# Cyclists with no lights...grrrr



## Tollers (28 Oct 2009)

OK, so suddenly my commute home seems to have become 10 times more dangerous. I'm just upset that the danger is coming from other cyclists!!!!

The last few days i've become very aware of the number of cyclist with no lights who still incist on pulling out of junctions without looking. Now it's harder for me to spot them and more dangerous taking evasive action. 

So, am i alone here? Does anyone have a tactic? I'm very tempted to give these people a quick lecture as i overtake them (mostly girls on little cute commuter bikes). I'm simply amazed people are so stupid!

Tollers


----------



## Dayvo (28 Oct 2009)

A lecture would be well justified!

I can't understand why anyone would willingly endanger themselves, and others, by riding 'invisibly' on the road.

You give 'em some stick, Tollers!


----------



## Tollers (28 Oct 2009)

Also, the same applies for dim lights. I've thought a few riders had no lights but in reality they were barely visible even in the darkness of hyde park. It makes me pretty anxious that i wont be able to get my heart rate up on my commute home. I think i might have to change my route to include some big hills so i can go at a safer speed, but still get a good workout.

Hopefully, these lightless souls will dissapear when it gets cold and wet next week


----------



## garrilla (28 Oct 2009)

I was in a car yesterday at 5pm going from Bracknell to Crowthorne. I saw 9 cyclists, only 1 had lights. 7 out of 8 ninjas were riding on the pavements. So was the illuminated cyclist.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Oct 2009)

I've posted this elsewhere, but the other night I was in my lorry on the Ledbury - Bromyard road (an unlit B road with a national speed limit) at around 9pm. I saw (just) four cyclists with no lights whatsoever, all wearing dark clothing. Now, I'm not saying these idiots deserve to get squashed, but if I ever do flatten one I won't be entirely surprised.


----------



## Matty (28 Oct 2009)

Aside from being illegal it is complete madness. Saw one yesterday whilst in car. Dark & wet. Chap on road bike, 2 LEDs on back, both off. 1 pathetic front flashing effort plus a spare one - also off.

Maybe he didn't want to be spotted filtering then jumping the lights. Whatever.


----------



## Chamfus Flange (28 Oct 2009)

Yep, but not since I was a teenager. Agree with all those who said it's madness.



.


----------



## marinyork (28 Oct 2009)

I do a great deal of night cycling and very rarely see ninjas. I very commonly see broken lights on other sorts of vehicles other than bicycles. Often I notice local vehicles that will have the same broken lights for weeks or months in a row. All the people I know who drive always test them out every so often and replace rapidly where broken, it isn't something that much of the rest of the population seem to do.

As for those with lights the legal minimum is actually fairly low. The only front lights I don't like are those cheap green ones the police give out with micro LEDs. Other than that I'd say any light is good. Views seem to vary, I've been told before that my cateye 1000s on full charge were dim by some aggressive moron and that the former rechargeable system and hope vision 1x2s I use are too bright.


----------



## addictfreak (28 Oct 2009)

I come across quite a few with no lights, they are not what I would term cyclists but people who ride bikes. Mostly youngsters, but saw a guy the other night, on the road no lights and two Asda carrier bags (full) at each end of his handlebars. To top it off he was with a young lad (I assume his son) probably around 10, who was also riding with no lights. At least he was on the pavement.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Oct 2009)

I was buzzed by a fat bloke on a knackered MTB in black in a pedestrian area this afternoon. I pointed out to him it was a no cycling area. He gave me the finger so I called him a menace as he weaved around people at quite a speed. I was dressed in yellow hi-viz, helmet, cycling leggins with lots of reflectives and carrying my red Vaude panniers. I wouldn't lose any sleep what so ever if people like this who cycle in the dark with no lights wearing dark clothing, get squashed. I've had several nearly run into me so far this week when I am cycling. Generally I shout at them "If you want to live to see Christmas get some lights!" or plain and simple "Bloody idiot........get some lights !" Many are young so candidates for Darwin Awards.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Oct 2009)

Seen a lot of it this week but it's their lookout not mine.


----------



## GrasB (28 Oct 2009)

I turned into a bit of a ninja last night, as I riding without a rear light worth a mention for about 1 1/2 miles, but not deliberately. I lost my backup up light going down Maddingley road that morning & my main rear lights batteries died, fine had some cheapy spares in my back pocket... but they didn't physically fit in the light   First shop I came to a pack of Duracells was purchased & legal light service was resumed.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Oct 2009)

Weird,I have 4 sets of lights on my bag and also a fantom XR9 and the german standlight...so all of them failing would be something.

Plus I carry spare batteries.

Two on the front and spares in my bag.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Generally I shout at them "If you want to live to see Christmas get some lights!" or plain and simple "Bloody idiot........get some lights !" Many are young so candidates for Darwin Awards.



I flashed the truck's main beam at one of the ones I saw. He gave me a friendly wave in return, obviously assuming I was someone he knew.


----------



## GrasB (28 Oct 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Weird,I have 4 sets of lights on my bag and also a fantom XR9 and the german standlight...so all of them failing would be something.
> 
> *Plus I carry spare batteries.*
> 
> Two on the front and spares in my bag.


I carry enough batteries for a mid-rde change for all my lights... fat lot of good that does when the little b*****s won't physically fit in the light. I need to get some spare time in the workshop to make up a bracket for a Mars 4.0 that fit on my bikes (the supplied bracket doesn't fit on any of my bikes & leave it unobscured). Seems N+1 doesn't just apply to the number of bikes you have.


----------



## cyberknight (28 Oct 2009)

Tollers said:


> I'm very tempted to give these people a quick lecture as i overtake them (mostly girls on little cute commuter bikes).
> 
> Tollers



So would i but the wife would kill me if i talked to cute girls


----------



## ttcycle (28 Oct 2009)

I think people just don't realise that they become very hard to see - maybe some people who only started to commute this summer or something similar.I saw someone in a high viz, arms bands, trouser clips etc and thought why kit yourself out with all that and no lights??


----------



## Norm (28 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> I was in a car yesterday at 5pm going from Bracknell to Crowthorne.


Blimey, you were in my back yard. 

On that bit of road, Swinley Forest possibly featured in their ride. I've done that place at night even with lights and it's fecking scary.


----------



## Tollers (29 Oct 2009)

I'm really interested by these responses, but i'd be especially interested to hear more from the "cityfolk". Don't worry i'm not a hick.




GrasB said:


> I turned into a bit of a ninja last night, as I riding without a rear light worth a mention for about 1 1/2 miles, but not deliberately. I lost my backup up light.



Thats fair enough. Battery life is hard to predict so youre forgiven.....today. 




ttcycle said:


> I think people just don't realise that they become very hard to see - maybe some people who only started to commute this summer or something similar.



TT you're ever the diplomat. I only started commuting this year, but that shouldnt excuse amyone. Perhaps i'd forgive Monday, but Tuesday is inexcusable as a cheap set of lights costs peanuts. 

I didn't cycle tonight, but will be doing 10 miles on way home tomorrow and testing the water by offering my free "tolleradvice" to anyone who doesn't look like they have an attitude problem. I'll let you all know how it goes.



hackbike 666 said:


> Seen a lot of it this week but it's their lookout not mine.



Is it just me that worries they will end up injuring me then?

The poll is currently 59:4. Would be interesting to hear more from the 4 (i'm asssuming you are one of them GrasB). I want a proper workout on the ride home and i'm now seriously reconsidering changing my route to make it slower, but more hilly so i can still get my heart going without having to race. If i'm still frustrated next week, please expect me to post something asking about steepest hills in London 

Tollers


----------



## Tollers (29 Oct 2009)

cyberknight said:


> So would i but the wife would kill me if i talked to cute girls



The bikes were cute, not the girls. The girls were hard to see.......at least i think they were girls. Oh no......got to question my sexuality now !!!


----------



## Tollers (29 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> "If you want to live to see Christmas get some lights!"



OK......I like that.....every lightless person i see is now going to hear this. I promise to let you guys know every response 

Tollers


----------



## darkstar (29 Oct 2009)

I rode in the dark for the first time today, we were in a group of 13, one lad didnt have any lights so we just surrounded him! I badly need some new ones though, as my current ones have never been used up to now, they were a gift 2 years ago and are shocking. They weight about a kilogram and are about as powerful as a candle.....


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Oct 2009)

Even a bit of light clothing (reflectives) is better than dressed as a ninja with no lights.

The nearest I had to a collision was with a ninja (last year) who I saw very late.


----------



## GrasB (29 Oct 2009)

Tollers said:


> (i'm asssuming you are one of them GrasB)


No didn't vote...


----------



## summerdays (29 Oct 2009)

I normally ride with either 1 or 2 rear lights, - 1 if is still light-ish, but 2 for darkness, and I also have a Backupz on my helmet. I've only the one front light normally so that would be more of a problem if I lost that whilst out or the batteries died. Most of my cycling is in daylight even in wintertime as I work part time to be able to accompany my youngest child on the school run. Even his bike has lights and that's for cycling at 8.30 am and 3.30 pm - though usually only put on in bad weather.


----------



## JiMBR (29 Oct 2009)

It was practically daylight when I cycled in this morning, but I still had one front and one back light switched on....just paranoid I guess.

Although I have a fairly short commute, I always see loads of cyclists without lights, hi-viz etc....makes me wince.


----------



## thomas (29 Oct 2009)

To the people who say they wouldn't loose any sleep if some ninja without light got squished I'd have to say you're probably wrong.

I've seen it moments after on a fast road (60mph). Man lying in gutter of the road, front down. 10 meters or so further up, a car, with a bicycle stuck underneath.

Cyclist had no lights, completely in black. Completely his fault.

It still sent chills down my back and made me think it over when I got to bed.


----------



## redjedi (29 Oct 2009)

Saw something shocking a couple of days ago.

While getting a lift home (still not riding  ) we were going around the green in Chiswick, lots of traffic and not the widest of road.

It was before the clocks went back so was more dusk than dark, when we saw a cyclist with no lights. No too unusual for London, but he was pulling what looked like a trailer. 
I thought he should really have a light on the trailer at least so drivers know to give him more room.
As we got alongside I realised it was a child trailer with a young kid in it 

I couldn't believe he didn't have any form of light on it. I would have at least 2 on the trailer itself.

It's one thing putting yourself in danger, but why put a helpless child in harms way.


----------



## XmisterIS (29 Oct 2009)

Only time I have ridden in the dark with no lights was a while back when my batteries died and I had no spares with me ...


----------



## CharlieB (29 Oct 2009)

Probably worth adding to this thread that I've seen a few guilty motorists of late, so it's not _just _the cyclists…


----------



## XmisterIS (29 Oct 2009)

CharlieB said:


> Probably worth adding to this thread that I've seen a few guilty motorists of late, so it's not _just _the cyclists…



The ones I love dearly are those with both headlight bulbs blown and they drive around on foglights or full-beam only, because they can't be bothered to go to Halfords and spend £6 on a new pair of headlight bulbs, and then spend 5 minutes fitting them ...


----------



## thomas (29 Oct 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> The ones I love dearly are those with both headlight bulbs blown and they drive around on foglights only, because they can't be bothered to go to Halfords and spend £6 on a new pair of headlight bulbs, and then spend 5 minutes fitting them ...




Those bulbs are a rip off....they cost halfords something like 20-50p each!!!

Saw one of those 'cop shows' a while back. Guy driving at night with basically no lights. Pulled over. Office says he'll just warn him tonight, but he needs to get them fixed.

Okay, any normal human being would of left it there, apologised and said they'd do it. But no. This guy starts arguing how he doesn't have the time, blah blah....and ended up getting points on his licence and a fine *and* still had to get the bulbs fitted!!


----------



## lady_rider (29 Oct 2009)

This has been driving (riding?) me NUTS recently! I'm in a university town so I guess the poor skint students can't afford lights... er hem (I'm a student myself, but as a paid PhD student I don't put myself in the 'student' bracket ;-)). I can hardly see them coming and I'm on a flippin' bike, not in a car dazzled by lights already. I've just invested in Hope vision 2 (recommended, highly) and have three back lights at night. A bit of overkill maybe, but it does make cars slow down as they wonder WTF is in front of them flashing out of sync like a manic christmas tree. I know that people without lights are putting themselves in danger and not me, and that it's their call. BUT it does frustrate motorists who then tar all cyclists with the same brush ie all cyclists run red lights, cycle like idiots, don't use lights, deserve to be squashed cos they don't pay tax etc etc...

I came up with a great idea though. The current fine for not having lights is £50. I say up it to £100 and every offender gets a good set of lights (whether they want them or not). Then they can't complain about being too skint to buy any after they've paid the fine...


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Oct 2009)

It's funny how students always seem to have enough money for beer and partying though.... priorities, eh?


----------



## Dayvo (29 Oct 2009)

marinyork said:


> I do a great deal of night cycling and very rarely see ninjas.



Well, they´re out there. If you could see them, they wouldn´t be ninjas!


----------



## davidg (29 Oct 2009)

absolutely no excuse for most of these people


----------



## Wheeledweenie (29 Oct 2009)

Tollers said:


> I'm really interested by these responses, but i'd be especially interested to hear more from the "cityfolk". Don't worry i'm not a hick.



I'm a city folk person (London) and my theory is that because most roads are well-lit enough that you can see where you're going without lights people are oblivious to the fact they can't be seen.

I'm often shocked by how light it seems on the road I commute on even when the sun's well and truly down. I always use my lights and when not in high vis I'm in light-coloured clothing as well but I often see people who wear all-black AND have no lights. 

Where I live, and it may not be universally the case, those on the road without lights are often young blokes on BMXs or middle-aged men of Eastern European extraction on fairly old but decent bikes. I presume lights aren't cool enough for the young blokes and I would suspect those of Eastern European extraction don't know it's a legal requirement. One of my dad's employees certainly didn't until I told him.


----------



## Cab (29 Oct 2009)

I've seen literally hundreds of unlit cyclists in Cambridge recently.

Wasn't in danger of colliding with any of them though.

I can't be the only one who finds complants about _seeing_ unlit cyclists ironic, can I?


----------



## Chamfus Flange (29 Oct 2009)

Saw one ride last night dark cloths, poorly lit narrow lane and, you guest it, no lights. Got a little upset when I said "Lights would be a good idea"



.


----------



## wafflycat (29 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> I've seen literally hundreds of unlit cyclists in Cambridge recently.
> 
> Wasn't in danger of colliding with any of them though.
> 
> I can't be the only one who finds complants about _seeing_ unlit cyclists ironic, can I?




Missing the point. 

The point is that even in street lighting, it's easier to see a cyclist with lights than it is one without lights. And apart from the fact it's a legal requirement to have working lights on, we each have a certain amount of responsibility to take for our own safety out there. And it's not unreasonable to expect that when cycling at night we do use lights. It's about helping to reasonably minimise risks to yourself and others when cycling. As a cyclist I wouldn't dream of cycling at night without lights and reflectives on. As a driver, being a cyclist does, I hope, give me an insight to how cyclists behave on road, but as a driver it is more difficult to see an unlit cyclist than a lit one. As a pedestrian, it's easier to see a lit cyclist than an unlit one. 

Some years ago I was driving up the dual carriageway part of the A11 between Wymondham & Norwich at night. It's lit up - but there he was.. unlit, wearing very dark clothing. Whilst the cyclist was visible in the pools of light cast by the streetlightin, in between those pools of light he was rendered almost invisible. If a driver had of taken him out it would not have been the sole fault of the motorist.


----------



## fossyant (29 Oct 2009)

On hols this week, so haven't had the fun of a dark return commute.

Went out last night on a training run, spotted two cyclists...well, you can just see the first........ sharing lights maybe.... one has a front, one a rear ?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2WvAi3Ludw


----------



## summerdays (29 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> I can't be the only one who finds complants about _seeing_ unlit cyclists ironic, can I?



The point about seeing unlit cyclists is that it is usually when you are much closer to them, therefore less reaction time. Isn't that why we are also told not to weave in and out of parked cars etc - be seen so that other road users know you are there.


----------



## yenrod (29 Oct 2009)

I haven't this week BUT have been late in getting back and had no lights


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> I've seen literally hundreds of unlit cyclists in Cambridge recently.
> 
> Wasn't in danger of colliding with any of them though.
> 
> I can't be the only one who finds complants about _seeing_ unlit cyclists ironic, can I?



It's ironic on one level, but there's a big difference between seeing a well lit cyclist in the distance, adjusting your speed, indicating and overtaking when it's safe, and seeing an unlit cyclist at the last second, thinking "shoot!!" and either bringing your 44 tonne tanker to a sudden stop or doing a messy emergency overtake. Cyclists without lights are a danger to themselves and to others and, given the low cost of a half decent set of LEDs these days, there's no excuse for it.


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

I drove past someone with what looked like a cateye ld130 last night in non-clean light conditions and wearing darkish clothing with no hi-viz and am reminded what divergent opinions people seem to have on bike lights. I thought they stood out very, very clearly. I've been in vehicles with people ranting and raving about much strong lighting set ups. There's no pleasing some motorists and cyclists, some of them would only be happy if we all used dinottes.

Some cyclists get caught out at this time of year. I've had to lend lights out on rides 3 or 4 times for when people's batteries ran out/light flew off and broke once etc. As I sometimes carry four front lights with me they seem to get dished out as backup to other people way before I need them.


----------



## summerdays (29 Oct 2009)

marinyork said:


> Some cyclists get caught out at this time of year. I've had to lend lights out on rides 3 or 4 times for when people's batteries ran out/light flew off and broke once etc. As I sometimes carry four front lights with me they seem to get dished out as backup to other people way before I need them.



But how do they have the right brackets? That's why all the family bikes will take Smart Superflash lights, and then there are some additional lights too - meaning we can share some of the lights. Plus having a stash of spare lights means that I can't use the excuse of I can't find a light when I'm going out - I can always borrow one of the spares.


----------



## swee'pea99 (29 Oct 2009)

They're morons. The only thing that amazes me is how many of them there are. Don't waste your time talking to them tho' - you'll just demoralise yourself to no good effect. It won't make any difference anyway. They're morons.


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

summerdays said:


> But how do they have the right brackets? That's why all the family bikes will take Smart Superflash lights, and then there are some additional lights too - meaning we can share some of the lights. Plus having a stash of spare lights means that I can't use the excuse of I can't find a light when I'm going out - I can always borrow one of the spares.



When I started cycling, many things I've done wrong and learnt along the way I did actually think about brackets and stuff. I originally had 2x cateye el-120/30s. These will fit on any bike. They aren't any good for seeing with, but 2 of them make a fairly all right to be seen combination if spaced about 6 inches apart. Compared to the average cyclist's lights they still rate well for knocking about town. They'll fit on any bike. My other two lights are Hope Vision 1s that with a bit of tweaking can fit on most handlebars. Don't think the 120/30s are too bad as you can whip them off in 2 or three seconds. Cateye changed the mount now though . I've lent them out to friends who don't have lights before.

There is certainly a problem with mounts on rears though. I found rather annoyingly enough that my race bike won't take the cateye el-1000 as the tube is too wide! The Mars 4 can be attached to anything or to a pannier. Now the price of the smart 1/2 has reduced again thinking of buying one and putting tape round it.

I think the knog movement for lights is also quite good.


----------



## fossyant (29 Oct 2009)

If you've got old lights or even reflector brackets, the Smart Superflash and many Cateye rear brackets can be bodged. My Superflash wouldn't fit the stay as the arm isn't long enough and the bottom of the light struck the stay, meaning it was pointing up. Took an old lamp bracket I had lying around, longer arm, and job's a good 'en...

(PS Always worth saving bits and bobs - I have a box full)....


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

Not complaining. The Mars 4 was cheap at the time I bought it . The idea is to fit smart 1/2 watts on the forks as I've seen other people do (although perhaps they bodged those).


----------



## MartinC (29 Oct 2009)

The bikes I ride at night have hub dynamos, B&M high performance standlights front and rear and backup LEDS for which I always carry spare batteries. I wouldn't ride in the dark without being well lit and do my very best to make sure I do all I can to prevent it happening.

There are 2 things I don't understand though.

Why are other cyclists so censorious of other cyclists who ride without lights? Lots of people do lots of things I don't agree with, wouldn't do myself or that I don't approve of. I think it's daft but essentially it's their risk and nothing to do with me. I'd agree that people like Rythm Thief have grounds to feel inconvenienced by it but others objections seem contrived. Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?

Secondly I can't understand the point of view that it's totally the unlit cyclist's fault if they get hit. Sure they've contributed to the accident by not taking sensible steps to mitigate the risks but there's also a fundamental responsibility when driving/riding to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see. If you hit a dark object at night you clearly weren't doing this and must bear some of the blame.

Reading threads about it puts me in mind of the Daily Mail.


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Why are other cyclists so censorious of other cyclists who ride without lights? Lots of people do lots of things I don't agree with, wouldn't do myself or that I don't approve of. I think it's daft but essentially it's their risk and nothing to do with me. I'd agree that people like Rythm Thief have grounds to feel inconvenienced by it but others objections seem contrived. Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?
> 
> Secondly I can't understand the point of view that it's totally the unlit cyclist's fault if they get hit. Sure they've contributed to the accident by not taking sensible steps to mitigate the risks but there's also a fundamental responsibility when driving/riding to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see. If you hit a dark object at night you clearly weren't doing this and must bear some of the blame.
> 
> Reading threads about it puts me in mind of the Daily Mail.



Both of those points are explained by a lot of the people in commuting and cycling in general are highway code literalists. They are only bothered about the "*MUST*". If you see it in terms of this you'll find that it explains the attitude to just about any motoring/road issue.


----------



## swee'pea99 (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Why are other cyclists so censorious of other cyclists who ride without lights? Lots of people do lots of things I don't agree with, wouldn't do myself or that I don't approve of. I think it's daft but essentially it's their risk and nothing to do with me. * I almost hit one myself last night, wobbling out of a side turning, dressed in black, almost invisible. I suppose if I had hit them, only they would have got hurt/had their bike damaged. Just as well the driver right behind me was on the ball as I had to suddenly swerve out to avoid them. What if they hadn't been? * I'd agree that people like Rythm Thief have grounds to feel inconvenienced by it but others objections seem contrived. Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?
> 
> Secondly I can't understand the point of view that it's totally the unlit cyclist's fault if they get hit. * Has anyone on this thread said this?* Sure they've contributed to the accident by not taking sensible steps to mitigate the risks but there's also a fundamental responsibility when driving/riding to be able to stop safely in the distance you can see. If you hit a dark object at night you clearly weren't doing this and must bear some of the blame.
> 
> Reading threads about it puts me in mind of the Daily Mail.


.


----------



## trustysteed (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Why are so many British cyclists never happy unless they're telling other cyclists what to do?



that's the nail on the head for a lot of the threads in Commuting. some people seem to have a rather overblown sense of proportion of their personal opinion about cycling/other cyclists that they like to foist on others.


----------



## lady_rider (29 Oct 2009)

It's because (as I said in a previous reply) cyclists who do light up then get the brunt of motorists' generalised anger towards cyclists who don't...


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2009)

lady_rider said:


> It's because (as I said in a previous reply) cyclists who do light up then get the brunt of motorists' generalised anger towards cyclists who don't...



Cyclists bear the brunt of motorists' generalised anger irrespective of their behaviour. It's worth remembering that the CTC campaigned vigorously against compulsory lights. What's changed since, except motorised traffic getting faster and nastier and motorists becoming more angry towards us? It's certainly not obvious that lights have made us safer.


----------



## lady_rider (29 Oct 2009)

theclaud said:


> It's worth remembering that the CTC campaigned vigorously against compulsory lights.



REALLY?! I didn't know that... Hmmm.... When I drive it's just so obvious that using lights on a bike makes you so much more visible. Especially on dark, unlit country lanes. As a cyclist I'd rather give motorists as little excuse as possible for a SMIDSY, and as a driver I know that an unlit, unreflected cyclist in black can appear out of nowhere...


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

to the forum. If you haven't heard the argument before, some of us believe cyclists are treated as an outgroup.


----------



## theclaud (29 Oct 2009)

lady_rider said:


> REALLY?! I didn't know that... Hmmm.... When I drive it's just so obvious that using lights on a bike makes you so much more visible. Especially on dark, unlit country lanes. As a cyclist I'd rather give motorists as little excuse as possible for a SMIDSY, and as a driver I know that an unlit, unreflected cyclist in black can appear out of nowhere...



I use lights myself, but I still ride home if the batteries go or I drop them down a drain. But I'd say that if you give motorists licence to expect and demand cyclists to be lit up like a Christmas tree, then they will use that as an excuse not to see anyone that isn't. I was asked recently by someone who nearly killed me in broad daylight where my "yellow thing" was...


----------



## MartinC (29 Oct 2009)

Swee'pea99.

"I suppose if I had hit them, only they would have got hurt/had their bike damaged." - I think that's what I was saying.

Today at 9:13, comment about the observed aftermath of an accident (but not the accident itself) - "Cyclist had no lights, completely in black. Completely his fault."


----------



## MartinC (29 Oct 2009)

lady_rider said:


> REALLY?! I didn't know that... Hmmm.... When I drive it's just so obvious that using lights on a bike makes you so much more visible. Especially on dark, unlit country lanes. As a cyclist I'd rather give motorists as little excuse as possible for a SMIDSY, and as a driver I know that an unlit, unreflected cyclist in black can appear out of nowhere...



I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.


----------



## marinyork (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.



On the CTC and no lights, it would be interesting to find out what the optimal choice would be on the law especially if we lived in a country that had different liability laws. I have the hunch that the moaners about ninjas and fairies would be disappointed with the answer...


----------



## summerdays (29 Oct 2009)

Not sure what I would think if it wasn't the law to have lights. As I found out recently when the school gates were moved and they forgot to change the yellow zig zags - I was much calmer - so I obviously stress more over rule breaking than keeping the kids safe in the first place (or perhaps children are expecting a safe place to cross in the first place). I suspect I would still use lights myself.


----------



## MartinC (29 Oct 2009)

marinyork said:


> On the CTC and no lights, it would be interesting to find out what the optimal choice would be on the law especially if we lived in a country that had different liability laws. I have the hunch that the moaners about ninjas and fairies would be disappointed with the answer...



Interesting question. IIRC lights became compulsory in the '30's so it was a very different environment the CTC were dealing with - less motor traffic, 'slower' roads, many more pedestrians and cyclists. To me the optimum answer now would be responsible drivers and compulsory lights. We've mandated the latter but done very liitle about the former. Changing the civil liablility position would definitely help in my view.


----------



## wafflycat (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Interesting question. IIRC lights became compulsory in the '30's so it was a very different environment the CTC were dealing with - less motor traffic, 'slower' roads, many more pedestrians and cyclists. *To me the optimum answer now would be responsible drivers and compulsory lights.* *We've mandated the latter but done very liitle about the former. Changing the civil liablility position would definitely help in my view.*




+1

And even if lights were not legally required now, as where I live has a distinct dearth of streetlighting, I'd still be using lights in order to see where I am going at the very least! Even when walking in the village when it's dark I use a torch.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.



The problem with this argument is that an unlit cyclist is practically invisible until you're very close to him or her, so you can be driving in the distance you can see to be clear when that distance is very suddenly reduced, if you see what I mean. Besides, your last sentence could apply equally to idiot cyclists who have no lights ... they expect other road users to make arrangements to allow for their lack of common sense.


----------



## Browser (29 Oct 2009)

+1. I know the distance I can see at night when driving, but if some blacked-out unlit berk decides to ignore the fact that a motor vehicle is proceeding along the road onto which they intend to turn from a give-way-marked side road and pull out in front of you, your kind of stuffed aren't you?
Yes, you should be aware that a hazard is ahead (junction) and ready yourself accordingly (reduce speed, move over towards the centre of the road if there is room etc), but short of super-human powers, asking a motorist, of indeed another cyclist, to spot someone who, especially on an unlit road, patently _does not want_ to be seen is asking a bit much.
Bikes used to have to have lights on, even in my impoverished youth. You couldn't see much with them, espcially the old grey-coloured Ever Ready ones, but you were expected to have them and, moreover, responsible parents would make sure their children _had_ them fitted. Now, when you can get a pair of flashing LED lamps for four quid from Wilko's, less people bother. Where's the logic in that?


----------



## Old Walrus (29 Oct 2009)

The Brighton Ninja squad are out in force since the clocks changed. The preference seems to be some sad excuse for a front light and nothing at the rear, makes for interesting scenarios when they loom up out of the dark.......gits!


----------



## Cab (29 Oct 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Missing the point.



No I'm not. 

While I accept the legal requirement I do not accept that on all roads the distance at which you'll see a cyclist at night is less if the cyclist has no lights. On many well lit routes it makes naff all difference; the length and direction of the street can often be more important.


----------



## GrasB (29 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> No I'm not.
> 
> While I accept the legal requirement I do not accept that on all roads the distance at which you'll see a cyclist at night is less if the cyclist has no lights. On many well lit routes it makes naff all difference; the length and direction of the street can often be more important.


+1 with conditions. While you can see someone clearly without lights it doesn't mean you can see someone & evaluate what they are doing quickly.


----------



## Cab (29 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> +1 with conditions. While you can see someone clearly without lights it doesn't mean you can see someone & evaluate what they are doing quickly.



It all comes down to conditions on the road really. On a well lit and typically twisty city street it would be very hard to argue that lights increase visibility. I don't argue that we shouldn't be lit up (front and rear light, secondary rear flashing light, flashing armband and reflector strips for me!), merely that we make far too much out of the bulk of cycling without lights. Dark country roads, poorly lit suburbs, thats one thing, but the VAST bulk of cyclists I see without lights are perfectly visible.


----------



## Crankarm (29 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> It all comes down to conditions on the road really. On a well lit and typically twisty city street it would be very hard to argue that lights increase visibility. I don't argue that we shouldn't be lit up (front and rear light, secondary rear flashing light, flashing armband and reflector strips for me!), merely that we make far too much out of the bulk of cycling without lights. Dark country roads, poorly lit suburbs, thats one thing, but the VAST bulk of cyclists I see without lights are perfectly visible.



Absolute tosh. I was walking around Cambridge this evening toward The Backs and there were lots of student/lecturer types cycling without lights in black or dark clothing who were practically invisible. It must have been almost impossible to see them in the headlights of an approaching car behind them. Then I was going down Grange Road through a set of traffic lights on GREEN when this stupid bitch RLJs straight toward me. She doesn't even stop almost crashing into me taking me out. She only didn't as I braked really hard and shouted at her. She didn't have any lights but had a beige coloured coat on .

So don't talk bout lights being an optional extra as they are definitely NOT. The responsible road user and cyclist will have them and more often than not more than one and also be wearing hi-viz reflective clothing. I can see why drivers get so irate as it is highly irresponsible to cycle without lights at night wearing dark clothing .


----------



## totallyfixed (30 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> So don't talk bout lights being an optional extra as they are definitely NOT. The responsible road user and cyclist will have them and more often than not more than one and also be wearing hi-viz reflective clothing. I can see why drivers get so irate as it is highly irresponsible to cycle w
> ithout lights at night wearing dark clothing .


+1


lady_rider said:


> It's because (as I said in a previous reply) cyclists who do light up then get the brunt of motorists' generalised anger towards cyclists who don't...


+1
I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas. The law for once is correct but as is so often the case in this country it's not enforced. A cyclist without lights deserves all they get.


----------



## marinyork (30 Oct 2009)

totallyfixed said:


> I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas. The law for once is correct but as is so often the case in this country it's not enforced. A cyclist without lights deserves all they get.



That does happen. It's not that unheard of to see all lights on one side of a car broken or that car not with its lights on. Doesn't create a fuss at all. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that sometimes people drive around with defectives for weeks or months.


----------



## swee'pea99 (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Swee'pea99.
> 
> "I suppose if I had hit them, only they would have got hurt/had their bike damaged." - I think that's what I was saying. *Yes. I think it was. And it's bollocks. That's my point, as I would have thought was clear.*
> 
> Today at 9:13, comment about the observed aftermath of an accident (but not the accident itself) - "Cyclist had no lights, completely in black. Completely his fault." *I would hesitate at 'completely', but I wouldn't take much persuading of 'overwhelmingly'.*


People who ride after dark without lights, especially coupled (as is so often the case) with dark/black clothing, are a bloody menace - a danger to themselves and others. It is _indefensible_. End of, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

swee said:


> People who ride after dark without lights are riding illegally, stupidly and unneccessarily putting themselves at risk.
> 
> People who drive at night and can't stop in the distance they can see with their lights are a danger to themselves and others.
> 
> People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.


----------



## Tollers (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.



OK. Seeing as i started this thread, i need to chip in. If you look at my original post i talk about people pulling out of junctions with no lights on, resulting in my having to take evasive action. There are certainly places on my commute where i'd like to sprint, but have suddenly this week become way too dangerous to do so.

We all take our own safety seriously. Martin, prehaps you havent had the same experiences as I, in which case you're blessed and i envy you. Some may empathise, some might not. 

I don't think anyone is frothing at the mouth, but being annoyed and venting about life's little frustrations is what the internet was made for! 

Tollers


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> No I'm not.
> 
> While I accept the legal requirement I do not accept that on all roads the distance at which you'll see a cyclist at night is less if the cyclist has no lights. On many well lit routes it makes naff all difference; the length and direction of the street can often be more important.



Still, riding without lights is a stupid thing to do. And (be honest with yourself), can you imagine how aerated you'd get if we were discussing motor vehicles without lights? You wouldn't be finding excuses for them.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> People who ride after dark without lights are riding illegally, stupidly and unneccessarily putting themselves at risk.
> 
> *People who drive at night and can't stop in the distance they can see with their lights are a danger to themselves and others.*



As I explained earlier, the distance you can see to be clear changes very quickly if someone's hiding in it. 



MartinC said:


> People who froth at the mouth 'cos some cyclists ride without lights are taking themselves far too seriously.



No, I think it's fair enough. It reflects badly on all of us.


----------



## jambo123 (30 Oct 2009)

Hello folks. First post here. Recent convert to the world of commuting and so far enjoying the ride. Anyway, last night, cycling home, I saw a man dressed in black, riding with no lights, carrying his daughter - who was no older than four - across the handlebar. Crazy. 



MartinC said:


> I, and I guess many others, are totally convinced that lights are a good idea. Nevertheless the primary responsibility of any vehicle driver is to be able to stop within the distance they can see. What irks me is that many drivers seem to regard this as too inconvenient to bother with now and expect others to make arrangements to cater for their poor driving.



While I agree with you about the primary responsibility being with the vehicle driver, you're making an assumption that all of them are as sensible as you. Clearly, that's not the case. For my own safety, I assume that all drivers are incompetent, tired, distracted, in a hurry etc. 

The point you seem to be making is that cyclists would be fine if only drivers drove sensibly. That's fine, but not much consolation to the poor cyclist without lights who just got knocked off because the driver didn't see him soon enough.


----------



## ferret fur (30 Oct 2009)

Large numbers of lightless cyclists in Edinburgh yesterday pm. I wonder if it has anything to do with the clocks going back?


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> As I explained earlier, the distance you can see to be clear changes very quickly if someone's hiding in it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think it's fair enough. It reflects badly on all of us.



I've already said that I think drivers of HGV's who already have to maintain a high level of observation to ensure thy're driving safely might be miffed at people who are doing nothing to help themselves be observed. I can understand you taking them to task.

However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.

Your second point point I don't accept. If some people want to stereotype others as a group and assign behaviour to them then they should be challenged, not pandered to. I don't hold you responsible for how other HGV drivers behave and I don't expect you think I should


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.


Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close. 

Even if the obstacle (cows are even worse than cyclists!) is within the reach of dipped beams, you might not be able to "see" that there is anything there, even without the distractions of oncoming traffic, bollards, road signs etc.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Tollers,  your original post and the poll are fine. I just find a lot of the reaction to it to be totally disproportionate to the problem and a manifestation of the totally car centric culture in the UK.


----------



## Origamist (30 Oct 2009)

Norm said:
 

> Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close.



That said, in urban environments with competing light sources (road lighting, neon/LED signs, xenon lamps, office lighting, reflections, glare etc) black can often stand out as a silhouette in the way that a flouro yellow top sometimes does not.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> Because dark clothing means that you cannot differentiate between a cyclist and the road surface until you are very close.
> 
> Even if the obstacle (cows are even worse than cyclists!) is within the reach of dipped beams, you might not be able to "see" that there is anything there, even without the distractions of oncoming traffic, bollards, road signs etc.



That's a useful generalisation. At night it's hard to distinguish dark objects from the road background. The difficulty of doing it doesn't mean you don't have to bother. It means you have to drive more slowly. It's also why it's a good idea to have bright lights if you're cycling - it means you stand a better chance of mitigating the effects of the drivers who aren't taking enough care.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> However your first point really makes little sense to me. If you can see the way ahead is clear then, by definition, no-one can hide in it. If it turns out not to be clear when you thought it was then your assumption was wrong - and you were wrong to assume. I sounds like what your saying is that it's difficult to drive at the speed you want if you have to allow for poorly lit obstructions in the road.



No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I expect other road users to conform to a reasonable minimum standard of visibility at night, and that having lights on the bike on an unlit rural B road is really not too much to ask. Not having lights is rather akin to hiding in the hedge and jumping out 50 yards in front of me. And bear in mind, I don't drive like a loony ... 25 - 30 mph is quite enough with a full tanker of sludge behind me. Besides, the argument is fine in principle - I can see your point - but it's very little consolation for a flat cyclist to argue that "he should have been going slower, then he'd have seen me even without lights". 



> Your second point point I don't accept. If some people want to stereotype others as a group and assign behaviour to them then they should be challenged, not pandered to. I don't hold you responsible for how other HGV drivers behave and I don't expect you think I should



I agree, to an extent. I never see myself as an ambassador for cycling, or for lorry drivers. But I know there are plenty of drivers who do take their frustration at red light jumpers and all the rest of it out on any cyclist. That's why cyclists without lights are a bad thing; it's a bit of a kick in the teeth for those of us who want to be taken seriously and treated like proper road users.


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2009)

Martin, I feel, from your tone, that you are trying to have a go at me for something. 

You said above that RT's point made little sense to you, I was just trying to explain that, generalisation or not, it is possible for dark clothing to allow something to remain effectively hidden, even when illuminated by your headlights.

Whilst I'm sure we always try to travel at a speed which allows us to stop in the distance that we can see to be clear, it is also possible for that distance to be under 40 feet. To use the quidance from the highway code, that would require every unlit road to be travelled at speeds of below 20mph, just on the off-chance that some unlit numpty, or cow, wants to remove himself from the gene pool.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> Martin, I feel, from your tone, that you are trying to have a go at me for something.
> 
> You said above that RT's point made little sense to you, I was just trying to explain that, generalisation or not, it is possible for dark clothing to allow something to remain effectively hidden, even when illuminated by your headlights.
> 
> Whilst I'm sure we always try to travel at a speed which allows us to stop in the distance that we can see to be clear, it is also possible for that distance to be under 40 feet. To use the quidance from the highway code, that would require every unlit road to be travelled at speeds of below 20mph, just on the off-chance that some unlit numpty, or cow, wants to remove himself from the gene pool.




 Not having a go at you. Having a go at the assumption that it's too onerous to drive at a speed you can stop in the distance you can see so you don't have to bother and it's everyone else job to make sure the way is clear.

IIRC on the night of the great wind in '87 a number of motorists were described as having been killed or injured by fallen trees (I can't recall the numbers but I think it was well into double figures). Only one had had a tree fall on their car - the rest had driven into fallen trees. Unlit numpties?


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Unlit numpties?


A dozen drivers in a particularly big storm 22 years ago.... so yeah, if you want to use that as justification for reducing our speeds to 20mph on every unlit road, I can go with unlit numpties.


----------



## Tollers (30 Oct 2009)

jambo123 said:


> Hello folks. First post here.



Welcome Jambo. Hope you like it here!

Tollers


----------



## Grendel (30 Oct 2009)

Saw a few last night, although one was clad head to toe in Hi-Vis with a Hi-Viz backpack and probably Hi-Viz pants, they had a front light on, but no back light. 
I did see a studenty type with no hi-viz gear and a single red steady light, but amongst all the other lights he did seem to get a bit lost in the whole thing.


----------



## Cab (30 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Absolute tosh. I was walking around Cambridge this evening toward The Backs and there were lots of student/lecturer types cycling without lights in black or dark clothing who were practically invisible.



On the backs I'd agree with you. Shady, irregularly lit, yep, lights are an absolute must there. Isn't a typical well lit bit of city centre by any means.


----------



## Cab (30 Oct 2009)

totallyfixed said:


> I think we all might get a wee bit p,,,,d off if cars drove around without lights in "well lit" areas.



I wouldn't particularly care to be honest. If they're going at an appropriate speed and visible... Should it upset me?


----------



## Cab (30 Oct 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Still, riding without lights is a stupid thing to do. And (be honest with yourself), can you imagine how aerated you'd get if we were discussing motor vehicles without lights? You wouldn't be finding excuses for them.



I entirely agree that you should have lights! But on most town centre streets I find no visibility difference based on vehicles (bikes or cars or whatever) being well lit. If anything, lighter coloured clothes (or paintwork) and reflectors are more useful.

I think we over-react to cyclists without lights. They're in the wrong, but I'm not seeing a good sense of perspective here.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> A dozen drivers in a particularly big storm 22 years ago.... so yeah, if you want to use that as justification for reducing our speeds to 20mph on every unlit road, I can go with unlit numpties.



No, hyperbole, the point I was making was that it was common sense to drive so that you can stop within the distance you can see and that unlit cyclists aren't the only possible obstruction.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2009)

Cab said:


> I entirely agree that you should have lights! But on most town centre streets I find no visibility difference based on vehicles (bikes or cars or whatever) being well lit. If anything, lighter coloured clothes (or paintwork) and reflectors are more useful.
> 
> I think we over-react to cyclists without lights. They're in the wrong, but I'm not seeing a good sense of perspective here.



I think we're arguing two different scenarios here. I'm basing my argument on my experience with unlit cyclists on an unlit rural B road on Monday night. I agree, it's less important in a well lit city centre, although it's surprising how things can disappear between streetlights. And, of course, an unlit cyclist (or any other road user) is that much harder to spot in a motorist's peripheral vision or wingmirrors than one with lights.


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2009)

I have indeed made frequent reference to cows myself.

In the context of this thread, that is. The case on the other stuff I might or might not have been doing with cows is still pending and they can't prove anything unless they have photos of me doing it. 

I take your point, as I made it myself, but you haven't yet commented about whether you feel that is justification for a blanket 20mph speed limit in unlit areas.


----------



## GrasB (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> That's a useful generalisation. At night it's hard to distinguish dark objects from the road background. The difficulty of doing it doesn't mean you don't have to bother. It means you have to drive more slowly. It's also why it's a good idea to have bright lights if you're cycling - it means you stand a better chance of mitigating the effects of the drivers who aren't taking enough care.



The other thing is sometimes it's hard to tell how much clear vision you have on the roads in the dark. Perspective & object perception can get morphed in the dark fairly easily as your brain miss-interprets the signals that the eyes are sending to it. From a physically incorrect picture of what you're looking at you've got a hard time to work out exactly how fast is to fast, more to the fact your standard reaction times have just gone out the window & you have no idea they have until you're put in the position of needing to react.

At the end of the day when you're driving, cycling, walking etc. you're balancing risks. At some point there's a decision which says this an acceptable balance & that is a judgement call, you really have a responsibility to minimise the impact of other peoples misjudgements.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> you haven't yet commented about whether you feel that is justification for a blanket 20mph speed limit in unlit areas.



This was your idea. Can't see that the requirement to drive inside the distance you can see translates into a blanket ban in unlit areas- far to many variables. If you hit something that was there then clearly you weren't doing it. If you can't judge it then you shouldn't be driving.


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> This was your idea. Can't see that the requirement to drive inside the distance you can see translates into a blanket ban in unlit areas- far to many variables. If you hit something that was there then clearly you weren't doing it. If you can't judge it then you shouldn't be driving.


It was my idea, thanks. 

If the distance that you can see is under 40 feet, then a direct corollary of your "drive within the limit of what you can clearly see" is that no-one on dipped beam should under any circumstances drive at more than 20mph on an unlit road.

IMO.


----------



## MartinC (30 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> The other thing is sometimes it's hard to tell how much clear vision you have on the roads in the dark. Perspective & object perception can get morphed in the dark fairly easily as your brain miss-interprets the signals that the eyes are sending to it. From a physically incorrect picture of what you're looking at you've got a hard time to work out exactly how fast is to fast, more to the fact your standard reaction times have just gone out the window & you have no idea they have until you're put in the position of needing to react.
> 
> At the end of the day when you're driving, cycling, walking etc. you're balancing risks. At some point there's a decision which says this an acceptable balance & that is a judgement call, you really have a responsibility to minimise the impact of other peoples misjudgements.



Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (30 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.



I can understand why you think the argument is "unbalanced" (without necessarily agreeing with you, mind), but I don't understand why you seem to be trying to find excuses for the sort of nutter who rides around at night with no lights on. After all, if "One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people", surely that applies to cyclists too?


----------



## ketka82uk (30 Oct 2009)

Was in shock this evening, cycling back through Hammersmith when I saw a woman cycling along with her kid on a trailer bike and no lights whatsoever. Unbelievable! I just couldn't get over the utter stupidity of someone who would put their child in danger like that.... 

Sometimes, though, you can have lights that are too bright. Earlier on in my commute I was blinded by a cyclist running some serious equipment in a well-lit area - we're talking serious lumina usually saved for off-road mtbing in the pitch black. Whatever it was it was way brighter than car headlights on full beam. Almost burnt my retinas out!!


----------



## Crankarm (31 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Agree with this. One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people and secondarily to minimise the impact of other peoples mistakes. The fulmination about cyclists with no lights is all about the secondary whilst ignoring the primary which is why I think it's unbalanced.





Rhythm Thief said:


> I can understand why you think the argument is "unbalanced" (without necessarily agreeing with you, mind), but I don't understand why you seem to be trying to find excuses for the sort of nutter who rides around at night with no lights on. After all, if "One's responsibility is primarily to minimise the impact on other people", surely that applies to cyclists too?



I think MartinC is just being obtuse for sake of it. He's really a .

Perhaps he can provide his name, description of his bike and likely location where he will be riding it in the dark without lights so we can arrange for plod to rendezvous with him to give him some words of advice and a little present, an FPN .


----------



## swee'pea99 (31 Oct 2009)

I do n't think he's a  exactly, just one of these people who can't admit they're wrong. The point where I lose patience is the repetition of 'they're only endangering themselves'. If that were true, I'd have no problem. But it isn't.


----------



## swee'pea99 (31 Oct 2009)

PS. I'd still think they were morons, mind.


----------



## MartinC (1 Nov 2009)

The original point I was making was that I can't see the justification for all the self righteous indignation that cycling without lights engenders. I'm not making any excuse for those that do it - it's illegal and stupid.

Taking a common sense view, by and large, unlit cyclists only put themselves at risk. I know the more excitable amongst you can contrive a set of circumstances where an unlit cyclist will trigger a set of circumstances that result in widespread death and destruction. Calm down. It's very unlikely.

Clearly, challenging the cant and hyperbole that surrounds the issue is more than some of you can bear. Resorting to abuse is just confirms that your capacity for rational argument has run out. Get over yourselves.

Incidentally, some of your posts give a disappointing insight into where the mindset I was questioning comes from.


----------



## wafflycat (1 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> The original point I was making was that I can't see the justification for all the self righteous indignation that cycling without lights engenders. I'm not making any excuse for those that do it - it's illegal and stupid.
> 
> Taking a common sense view, by and large,* unlit cyclists only put themselves at risk*. I know the more excitable amongst you can contrive a set of circumstances where an unlit cyclist will trigger a set of circumstances that result in widespread death and destruction. Calm down. It's very unlikely.
> 
> ...



*No they don't.* If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist comes out from a side road and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> *No they don't.* If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist comes out from a side road and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.



+1. Very cogently put WC.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 Nov 2009)

Im with WC on this considering I had a very nasty incident with an unlit clown last year.

I think your pointer here is how hard is it to see some peds who dress all in dark clothing?


----------



## MartinC (1 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> *No they don't.* If I'm (or anyone lese for that matter) driving or cycling on an unlit rural lane (as are many of the roads round me) and an unlit cyclist *comes out from a side road* and I (or a.n. other) can't stop in time, due to no lighting, and they are injured or worse, then I (or a.n.other) have that on the conscience for the rest of the natural born, even though it's not my (or a.n. other's) fault. Unlit cyclists do put others at risk. Someone can be cycling or driving in an entirely reasonable and legal manner and through no fault of their own, end up injuring or killing an unlit cyclist. They may even end up injured themselves in trying to take last second avoiding manouvres. It's not about some mass and widespread death & destruction, but it is about a very real risk to others who are not at fault.



With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.

I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.


----------



## wafflycat (1 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.
> 
> I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.



No it's not contrived - it's real. 

And why is the subject causing 'indignation' as you describe it, I'd describe it as discussion - perhaps because it's the subject of this thread whereas, for example, motorists driving with bald tyres isn't.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> No it's not contrived - it's real.



You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?

It is _fairly_ contrived.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, *cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve* (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?
> 
> It is _fairly_ contrived.



Obviously you've never driven, walked or cycled down an unlit Norfolk lane at night. Because I can tell you that an unlit cyclist *does* effectively disappear into the background visually. Such a cyclist is NOT very visible on such a road. 

All the apologists for any cyclists cycling thus can make all the excuses they want, which is remarkably like the 'two wheels good, four wheels bad' mantra, and it doesn't change a thing - that cycling at night without lights is not only illegal, it's stupid and does nothing to help the personal safety of the cyclist and does have an adverse effect on those who also happen to be using the road, whatever their mode of transport. 

Indeed this pathetic excuse-seeking for cyclists who act in this illegal, selfish, unthinking and silly fashion is *pathetic* YMMV.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Obviously you've never driven, walked or cycled down an unlit Norfolk lane at night.



Argument based on personal incredulity? I've been along many a country lane at night.



> Because I can tell you that an unlit cyclist *does* effectively disappear into the background visually. Such a cyclist is NOT very visible on such a road.



I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.



> All the apologists for any cyclists cycling...



And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. No one is acting like that, no one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inappropriately. You're portraying the stance that you're disagreeing with as way more vehement than it is. Others have posted saying that its a problem but not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, that the moral indignation shown here is disproportionate to the risk. Indeed that you are over-stating the problem. I agree with them. 

And to be honest your near hysterical mis-portrayal of the argument put to you does you no credit at all. You're a good egg Wafflycat, this should be beneath you.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Nov 2009)

No-one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inapproriately? LOL!


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> With all due respect this exactly what I mean by contrived. To get your scenario to be likely you've introduced another contributory factor (my bold) - the cycling was so bad it could easily have led to an accident in broad daylight.
> 
> I agree that you scenario's plausible but I still don't understand why the risk of the circumstances you describe causes so much more indignation than many other more likely, more dangerous and more egregious, examples of bad road behaviour.







Cab said:


> Argument based on personal incredulity? I've been along many a country lane at night.





Cab said:


> I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.





Cab said:


> And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. No one is acting like that, no one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inappropriately. You're portraying the stance that you're disagreeing with as way more vehement than it is. Others have posted saying that its a problem but not as big a deal as you're making it out to be, that the moral indignation shown here is disproportionate to the risk. Indeed that you are over-stating the problem. I agree with them.





Cab said:


> And to be honest your near hysterical mis-portrayal of the argument put to you does you no credit at all. You're a good egg Wafflycat, this should be beneath you.



Oh oh! Alert, Alert! Troll fest. Two trolls are festering.

 

Trolls you need to  the Highway Code. 

It is the law to have lights fitted to bicycles at night for good reason.

I'm a cyclist who wouldn't ever countenance cycling without lights after dark. In my travels I frequently encounter other cyclists on bikes and BSO without any lights. See my earlier post for my encounter with one last week. If I were in a larger vehicle such as a car I would be very annoyed that these peoples' cavalier and casual attitude to their safety by not equipping their bikes with lights would mean they involved me in possibly injurying them through no fault of my own if I collided with them as I couldn't see them in the darkness. As a cyclist I am just as annoyed as they can be lethal to other cyclists and pedestrians. These selfish eejits give all cyclists a bad image.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> You're going along an unlit road in your car at night, with your lights on, cyclist who isn't looking for lit vehicles and who has insufficient reflectors or bright clothing (hence essentially very visible on such a road) and no lights pulls out close enough in front of you that you can't stop or swerve (because we're assuming you're going at a speed appropriate for the conditions, thats really close)?
> 
> It is _fairly_ contrived.



It's not contrived. I think you're underestimating just how many idiots ride bicycles.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> I disagree, a good set of reflective strips is very often much more striking than bike lights on a dark road. If your headlights are working properly then the amount of light coming back from a retroreflector strip can be quite amazing. So if our contrived cyclist is wearing such a thing, he's still plenty visible. While he should of course have lights, its not THAT big a deal in most scenarios.



But reflective strips only work when your headlights point at them. Not, say, when a cyclist is waiting at a side road. 
Cycling at night on an unlit country road without lights is the mark of an idiot. There's no more to be said, really; I can't work out why we have a sizeable contingent who are ready to defend these people.


----------



## Dan B (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Cycling at night on an unlit country road without lights is the mark of an idiot. There's no more to be said, really; I can't work out why we have a sizeable contingent who are ready to defend these people.


If that was the entirety of the argument being put forward, I'd share your puzzlement. But what it seems to be is actually "cycling at night on an unlit country road without lights is very dangerous, therefore _any_ cycling _anywhere_ without lights is very dangerous and selfish". This isn't true, and rings especially false for those of us whose experience of unlit cyclists is in well-lit urban areas, where they're usually at least as visible (if not more so, due to pedal reflectors and suchlike) as the similarly unlit pedestrians in the road. It's not the basic argument that's a problem, it's the generalisation


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Even the argument that cyclists without lights are reasonably visible in well lit urban areas is only true if you happen to be looking directly at them. In a driver's peripheral vision and, crucially (especially for lorry drivers), in the rearview mirrors, it's not at all true. The "pedestrian" comparison falls down here, since it's not usual to find a pedestrian who needs to be seen in your rearview mirrors. Besides, I don't see what's so difficult about buying a couple of LED lights and sticking one on each end of your bike. It's hardly a massive expenditure or a huge amount of effort, and given that, I don't understand why all this effort is going into defending unlit cyclists.


----------



## wafflycat (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Even the argument that cyclists without lights are reasonably visible in well lit urban areas is only true if you happen to be looking directly at them. In a driver's peripheral vision and, crucially (especially for lorry drivers), in the rearview mirrors, it's not at all true. The "pedestrian" comparison falls down here, since it's not usual to find a pedestrian who needs to be seen in your rearview mirrors. Besides, I don't see what's so difficult about buying a couple of LED lights and sticking one on each end of your bike. It's hardly a massive expenditure or a huge amount of effort, and given that, I don't understand why all this effort is going into defending unlit cyclists.



+1


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> No-one is being an apologist for cyclists riding inapproriately? LOL!



The discussion is about how big a risk a cyclist poses to himself and others when doing something that we (pretty much) all agree is not great. That we don't all agree with you about how inappropriate it is does not make us apologists, no matter how hard you try to polarise this discussion along that line.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Trolls you need to  the Highway Code.



And you need to read what you're arguing against. I see no one arguing that cyclists should break this law, merely that to do so is not always as big a deal as you're making it out to be.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> The discussion is about how big a risk a cyclist poses to himself and others when doing something that we (pretty much) all agree is not great.



I don't know that we do all agree that. While there may well be no physical risk to me if I squash one of these selfish idiots while I'm at work tonight, I don't give much for my chances of driving a lorry or sleeping particularly well for a while. And if I can't drive a lorry, where do you suggest my mortgage payments come from?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> And you need to read what you're arguing against. I see no one arguing that cyclists should break this law, merely that to do so is not always as big a deal as you're making it out to be.



It seems to me that it's even less of a big deal to actually go and spend a few quid on some lights.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Nov 2009)

It's also not a big deal to drive at a speed where I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear. That includes unlit cyclists and pedestrians.

And I'm not apologising for any unlit idiots, it's not what I'd do as you can no doubt tell from the lights on my bikes. I'm also not going to be a moton apologist [1] either, expecting to speed everywhere and not be able to stop for unlit idiots. It's a good example of one thing that is wrong with car culture, that's what it is.

[1] because that seems to be what you guys are proposing.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> It's also not a big deal to drive at a speed where I can stop in the distance I can see to be clear. That includes unlit cyclists and pedestrians.
> 
> And I'm not apologising for any unlit idiots, it's not what I'd do as you can no doubt tell from the lights on my bikes. I'm also not going to be a moton apologist [1] either, expecting to speed everywhere and not be able to stop for unlit idiots. It's a good example of one thing that is wrong with car culture, that's what it is.
> 
> [1] because that seems to be what you guys are proposing.



You haven't read the rest of this thread, have you? No one is proposing that motorists should be able to drive at whatever speed they like, merely that it's rather unsporting of cyclists to suddenly cut the distance a motorist can see to be clear by hiding in it. Representing the position of those arguing against unlit cyclists in such a way is rather like me representing your position as saying "cyclists should be allowed to do what they like". Which, I'm pretty sure, is not what you're saying at all.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Nov 2009)

Well, there certainly is a bit of polarisation going on, with many on the opposing side of the debate suggesting that it's entirely the cyclists' own fault if there's a crash when they are not wearing lights.

Let's have a little bit of fairness here, and remember that the drivers also bear responsibility and duty for driving in a way that they can see. See things like pedestrians, fallen trees, etc. Do they also hide in plain sight? Do people drive without seeing what their headlights show them?


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Nov 2009)

The one thing that surprises me with this poll is the vast difference in cyclists who have or haven't used lights in the drk this week.Based on my commutes it seems to be commonplace for cyclist to have no lights,esp on very early morning commutes.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Nov 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> The one thing that surprises me with this poll is the vast difference in cyclists who have or haven't used lights in the drk this week.Based on my commutes it seems to be commonplace for cyclist to have no lights,esp on very early morning commutes.



I think that's because we're pretty much all enthusiasts on here, so we care to do cycling things well.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Well, there certainly is a bit of polarisation going on, with many on the opposing side of the debate suggesting that it's entirely the cyclists' own fault if there's a crash when they are not wearing lights.
> 
> Let's have a little bit of fairness here, and remember that the drivers also bear responsibility and duty for driving in a way that they can see. See things like pedestrians, fallen trees, etc. Do they also hide in plain sight? Do people drive without seeing what their headlights show them?



But no one is suggesting that the driver doesn't bear some responsibility. And I should say that I've never actually hit an unlit cyclist, a fallen tree, or anything else in the circumstances you describe. But I still think it's a little odd that anyone's defending these goons in any way. Whether all drivers should drive like you say is one thing, but the fact is that they don't. That being the case, any cyclist owes it to themselves to give themselves as much chance as possible, and given the small cost and ready availability of bicycle lights these days, that doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask. Your "fallen tree and pedestrian" analogy is not entirely valid, since pedestrians are usually (but not always) separated from motor traffic by being on the pavement, or walking facing the traffic, where they can see if they need to take evasive action. 
Incidentally, no one has yet answered my point about unlit cyclists creeping around in people's mirrors. This has nothing to do with driving in the distance you can see to be clear and everything to do with cyclists seemingly going out of their way to be as invisible as possible. Why do we need to defend that sort of behaviour?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I think that's because we're pretty much all enthusiasts on here, so we care to do cycling things well.



Yes, I agree. I'm surprised the number of "yes" votes is as high as seven, to be honest.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Your "fallen tree and pedestrian" analogy is not entirely valid, since pedestrians are usually (but not always) separated from motor traffic by being on the pavement, or walking facing the traffic, where they can see if they need to take evasive action.



That is moton apology in action.

p.s. you keep saying how I defend the cyclists, but my recent post makes it exceedingly clear I do exactly the opposite.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

BentMikey said:


> That is moton apology in action.



It's not, though. I'm not a moton, and I do drive within the distance I can see to be clear. But I know that there are plenty out there who don't, and my point is that it's little consolation for a squished cyclist to be able to say "well, I was unlit, but that car driver was certainly going too fast!" Besides, it seems to me to be a valid point: a cyclist riding with the flow of traffic is much less able to see what is coming towards them on the same side of the road than a pedestrian is, and is also less able to take evasive action should they need to. It should be obvious that this is not a manifesto for motorists to drive exactly as they please, I'm just pointing out a few differences between pedestrians and cyclists.



> p.s. you keep saying how I defend the cyclists, but my recent post makes it exceedingly clear I do exactly the opposite.



Fair enough, although my "defending the unlit cyclists" comment wasn't aimed at you.


----------



## Amanda P (2 Nov 2009)

Grendel said:


> one was clad head to toe in Hi-Vis with a Hi-Viz backpack and probably Hi-Viz pants, they had a front light on, but no back light.



Cool! Pants with lights on!

A bit too cool at this time of year, maybe, and if you put trousers on, presumably that would cover up the lights...


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't know that we do all agree that. While there may well be no physical risk to me if I squash one of these selfish idiots while I'm at work tonight, I don't give much for my chances of driving a lorry or sleeping particularly well for a while. And if I can't drive a lorry, where do you suggest my mortgage payments come from?



You're saying the same thing in a different way; I agree, cyclists should be well lit, the issue really is whether or not its always that big a deal. I contend that it isn't always.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> You're saying the same thing in a different way; I agree, cyclists should be well lit, the issue really is whether or not its always that big a deal. I contend that it isn't always.



Ok, I'm prepared to agree that it's not always such a big issue as it is on my unlit B road. but I still don't think there's much excuse for being without lights anywhere.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Ok, I'm prepared to agree that it's not always such a big issue as it is on my unlit B road. but I still don't think there's much excuse for being without lights anywhere.



In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.



And quite apart from commiting an offence for not having lights on their bikes........... But we'll just ignore those laws we can't be bothered with shall we ?


----------



## wafflycat (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It seems to me that it's even less of a big deal to actually go and spend a few quid on some lights.



+1


----------



## summerdays (2 Nov 2009)

I think one of the problems about cyclists without lights not being visible to car drivers, is that if they are of the opinion that lights don't help, they they also probably belong to the subset of cyclists who may break other rules. If they ride in the gutter - motorists just aren't paying attention there, they are in the invisible zone even if it was daylight. I think that no lights and gutter crawlers go together, and a general lack of good traffic skills.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> And quite apart from commiting an offence for not having lights on their bikes...........



Indeed. An offense. Just not one causing any harm; realistically, a pile of 50 bikes at the same time going down a well lit city road, some unlit, whats the real likelyhood of the lack of lighting on some of them causing an accident?


> But we'll just ignore those laws we can't be bothered with shall we ?



By all means enfoce the laws, ideally in the order in which harm is caused by breaking them. Do you not agree?


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

summerdays said:


> I think one of the problems about cyclists without lights not being visible to car drivers, is that if they are of the opinion that lights don't help, they they also probably belong to the subset of cyclists who may break other rules. If they ride in the gutter - motorists just aren't paying attention there, they are in the invisible zone even if it was daylight. I think that no lights and gutter crawlers go together, and a general lack of good traffic skills.




It is very often the case (in my experience) that unlit cyclists are just that sort; inexperienced or very passive gutter huggers. Tends to be the case that they're effectively invisible as much or more because of taking a poor road position.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> In Cambridge, along (say) Hills Road, you might be one of a stream of 50 cyclists all going the same way. Its as well lit at night as a cloudy daytime. *The only reason why cyclists there without lights are causing a problem is that they give more ammo for the motons.*



Isn't that reason enough in itself to get some lights? Apart from anything else, the attitude you're displaying here ("yes, it's illegal, but it's not actually dangerous") is not a million miles from the excuses used by speeding drivers to justify their actions. Cyclists can't pick and choose which laws it's ok to disobey, surely.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Isn't that reason enough in itself to get some lights? Apart from anything else, the attitude you're displaying here ("yes, it's illegal, but it's not actually dangerous") is not a million miles from the excuses used by speeding drivers to justify their actions. Cyclists can't pick and choose which laws it's ok to disobey, surely.



You're still acting like I'm arguing against having lights. I'm not. I'm arguing that you're treating this like its way more serious than (in many cases) it is.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Nov 2009)

Cab said:


> You're still acting like I'm arguing against having lights. I'm not. I'm arguing that you're treating this like its way more serious than (in many cases) it is.



No, I understand that you're not arguing against having lights. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the seriousness of not having them, though. 
As an aside, one of the things I can't understand about this forum is how some of its members can froth at the mouth about speeding drivers or dangerous motorists, and then adopt the same arguments and attitudes they use to justify their actions to argue the case for cyclists who break the law. If you believe that motorists should obey the speed limit whatever their judgement tells them a safe speed is, then surely you have to argue that a cyclist should have lights whether or not they believe it to be safe to ride without them. It's just the same argument.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> No, I understand that you're not arguing against having lights. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the seriousness of not having them, though.
> As an aside, one of the things I can't understand about this forum is how some of its members can froth at the mouth about speeding drivers or dangerous motorists, and then adopt the same arguments and attitudes they use to justify their actions to argue the case for cyclists who break the law. If you believe that motorists should obey the speed limit whatever their judgement tells them a safe speed is, then surely you have to argue that a cyclist should have lights whether or not they believe it to be safe to ride without them. It's just the same argument.



Of course a cyclist _should_ have lights at night, but I'm quite relaxed about them not having them where that is of trivial impact in the same way as I'm relaxed about people doing 80mph on a quiet motorway. Neither can complain if they're nicked, but I would hope that the police should have better things to do with their time than go for those offenders causing least harm to others. And in many, many situations cyclists without lights are harmless.


----------



## MartinC (2 Nov 2009)

Sorry guys I've been busy today and not able to post and the discussion seems to have moved on. Sensibly too thanks largely to Rhythm Thief and Cab.

Coming back in it seems that many are reading things into what I (and others)are saying that really aren't there. This is what I posted originally:



MartinC said:


> The bikes I ride at night have hub dynamos, B&M high performance standlights front and rear and backup LEDS for which I always carry spare batteries. I wouldn't ride in the dark without being well lit and do my very best to make sure I do all I can to prevent it happening.
> 
> There are 2 things I don't understand though.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that what good and responsible drivers like Wafflycat and Rhthym Thief are saying is this. The extreme cases (cyclists riding badly, in dark clothes, unlit and on pitch black country roads) increases the stress involved in driving properly and creates the fear of being involved in an accident despite their best endeavours to avoid it. I have a lot of sympathy with this view, especially for RT who has an onerous responsibility at the best of times.

Nevertheless cyclists without lights aren't the only unlit hazard or obstruction on the road that must be allowed for and this stress is always going to be present.

Cycling without lights is, in my view, always anti social. That it's quite correctly illegal isn't being challenged. What I don't accept is the condemnation of any unlit cycling as automatically extremely dangerous for the offender and all the people they share the road with. I'm extremely suspicious of the origin of much of this castigation - it seems like the standard knee jerk reaction of the UK motorist who expects, like Mr Toad, that all the lower, less entitled, classes of road user get out of his way. I think that some cyclists too also view these ignorants as a lower order.

It's interesting that most of this discussion has been focussed around the needs of the motorist. The OP started the thread with his reaction to the impact unlit cyclist were having on him as a cyclist. In my view the people most at risk from unlit cyclists are pedestrians but if IIRC they've only figured in this discussion as another group who should be well lit if they want to stray onto the motorist's road.


----------



## Tollers (2 Nov 2009)

Can we draw a line now? Hahaha

____________________________________________________________________________

There....I did it 

Tollers


----------



## ferret fur (2 Nov 2009)

Don't forget, that as a motorist if you were waiting to pull out of a junction at night you could reasonably expect to see lights from any vehicle, motorised or otherwise, coming down the road towards you. If the motorist (or even another cyclist or pedestrain) moved into the path of someone without lights I acn guarantee you that the courts would not find fault with them. Given the ever changing & dynamic nature of urban traffic, I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town. What it boils down to is that if you get hit (or hit) another road user at night while unlit. It is your fault. Anything else is just a one eyed 'if it is on two wheels it must be right' attitude.


----------



## Cab (2 Nov 2009)

ferret fur said:


> Don't forget, that as a motorist if you were waiting to pull out of a junction at night you could reasonably expect to see lights from any vehicle, motorised or otherwise, coming down the road towards you. If the motorist (or even another cyclist or pedestrain) moved into the path of someone without lights I acn guarantee you that the courts would not find fault with them.



Except of course that they do, the police and courts do look at whether greater care could have prevented the accident even if the injured party was unlit.



> Given the ever changing & dynamic nature of urban traffic, I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town. What it boils down to is that if you get hit (or hit) another road user at night while unlit. It is your fault. Anything else is just a one eyed 'if it is on two wheels it must be right' attitude.



And back to another attempt to polarise the debate


----------



## MartinC (3 Nov 2009)

ferret fur said:


> I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious. How can you judge how visible an unlit cyclist is the multitudinously different lighting conditions you get in a town.



This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk. 

Some urban lighting conditions at night are better than a dull day. You're very effectively making the case that visibility conditions are a wide spectrum that goes from bright sunlight to pitch black and that an object doesn't suddenly become invisible 'cos it's a minute past lighting up time


----------



## Norm (3 Nov 2009)

Bottom line, for me, is that I'd rather be the first person to turn their lights on than the last. 

I have driven over someone who ignored priority and came straight across the road in front of me at night in the rain and without lights, it's not something that I'd want to put anyone else through. 

The self-imposed guilt trip is bad enough without the threats of prosecution from the police. Fortunately, the junction was covered by CCTV, which showed that I was doing about 10mph and braking but I never did see him, I just heard the bang as he went under the front of my car.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk.



... and that applies equally to the cyclist. How can one say that unlit cyclists can be as visible by night as by day if you "can't make a blanket assessment of the risk"?


----------



## Cab (3 Nov 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ... and that applies equally to the cyclist. How can one say that unlit cyclists can be as visible by night as by day if you "can't make a blanket assessment of the risk"?



It may not be a blanket assessment. It may be as simple as 'my trip from (x) to (y) is along relatively short, well lit streets where the limit on how far away I'll be seen is how far the next corner is away, not how good my lights are'. To argue that it is never safe is a blanket statement, to argue that there may be times when risk is not increased is not.


----------



## Tollers (3 Nov 2009)

OK. To summarise.....

Some streets are as well lit as day. Whilst on these roads cycle lights arent an issue. (Martins valid point).

In real world, most streets arent so well lit (Everyone else's valid point)

Now....drawing a line. Please do not cross. 

Tollers 
____________________________________________________________________________


----------



## ferret fur (3 Nov 2009)

> This is a contradiction. If conditions vary so much that you can't judge how visible something will be, then, by definition, you can't make a blanket assessment of the risk.


I rather think you are making my point for me. It doesn't matter if a cyclist has their lights switched on when they are already visible or don't know if they are visible or not. This is known as failing safe. It DOES matter if they don't have lights on when they are needed for the cyclist to be seen. Since the cyclist cannot definitively judge, from another road users perspective, whether the light conditions are good enough or not to be seen, then it makes sense to have them switched on when the law requires you to. To do otherwise is known as failing dangerous.


----------



## MartinC (4 Nov 2009)

ferret fur said:


> I can't quite make out how anyone could assess the risk posed by someone without lights as not serious.



If the unlit cyclist is riding in a well lit environment they don't pose a serious risk.

The only "fail safe" approach would be for cyclists to be lit at all times. Lighting up time determines when riding with or without lights is legal - not how visible the cyclist is. As you so rightly said visibility is affected by many factors.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Nov 2009)

MartinC said:


> If the unlit cyclist is riding in a well lit environment they don't pose a serious risk.
> 
> The only "fail safe" approach would be for cyclists to be lit at all times. Lighting up time determines when riding with or without lights is legal - not how visible the cyclist is. As you so rightly said visibility is affected by many factors.




For some one who was up an arms by the scale of indignation surrounding cyclists riding around after dark without lights you are doing a pretty full on job yourself to defend yourself and them, dragging out this thread which is now .

You are indeed a .


----------



## MartinC (4 Nov 2009)

Crankarm said:


> For some one who was up an arms by the scale of indignation surrounding cyclists riding around after dark without lights you are doing a pretty full on job yourself to defend yourself and them, dragging out this thread which is now .
> 
> You are indeed a .



But you posted last! Oh no! It was me again!


----------

