable interference of an individuals right to choice. 

There are laid down existing UK minimum standards regarding how much light each lamp must give, which I believe have been the subject of previous threads. 

So, what are we left with? 

1. Yet again the enforcement of an existing sensible a law, designed to protect the individual without being draconian, is either patchy or non existant.

2. It is left to the individual to choose whether to comply with the minimum requirement or augment it with hi vis clothing, more lights, etc etc.

Perhaps we, as cyclists, should make it clear that we support the law, as good road users, while resisting the compulsory element of these suggested construction regulations? Perhaps we should also be supportive of initiatives to police the use of lights by cyclists at night?

Personally I live in the countryside and prefer to be as visible as possible both day and night. It is more difficult, I believe, to be visible in urban areas simply because of the light clutter, as has been sensibly pointed out elsewhere in this thread, so perhaps more thought needs to be given to visibility in an urban setting? 

Freedom to cycle safely within the law is a right to be protected and fought for. Taking precautions to do so safely, both for the cyclist and other road users, is, perhaps, the responsibility that goes with that right.


----------



## classic33 (28 Feb 2010)

Change in the regulations with regards lighing up times here. Last post

https://www.cyclechat.net/

Article here
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Magazine/200801050.pdf


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (3 Apr 2010)

NEW BIKES SHOULD BE STOCK/SUPPLIED WITH COMPULSORY LIGHTS.Yes,bloody marvelous idea!!!.With this kind of brainless thinking volunteering for the Government Think Tank is next.I suppose that this will be enforced on any cycle that is used on The Public Highway and to prevent easy removal they will be Tig Welded in place.Removal by none authorised repair/replacement workshops will result in the loss of ones hands.It would be interesting to hear what some of the Pro Cyclists and Manufacturers of Mega Expensive Racing Machines would have to say,(The mere wiff of this in Brussels does not bare thinking about).I think in might be upon these lines:-GO F*K* YOURSELF.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.


----------



## BigSteev (14 Apr 2010)

To me this discussion is just the same as a helmet debate. In the same way that helmets are available if you want them, so are lights (battery and dynamo), reflectors, hi-viz etc etc. If you want them, cool. Buy them, use them, be happy, feel safe.....but FFS stop trying to impose YOUR risk perception onto others.


----------



## chap (14 Apr 2010)

*Debate 101: What did they teach those kids of yesteryear?*



TheCyclingRooster said:


> NEW BIKES SHOULD BE STOCK/SUPPLIED WITH COMPULSORY LIGHTS.Yes,bloody marvelous idea!!!.With this kind of brainless thinking volunteering for the Government Think Tank is next
> ....
> GO F*K* YOURSELF.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.







BigSteev said:


> To me this discussion is just the same as a helmet debate.
> ...
> Buy them, use them, be happy, feel safe.....but FFS stop trying to impose YOUR risk perception onto others.



Who hooked this debate hooked up to the BBC 'Have your say' section?

My advice would be to read the original post, not just the title, as well as some or all of the successive articulate responses. 

That way, one saves others the wasted time of reading rot: since the replies will then be likely to read as considered, relevant, and conducive to the debate. This is in contrast to the aforementioned hackneyed rants resembling the cacophonous and shallow vociferations of an anonymous drunkard who is aroused to engage in a potentially contentious issue unencumbered by fact, grammar, conduct, nor rational.

So should I conclude with the obligatory sentence with partially obfuscated swear word: Read the f*cking proposition and debate like a grown up.


----------

