# Lights, how much is a life worth?



## Broughtonblue (18 Nov 2014)

I would have thought the majority of posters on here are serious/semi serious cyclists, after all we come on here to gain knowledge and discuss all things cycling.
But I am amazed at the number of cyclists that ride without any lights at all. With it being dark by 5ish any commuter on day shifts will have to cycle in the dark, and also those who start work at 6am etc will also be in the dark.
With lights starting at around £5 for a basic set do these people put any value on their life, and also the feelings of those loved ones around them?


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2014)

A £5 set is unlikely to be legal and unlit riders are only about 2% of collisions, so shouldn't you worry about the bigger dangers first?

I have various dynamo, solar and battery lights (not all on each bike!), mostly approved to German or British standards, so I can see unlit bikes (and walkers, animals or Motor vehicles). If you have good lights too, how do unlit riders really cause you much problem? The highway code tells you not to berate other road users even when they're wrong...


----------



## Globalti (18 Nov 2014)

Because unlit riders get us all tarred with the same brush, Joe Public being unable to discriminate between a cyclist and a muppet who happens to be riding a bike.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Nov 2014)

Thank goodness we have you to tell us what Joe Public thinks.


----------



## potsy (18 Nov 2014)

I've stopped worrying what other riders get up to, their choice as to whether they want to break the law or not.


----------



## moo (18 Nov 2014)

When I see unlit cyclists I'm always impressed with the amount of room and caution shown by overtaking motorists. If only they could apply the same level of respect to me, lit up like a Christmas tree.


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2014)

Globalti said:


> Because unlit riders get us all tarred with the same brush, Joe Public being unable to discriminate between a cyclist and a muppet who happens to be riding a bike.


So blame Joe for a post office robbery or whatever evil crime is in the news about their town/country/job, and if they object, point out that well, you had no involvement with that muppet riding a bike yet they still tried to blame you for it.

We must challenge anyone who suggests that riders are responsible for every other rider. It's extremely unlikely that all riders will obey all traffic laws any time soon and anyone making that demand explicitly or implicitly may be a bigot who has found it's no longer acceptable to punish one Frenchman just because another did something wrong, so has found another outlet for their bigotry rather than dealing with their problem.

We should also challenge popular obsessions like unlit riders or "look out for each other", which are distractions from facts like motorists being blamed for 80% of injuries to riders aged 25+ years (I am a motorist too, but the madness on the roads I see from my car is also worrying). We need a pragmatic approach to road danger which reduces the biggest risks most.


----------



## Broughtonblue (18 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> A £5 set is unlikely to be legal and unlit riders are only about 2% of collisions, so shouldn't you worry about the bigger dangers first?
> 
> I have various dynamo, solar and battery lights (not all on each bike!), mostly approved to German or British standards, so I can see unlit bikes (and walkers, animals or Motor vehicles). If you have good lights too, how do unlit riders really cause you much problem? The highway code tells you not to berate other road users even when they're wrong...


Wooh there stroppy! How high is your horse? Do you always feel the need to lecture people?
You say I 'worry' and these people 'cause me a problem'
Where in my comments did I mention these facts! I merely mentioned if they spent a fiver on some cheap lights they would at least be visible!


----------



## BrumJim (18 Nov 2014)

I'm with you, Broughtonblue. Given the price and size of cheap LED lights it seems daft to not have them on your bike.

Although I have ridden without lights before (forgotten), and believe that it makes you a better rider. You then become fully responsible for your safety, and you are aware of any cars that may be pulling out in front of you because they don't know that you are there.


----------



## Mile195 (18 Nov 2014)

£5? You can get lights for a quid at Poundland.

OK, they're not that great, but much better than nothing. I have concern for those that don't change their batteries either. They probably think they're safe, but don't realise that a back light barely brighter than a candle is utterly useless.

I light my bike up like a christmas tree these days. 2 Fenix torches on the front (one running at 70 Lumen and the other flashing at 220 pointed slightly more towards the ground) - as bright as some of the best rechargeable bike lights but a fraction of the cost. On the back I have a £35 cateye on the seat stem, and another 2 cheaper lights on my rucksack. I recharge all the batteries regularly... The total value is probably about £120, but well worth it as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Broughtonblue (18 Nov 2014)

BrumJim said:


> I'm with you, Broughtonblue. Given the price and size of cheap LED lights it seems daft to not have them on your bike.
> 
> Although I have ridden without lights before (forgotten), and believe that it makes you a better rider. You then become fully responsible for your safety, and you are aware of any cars that may be pulling out in front of you because they don't know that you are there.


Cheers, I just cannot understand anybody wanting to ride on a road at night without lights, this morning on my way to work at 5am I saw at least 6 doing this. If they were £50 a set then I could see why people would be put off,


----------



## glenn forger (18 Nov 2014)

So they weren't invisible?


----------



## Broughtonblue (18 Nov 2014)

glenn forger said:


> So they weren't invisible?


Of course not, who said they were?


----------



## glenn forger (18 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> Wooh there stroppy! How high is your horse? Do you always feel the need to lecture people?
> You say I 'worry' and these people 'cause me a problem'
> Where in my comments did I mention these facts! I merely mentioned if they spent a fiver on some cheap lights they would at least be visible!




You keep seeing things that aren't visible?


----------



## Dan B (18 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> do these people put any value on their life, and also the feelings of those loved ones around them?
> [...]
> Wooh there stroppy! How high is your horse? Do you always feel the need to lecture people?


No comment


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> Wooh there stroppy! How high is your horse? Do you always feel the need to lecture people?
> You say I 'worry' and these people 'cause me a problem'
> Where in my comments did I mention these facts! I merely mentioned if they spent a fiver on some cheap lights they would at least be visible!


You seemed worried about it enough to suggest they're some sort of problem in the opening post, opening with a lecture that people should spend £5 on non-legal junk lights that will make them little safer because won't somebody please think of the families and so on. I'm mainly trying to push back HARD against such emotive claptrap and suggest we focus on what actually injures riders instead.


Broughtonblue said:


> glenn forger said:
> 
> 
> > So they weren't invisible?
> ...


You did, with words like "they would at least be visible". They're not invisible, else you wouldn't have seen them. If they were visible but you didn't see them, then maybe you weren't looking, or maybe your own lights are useless not-legal £5 bucket shop jobbies? Maybe obsessing about other people's lights is misdirected self-loathing?


----------



## cd365 (18 Nov 2014)

How are £5 lights non-legal?


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2014)

cd365 said:


> How are £5 lights non-legal?


Most commonly, by having a steady mode that doesn't meet the British Standards or equivalent (most often German, Danish or Dutch - there are very few British Standard lights available any more). They aren't necessarily illegal unless they're dazzling (unlikely for £5) but aren't sufficient to make a bike legal at night. Full detail: http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations


----------



## G3CWI (18 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> Full detail: http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations



Interesting link. I suspect that some "serious" cyclist don't conform to all of the points. Pedal reflectors being something that few probably have. I run with lots of lights but I'm not sure which, if any, are marked as required.


----------



## cd365 (18 Nov 2014)

I'm sure there are lots of lights you can buy under £5 which conform to the standards.
Would be nice if websites printed the details if they did or not.


----------



## steveindenmark (18 Nov 2014)

I have never been berrated for someone else not having lights on their bike. But just to make it fair, i have never berrated a driver for someone else being caught for drink driving.

Look after yourself and let the others get on with their lives.


----------



## G3CWI (18 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Look after yourself and let the others get on with their lives.



Except that some of the behaviours that you cite have the potential to seriously impact on third parties.


----------



## vickster (18 Nov 2014)

G3CWI said:


> Except that some of the behaviours that you cite have the potential to seriously impact on third parties.


Including drivers


----------



## Globalti (18 Nov 2014)

You may be lit up like a Christmas tree but on a wet night with reflections from the road, background lights cluttering the scene and rain drops and mist on drivers' side windows all those lights won't make any difference to a stressed driver in a hurry who sees what he thinks is a gap in the traffic and pulls out. Even wearing a flouro juju jacket, the modern equivalent to the old St Christopher medal, won't save you.

Years of motorcycling in all weathers taught me never to trust anybody, always look for wheel rotation and cover brakes and horn and not to move straight towards a driver, presenting a stationary object, but to move out across their field of vision.


----------



## mjr (18 Nov 2014)

cd365 said:


> I'm sure there are lots of lights you can buy under £5 which conform to the standards.
> Would be nice if websites printed the details if they did or not.


Why would they print details that might discourage purchasing?

It goes deeper than the websites. Have a look when you're next in the shops, but I think you may be disappointed. The only big cycling store I've noticed selling any standard lights in the last few years is Evans and those models (some Cateye lights with a D suffix) aren't on their website any longer. The German-owned supermarkets sometimes have some in their sales at a reasonable price, but not all the time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> Cheers, I just cannot understand anybody wanting to ride on a road at night without lights, *this morning on my way to work at 5am I saw at least 6 doing this*.


and there's your answer.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> Cheers, I just cannot understand anybody wanting to ride on a road at night without lights, *this morning on my way to work at 5am I saw at least 6 doing this*. If they were £50 a set then I could see why people would be put off,





GrumpyGregry said:


> and there's your answer.



You assume that there weren't some other riders who were not seen, who otherwise would have been if they'd made an effort?

Seemingly unlike most people on here, I drive and ride. It scares the beejesus out of me when people ride without lights because they're harder to see. You can spin it however you like and say I should be driving in a way that means I don't have to be able to see everyone or whatever, but it doesn't change the physics - light shows up well against a dark background. I'm a careful driver (23 years, lots of miles, no accidents) but if you can't see cyclists there is more chance you'll hit them. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> ...
> I'm a careful driver (23 years, lots of miles, no accidents) but if you can't see cyclists there is more chance you'll hit them. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.



but you can should see them... if you're driving in an attentive manner. I'm sure there's plenty of other unlit objects you also manage not to hit whilst you're driving too.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> but you can should see them... if you're driving in an attentive manner. I'm sure there's plenty of other unlit objects you also manage not to hit whilst you're driving too.


I can't think of many unlit objects that are on the carriageway in the dark and move. Can you?

Think of it the other way around. Would you be happy for cars, buses and lorries to not have lights?


----------



## Thomk (18 Nov 2014)

I wonder what happens when two cyclists without lights approach each other in the dark at a junction...


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> No one is saying anyone/anything 'should not' have lights. Of course having lights when it's dark is advisable. But all these apparently invisible cyclists have been seen, so the onus really is on the looker to take extra care when it's dark, isn't it?


You neglect to mention the unlit ones that aren't seen at all, or are seen too late.


----------



## Thomk (18 Nov 2014)

The unlit minority are only reasonably safe because the majority have lights. Imaging a scenario where no road users had lights of any sort on busy unlit roads.


----------



## clid61 (18 Nov 2014)

Globalti said:


> Years of motorcycling in all weathers taught me never to trust anybody, always look for wheel rotation and cover brakes and horn and not to move straight towards a driver, presenting a stationary object, but to move out across their field of vision.



This ^^ ^ ^ ^^ , as a motorcyclist of many years I totally agree., and carried that view into my cycling and commuting too .


----------



## clid61 (18 Nov 2014)

Slight diversion.

Ive spent a bit of time over the years in Luxor, and none of the Egyptians have car lights on at night , because they can see ! It works , over there yes ,but here ?
Different outlook and way of life . Flip side they have some horrendous multiple death bus /coach/ train incidents


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Nov 2014)

Harold Shipman had a beard, worked for the NHS, wore trousers and black lace up shoes

I also fit this description, but I am not responsible for him murdring his patients


----------



## sheffgirl (18 Nov 2014)

I purchased a bright front light for my bike. Was quite expensive, but I thought it would be worth it if it kept me safe. 
But it seems even 2000 lumens doesn't stop drivers failing to see me and knocking me off  I had it on slow flashing mode, plus I had a little LED phaart light on the front, she still 
claimed she never saw me.
Its still good for the night rides I've been doing lately on the Trans Pennine Trail, looking forwards to the next one once my bruises subside a bit


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

I rode home without lights this evening, doubtless incurring the righteous judgement of people like the OP. It wasn't pitch black but it was well beyond lighting-up time. Drivers could see me easily, and it was a beautiful evening. Other people's lights spoiled it somewhat, though. I think what @Thomk says above is the opposite of the truth - there's a lighting arms race afoot, and the smaller and more vulnerable road users can only lose. Sadly, many cyclists are getting drawn into it, and are giving motorists a run for their money in terms of the brash dominance conferred by their increasingly powerful technology. I have made a conscious decision to power down a bit, and go for reliable but minimal lighting in most conditions, with a bit of extra power in reserve for familiar remote places and dodgy surfaces.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

If I ride at night I always have a very bright front and rear light on solid and a rear and back on flash mode. Also make sure I am wearing a cycling specific fluorescent jacket. But I have no reflectors on bike, so guess I would be deemed illegal.
(I tried to purchase some reflectors recently at my LBS to be told they don't sell them as no demand.)
I try to be visible to other road users and always have lights on if it's a dull day, however, it's no guarantee that I am safe and it really depends on other road users.
I try my best to be "visible" and was quite concerned for the young guy I saw recently on a very busy roundabout in fading light, dressed in black, no lights, reflectors and wearing big headphones.


----------



## winjim (18 Nov 2014)

Is there some sort of program I can get that will just autopost the word "reflectors" onto any lighting thread?


----------



## robjh (18 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Seemingly unlike most people on here, I drive and ride.


 
I would think the vast majority of people on here both drive and ride. That's an aside from the main topic but worth pointing out.


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> I try my best to be "visible" and was quite concerned for the young guy I saw recently on a very busy roundabout in fading light, dressed in black, no lights, reflectors and wearing big headphones.



Another remarkable sighting of the invisible. Amazing.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

Yes, I saw him, would my elderly father in law have though?
He knocked a motorcyclist into next week at a junction in broad daylight because " I didn't see him".


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> Yes, I saw him, would my elderly father in law have though?
> He knocked a motorcyclist into next week at a junction in broad daylight because " I didn't see him".



Sounds like he shouldn't be driving. Perhaps you should have a word.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Sounds like he shouldn't be driving. Perhaps you should have a word.


Yep, how many other "danger drivers" are out there though?
I am not the " light police" but just try to make myself as visible to other road users as poss, just in case.


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> Yep, how many other "danger drivers" are out there though?
> I am not the " light police" but just try to make myself as visible to other road users as poss, just in case.



Didn't you just say he knocked a motorcyclist off in broad daylight? So nowt to do with lights, then?


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

I always have lights on during the day.
May have seen them, may have not.
Just think that my solid and flashing lights may capture the attention of even the most half asleep, short sighted individual and if not I am in the same boat as those with no lights anyway.
I always have lights, helmet and hi viz/ fluorescent, appreciate there are no guarantees but just makes me feel safer.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> I always have lights, helmet and hi viz/ fluorescent, appreciate there are no guarantees but just makes me feel safer.


My lucky rabbit's foot achieves much the same effect.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> My lucky rabbit's foot achieves much the same effect.



I'm so happy for you,


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Nov 2014)

Thomk said:


> ... Imaging a scenario where no road users had lights of any sort on busy unlit roads.



I imagine everyone would be paying very close attention to what was happening around them and driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances. By Jove, I think you're on to something! When do we start?

GC


----------



## fossyant (18 Nov 2014)

I've given up worrying about others. I was clipped in daylight with two Smart R2s on flash in September.

Some folks lights are seriously crap. God knows what they think when they see my lights powered by a small reactor in my panniers. I'm not riding down a pitch black lane that's covered in debris, branches and camouflaged dogs without some wattage. I do drop them as soon as I spot someone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> You assume that there weren't some other riders who were not seen, who otherwise would have been if they'd made an effort?


I assume that riders without lights aren't invisible, especially in car headlights. Else I'm sure I'd have hit one by now, when driving.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> I'm so happy for you,


Alas the feeling isn't entirely mutual on account of your space lemon look. It's nothing personal.

Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I assume that riders without lights aren't invisible, especially in car headlights. Else I'm sure I'd have hit one by now, when driving.


How can you be sure you'd have hit one? And why are you creating such an obvious straw-man based on trying to equate 'less visible' with 'invisible'?


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Alas the feeling isn't entirely mutual on account of your space lemon look. It's nothing personal.
> 
> Hi-viz doth offend mine eye.


What's a space lemon?


----------



## Dan B (18 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> I can't think of many unlit objects that are on the carriageway in the dark and move. Can you?


Pedestrians are the obvious example. Why "and move", specifically?


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> Pedestrians are the obvious example. Why "and move", specifically?


Pedestrians tend to spend very little time on the carriageway though - that said, the fatality rate of pedestrians is three times higher at night than in the day.

Movement can make things harder to see. Perhaps, for example, a cyclist might be in the shadoiw of a parked van when you glance in his direction, then you miss him when he's under the streetlight because you're watching a pedestrian or concentrating on an oncoming car and working out where one of you must stop for the other to pass and by the time you look again the cyclist is being overtaken by another car - whatever - movement can make things harder to see. Movement can also be unpredictable - a cyclist you haven't seen riding along a road in the bus lane is one thing, but a cyclist you haven't seen pulling out to avoid a pothole he has only just seen (perhaps because he has no lights) is quite another.


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> What's a space lemon?


A thing of unearthly yellowness. The term was coined by Ravenbait, formerly of this parish.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> A thing of unearthly yellowness. The term was coined by Ravenbait, formerly of this parish.



How about pink?


----------



## Dan B (18 Nov 2014)

I often see pedestrians in the carriageway on my commute (central London -> E17), I guess we use different roads.

Reason I ask about moving is that I find it *easier* to see things that move - our peripheral vision is more or less designed for that purpose after all.


----------



## theclaud (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> How about pink?


Fluorescent pink? Personally, I do neither fluorescent _nor _pink. Both at once doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Fluorescent pink? Personally, I do neither fluorescent _nor _pink. Both at once doesn't bear thinking about.


Lol, final offering is purple with a discreet light reflective piping, otherwise I give up


----------



## potsy (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> Lol, final offering is purple with a discreet light reflective piping, otherwise I give up


Best just sticking to black, you'll fit in better with this lot


----------



## fossyant (18 Nov 2014)

potsy said:


> Best just sticking to black, you'll fit in better with this lot



Nah, red and black, to match your bike. Me, a tart ?


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> I often see pedestrians in the carriageway on my commute (central London -> E17), I guess we use different roads.
> 
> Reason I ask about moving is that I find it *easier* to see things that move - our peripheral vision is more or less designed for that purpose after all.


We have pavements in the north.

However, as stated previously, the fatality rate of pedestrians in road accidents triples after dark. Do you think that's just coincidence, or the whole 'darkness makes it harder to see things' issue might be a factor?


----------



## Crackle (18 Nov 2014)

What we see depends so much on conditions. I've seen many unlit cyclists but had trouble one night tracking where the hell a well lit cyclist had just gone as I drove towards him in the rain. Saw a bloke tonight wearing Hi Viz, pointless under street lights. Found myself distracted by a powerful light a few times, seen people clearly in black one time and not so clear another time.

It's not really a question of choosing one method but of fitting what you do to the conditions and then remembering it's not those things which will keep you safe but your wits.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

User said:


> I think it adequately illustrates the "many drivers don't bother with looking properly and the darker conditions make it more likely they won't get away with such slack standards" factor.


So you accept that it's harder to see things at night? 

It's remarkable that I think of that as progress ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

Mrs M said:


> Lol, final offering is *purple with a discreet light reflective piping*, otherwise I give up


Mrs M I am now happy for you


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2014)

KneesUp said:


> So you accept that it's harder to see things at night?
> 
> It's remarkable that I think of that as progress ...


Harder to see some things sometimes at night?


----------



## Mrs M (18 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Mrs M I am now happy for you



Fan dab


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Why?


Your posts remind me of this. Without the humour.


----------



## KneesUp (18 Nov 2014)

User said:


> I thought you had a point to make but, if not and we are just going down the cheap insults route, your's don't really remind me of anything.


It wasn't intended as an insult - but of course you're free to take it as one. I was more referring to the fact that you don't seem to offer anything other than questions, wich makes it feel rather like you feel you are jusr feeding an argument. None of your comments on page 5, for example, offer much in the way of illumination, which by your reckoning means neither of us is making a point. Goodnight.


----------



## mustang1 (18 Nov 2014)

Given the cheap price of lights, why do most cyclists in 3rd world countries not use lights? Possibly they can't afford the lights. Maybe £5 is a lot of money for some people even in developed nations. After all, we are cyclists coz we are poor and can't afford other means of transport.

We're not all rich like you, OP!

BTW I use lights day and night, double set in front and rear.


----------



## LinchPin (18 Nov 2014)

Surely a benefit of having lights on is that they give advance notice of your presence to a driver. They'll be able to to see you 100s of metres away and not wait for you to appear in their headlights.

Many times I've seen a cycle way up in front of other cars just by their lights and I'm forewarned that I'll be coming up to them soon. which gives me a chance to indicate my intention to go around the cyclist, which helps they guy behind as well not to hit the bike.

On a clear road with no cars coming towards you with glaring headlights you'll have better vision to see the heroic ninja but when it's raining and the other side of the road is just a wall of light from passing cars then probably not as much. 

As for those that see the people with no lights on can they detail those that they didn't see. As I can't believe that these people haven't had a "Wow where the fark did they come from" moment and I'm talking about cycles and cars that don't have lights on.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Nov 2014)

G3CWI said:


> Except that some of the behaviours that you cite have the potential to seriously impact on third parties.



But in over 50 years of cycling, someone else without lights or a helmet or high vis gear has not effected me. I doubt if it is going to start now.

I am just stating a simple fact.


----------



## Broughtonblue (19 Nov 2014)

mustang1 said:


> Given the cheap price of lights, why do most cyclists in 3rd world countries not use lights? Possibly they can't afford the lights. Maybe £5 is a lot of money for some people even in developed nations. After all, we are cyclists coz we are poor and can't afford other means of transport.
> 
> We're not all rich like you, OP!
> 
> BTW I use lights day and night, double set in front and rear.


 I'm not rich by any means hence my post about going work at 5am!


----------



## G3CWI (19 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Harder to see some things sometimes at night?




...not the moon and stars.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Nov 2014)

...and relax.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jzx664u5DA


----------



## Dan B (19 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> On a clear road with no cars coming towards you with glaring headlights you'll have better vision to see the heroic ninja but when it's raining and the other side of the road is just a wall of light from passing cars then probably not as much.


So if I may paraphrase: although in the absence of other road users it would be safe to ride an unlit bicycle, the excess of light from other road users makes it _unsafe_ not to add to that excess by getting some lights of your own. The only way to make it safe for yourself is to contribute to making it less safe for everyone? 

I'm part of the problem myself (I'm a parent, and therefore a coward), but I'm assuredly not going to start complaining about people who refuse to be part of that arms race. Especially given that cyclists have to carry or generate their own power source wherease motorists have mechanically propelled vehicles to carry theirs around in, it doesn't seem like a race where anyone using a human-powered vehicle is going to come out ahead.


----------



## Globalti (19 Nov 2014)

We drove into Preston city centre last night at about 6.15 and in a couple of minutes in a half mile length of New Hall Lane, approaching the inner ring road we saw:

1 person dressed entirely in black riding a mountain bike with no lights, suddenly off the pavement, straight across a crossing in front of the car in front of us forcing us both to brake hard.

5 people dressed entirely in black riding BMXs, not a single light between them, in a loose group up the road.

2 people dressed entirely in black riding mountain bikes, not a single light between them, along the pavement.

1 person dressed entirely in black riding a mountain bike, no lights, off the pavement and diagonally acoss the ring road junction to the opposite pavement, in between the changing of the traffic lights.

With the crossing user in particular there was a strong feeling of defiance and "hit me if you dare" in the way the rider suddenly swung acoss the crossing forcing emergency stops.

We concluded that some of the inhabitants of Preston are either extremely stupid or have joined some kind of mass death wish cult.


----------



## winjim (19 Nov 2014)

For the first time in ages I wore high viz on the way to work this morning. Not deliberately, but because I have a windproof that just happens to be high viz. I also left a bit early so I saw more cyclists than usual, mostly dressed in similar garb. It just made me feel like I was being weirdly passive aggressive. I think I'll invest in a more plain windproof.


----------



## mjr (19 Nov 2014)

Globalti said:


> riding a mountain bike with no lights, *suddenly off the pavement*


The bit I've emboldened is a far more dangerous action than having no lights. IIRC, entering the road without priority is one of the top mainly-cyclist-caused factors in urban collisions (but still not quite as frequent as most variations on motorists failing to give way).


----------



## LinchPin (19 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> So if I may paraphrase: although in the absence of other road users it would be safe to ride an unlit bicycle, the excess of light from other road users makes it _unsafe_ not to add to that excess by getting some lights of your own. The only way to make it safe for yourself is to contribute to making it less safe for everyone?
> 
> I'm part of the problem myself (I'm a parent, and therefore a coward), but I'm assuredly not going to start complaining about people who refuse to be part of that arms race. Especially given that cyclists have to carry or generate their own power source wherease motorists have mechanically propelled vehicles to carry theirs around in, it doesn't seem like a race where anyone using a human-powered vehicle is going to come out ahead.



Yes in a ideal situation, urban, well lit all cars driving around with their side lights on I can see that an unlit cycle is going to stand out more but that's not the real life situation cars drive around with their dipped beam on, which means as a driver one has to join the race by putting one's dipped beam lights on.

I have an eight minute walk home from the station and in that time the road lighting changes dramatically due to trees obscuring lights etc. I see people walking appear and disappear as the light changes which would happen with unlit cyclists as well. 

I suppose one would like to see some proper research show the utility of lights in the same way they use to show that drink/driving messes with one's ability to drive properly.

Perhaps the lighting issue is the same as drink/driving and wearing seat belts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> I have an eight minute walk home from the station and in that time the road lighting changes dramatically due to trees obscuring lights etc. I see people walking appear and disappear as the light changes which would happen with unlit cyclists as well.


I thought cars have headlights to help drivers combat the variability of street lighting. Usually two of them, but lots around here can't be arsed to go to Halfords for a new bulb so get by with the one.

And of course, if the drivers are driving faster than they can stop within the distance they can see...

...that would somehow be a cyclist's fault.

Obviously.


----------



## Dan B (19 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> Perhaps the lighting issue is the same as drink/driving and wearing seat belts.


I don't see how. Better lights make it safer for me at the expense of everyone else, I'm pretty sure the same is not true of drink driving


----------



## LinchPin (19 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I thought cars have headlights to help drivers combat the variability of street lighting. Usually two of them, but lots around here can't be arsed to go to Halfords for a new bulb so get by with the one.
> 
> And of course, if the drivers are driving faster than they can stop within the distance they can see...
> 
> ...


I wondered about the distance of one's typical dipped headlight vs the stopping distance. Whereas I'm thinking of the guy with a light on that can be seen hundreds of metres away up in the distance, forewarned etc. 
People do drive faster than they can stop in and they always will until Google cars take to the road. 
I wouldn't say it was the cyclists fault but I can't believe having no lights wouldn't be a contributing factor in certain circumstances like a normal run of the mill road with Johnny Average driver.
Having decent lights might just be an expensive rabbit foot talisman but my life experience has shown me that I see things with lights easier than shadows on shadows.


----------



## LinchPin (19 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> I don't see how. Better lights make it safer for me at the expense of everyone else, I'm pretty sure the same is not true of drink driving


Surely there's a happy medium between no lights and lights that blind all within 200m.?

Mentioning drink/driving & seat belts was about the discussion on these things not about the detail. 
Many people think that drink/driving is about other people and they're fine, stronger constitution etc.
At the time when seat belts came in much was made by people saying that it's safer to not where them as you'll get thrown from the car etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> I wondered about the distance of one's typical dipped headlight vs the stopping distance. Whereas I'm thinking of the guy with a light on that can be seen hundreds of metres away up in the distance, forewarned etc.
> People do drive faster than they can stop in and they always will until Google cars take to the road.
> I wouldn't say it was the cyclists fault but I can't believe having no lights wouldn't be a contributing factor in certain circumstances like a normal run of the mill road with Johnny Average driver.
> Having decent lights might just be an expensive rabbit foot talisman but my life experience has shown me that I see things with lights easier than shadows on shadows.


Ah the forewarned delusion. First cousin of the illusion of attention.

Can I recommend you a great book...
The Invisible Gorilla.

Our intuition deceives us.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2014)

I rarely ride with no lights. But I have done so when events have conspired.

But the only times, please note plural, I have been hit or a victim of SMIDSY at night I was lit up like an Xtmas tree.


----------



## Dan B (19 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> Surely there's a happy medium between no lights and lights that blind all within 200m.?


If the purpose of lights is to stand out against the background, and the background consists of other people/cars/objects with lights on, it can only end one way


----------



## mjr (19 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I thought cars have headlights to help drivers combat the variability of street lighting. Usually two of them, but lots around here can't be arsed to go to Halfords for a new bulb so get by with the one.


The police were actually stopping mislit vehicles on my way home tonight, directing them into a layby and giving them tickets (I think whatever the current equivalent of the old stripe-edge tickets requiring you to prove you fixed it within two weeks). Long may it continue!


----------



## LinchPin (19 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> If the purpose of lights is to stand out against the background, and the background consists of other people/cars/objects with lights on, it can only end one way


The trouble is roads have a habit of having different amounts of traffic at different times, also one doesn't usually cycle down exactly the same sort of road all the times.
Perhaps we need adaptive clothing that changes from black/reflective/yellow  depending on the environment.


----------



## LinchPin (19 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Ah the forewarned delusion. First cousin of the illusion of attention.
> 
> Can I recommend you a great book...
> The Invisible Gorilla.
> ...


I guess in the video one is concentrating on the ball so misses the Gorilla. I'd suggest that when driving at night cars are looking for the lights(ball) and missing the unlit cyclist(gorilla).
Then again if as you said you were illuminated like a Xmas tree and still had an altercation then what do we learn, perhaps if you weren't illuminated he'd have killed you; then again perhaps the lights made him think you were a fast moving car and he misjudged your speed so you'd be better off being unlit.
Or perhaps a previous almost killed you but saw you because of your lights.
Or perhaps ... ad infinitum


----------



## Drago (19 Nov 2014)

Even if all other road users were banned I'd be dead within a mile if I rode my commute with no lights. At the mid point I'm 4 miles from the nearest streetlight. In bad weather the problems even worse - I've ridden in fog so thick I couldn't see the road surface passing beneath me.


----------



## Accy cyclist (19 Nov 2014)

I saw a woman(middle aged and quite normal looking) cycling on the pavement yesterday,she had a red light on the front of her bike! Is it possible to be that numb or do you have to practice at it?
From my personal experience i find that cars(in the dark or poor visibility)approaching the road i'm on seem to brake/slow down swiftly when my reflective well lit bike and body come into view. I don't think they'd brake so swiftly if i was wearing hard to see clothing and sporting a poxy flickering candle power light!


----------



## mustang1 (19 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> I'm not rich by any means hence my post about going work at 5am!


I'm poorer. I go to work at 4:59am. (Shrugs)


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

Whilst I would encourage the use of lights by cyclists during sunrise/sunset and at night I would also discourage the use of dipped beams by drivers on lit urban roads - side lights provide enough without blinding/obscuring the vehicle shape.


----------



## winjim (20 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Whilst I would encourage the use of lights by cyclists during sunrise/sunset and at night I would also discourage the use of dipped beams by drivers on lit urban roads - side lights provide enough without blinding/obscuring the vehicle shape.


Until recently I was firmly of the belief that sidelights were for parking only and that you had to have your dipped beams on when actually driving. I've only just learned that you can drive in built up areas with just sidelights, so I think it's not well known. Also, a lot of cars these days have automatic lights, which I don't think are clever enough to differentiate.


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

winjim said:


> Until recently I was firmly of the belief that sidelights were for parking only and that you had to have your dipped beams on when actually driving. I've only just learned that you can drive in built up areas with just sidelights, so I think it's not well known. Also, a lot of cars these days have automatic lights, which I don't think are clever enough to differentiate.



Quite true, but I can still dream...


----------



## mjr (20 Nov 2014)

mustang1 said:


> I'm poorer. I go to work at 4:59am. (Shrugs)


Bah, I'm poorer. I have to leave before I get home </fourth-yorkshireman>


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Whilst I would encourage the use of lights by cyclists during sunrise/sunset and at night I would also discourage the use of dipped beams by drivers on lit urban roads - side lights provide enough without blinding/obscuring the vehicle shape.


No, this is wrong. On the continent driving on side lights is illegal. Older people find it difficult to cross roads safely [not all obviously], they cannot judge the speed of an approaching vehicle nor can those with failing eyesight see cars with only sidelights illuminated, the problem here increases if one of the sidelights is not working because the vehicle can then be mistaken for a bicycle and therefore thought to be moving more slowly.
This morning we have dense fog here in Rutland and we witnessed the usual poor driving that is now so common everywhere. To illustrate the above comments, we saw a car [before I get the inane comments, I am alert to these brainless fools] on sidelights in the semi dark fog. No doubt he / she had thought it fine to drive in town on sidelights but had not switched to dipped headlights in the countryside.
You will find that older drivers are the ones most likely to use sidelights because back in the day headlights put a strain on the battery especially when they are left on after turning the engine off, unfortunately this class of driver is also likely to have relatively poorer eyesight and slower reactions.


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> No, this is wrong.



Lol. I love Internet forums.


----------



## winjim (20 Nov 2014)

This thread is screaming out for some evidence. Or maybe Helmets & Headphones should be extended to Helmets, Headphones and Headlamps.


----------



## Drago (20 Nov 2014)

No, it is correct. Inappropriate use of headlights during the day has been shown to break up the outline of the vehicle, so as the vehicle nears and its size changes in relation to its background the brain is deprived of a mechanism for judging its speed. 

If its dark or visibility is seriously compromised due to poor weather then use headlamps. If it isn't, don't. Even in the days before DRLs Volvo and SAAB fitted a dim-dip system, they didn't just wire the headlamps to stay fully on.


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

winjim said:


> This thread is screaming out for some evidence.



Surely anecdote and strong opinion can suffice?


----------



## mustang1 (20 Nov 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> No, this is wrong. On the continent driving on side lights is illegal. Older people find it difficult to cross roads safely [not all obviously], they cannot judge the speed of an approaching vehicle nor can those with failing eyesight see cars with only sidelights illuminated, the problem here increases if one of the sidelights is not working because the vehicle can then be mistaken for a bicycle and therefore thought to be moving more slowly.
> This morning we have dense fog here in Rutland and we witnessed the usual poor driving that is now so common everywhere. To illustrate the above comments, we saw a car [before I get the inane comments, I am alert to these brainless fools] on sidelights in the semi dark fog. No doubt he / she had thought it fine to drive in town on sidelights but had not switched to dipped headlights in the countryside.
> You will find that older drivers are the ones most likely to use sidelights because back in the day headlights put a strain on the battery especially when they are left on after turning the engine off, unfortunately this class of driver is also likely to have relatively poorer eyesight and slower reactions.



When I was a kid I recall people used to drive with just side lights on and only used headlights when they needed to see clearer. I also recall there was less light on the streets back then. These days there is a lot of light out there, street lights are brighter, more traffic lights, advertising, just seems to be more light in general. Therefore you need the headlights on to standout from all the other light.

Or I could just be imagining all this stuff.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Why not conclude "therefore we need to turn it all back down a bit so that it is easier for the things that need to stand out to stand out?"



Nobody trusts simple answers anymore.

GC


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution


----------



## theclaud (20 Nov 2014)

I rode home today along the seafront bike path. Met a friend on the way and we rode some of the way together. When we were about _two miles_ from the Mumbles, we saw an extraordinary white light at the bike path level. I thought something like this must have pulled onto the path:







As we got closer it was apparent that it was a single ludicrous lamp. We eventually closed on the light source - a cyclist (as he approached we could see nothing beyond the light). I said 'Keep the light down a bit, mate!' He said 'Get farked'. Which was nice.


----------



## LinchPin (20 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Why not conclude "therefore we need to turn it all back down a bit so that it is easier for the things that need to stand out to stand out?"


Why not conclude that if everyone is blinding everyone with ferocious lighting that one joins them but to a lesser extent, I'm not sure what a unilateral declaration of no-lights-at-night would do unless you can start a groundswell of opinion across the whole country.


----------



## LinchPin (20 Nov 2014)

User said:


> This is all well and good but it is all based on the thinking that cars have lights so that the vulnerable can see them and get out of the way.


I thought it was a case of seeing and being seen, so that the pedestrian can think "I'll cross the road now, oh better not here comes a car" or in the new world order the pedestrian says "I'll cross the road now, yep nothing coming. WTF. *bang*, no worries it was a ninja warrior my fault"


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> I thought it was a case of seeing and being seen, so that the pedestrian can think "I'll cross the road now, oh better not here comes a car" or in the new world order the pedestrian says "I'll cross the road now, yep nothing coming. WTF. *bang*, no worries it was a ninja warrior my fault"


No, it's just about being seen.

If you can't see a moving car on a well lit urban street at night without floodlights you should not;

Be crossing the road
Be out at night
Be on the internet


----------



## bikeman66 (21 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> I would have thought the majority of posters on here are serious/semi serious cyclists, after all we come on here to gain knowledge and discuss all things cycling.
> But I am amazed at the number of cyclists that ride without any lights at all. With it being dark by 5ish any commuter on day shifts will have to cycle in the dark, and also those who start work at 6am etc will also be in the dark.
> With lights starting at around £5 for a basic set do these people put any value on their life, and also the feelings of those loved ones around them?


Good post Broughtonblue, and I totally agree. Obviously, having a decent set of lights is basically an exercise in self preservation, but it is also a legal requirement. Personally I cannot understand people who would argue that you may be safer without lights, as it apparently makes motorists look harder for you. Surely it has to be better to be obviously visible than hopefully visible to a minority of extra observant car drivers.

Having said all that, I am slightly concerned about the increase in massively bright front LED's on the road. As a cyclist and a driver (as I guess a majority of us are) it is easy to see both sides of the arguement about visibility. Just lately I have regularly seen a guy cycling towards me at around 5.00pm, as I head home from work. His front light is so ridiculously bright that it is more of a distraction than anything else. Add to that an equally bright flashing LED and OK he was very highly visible, but I would argue that the distracting effect of this light set-up could have potential to actually cause accidents. If this guy could just angle those lights downward a little he would still be highly visible and he wouldn't be nearly blinding oncoming traffic. I don't subscribe to the belief that you need 5 or 600 lumens of power on a commute, unless you're riding predominantly unlit roads when seeing is just as important as being seen. I guess if all motorists drove around with headlights on full beam the whole time the police would have something to say about it.

Obviously, high visibility is essential for safe cycling, but there are sensible and user friendly ways to achieve that.


----------



## cd365 (21 Nov 2014)

I have one of the massively bright LEDs on my bike for my commute, but that is down unlit country roads so I can see the benefit of them. Recently I did tell a cyclist on the other side of the road to angle his light down since it was right in your face!


----------



## Dan B (21 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> No, it's just about being seen.
> 
> If you can't see a moving car on a well lit urban street at night without floodlights you should not;
> 
> ...


I would suggest that the same considerations apply to seeing a pedestrian, with the additional restriction:

Be trusted with a two tonne vehicle that can produce 50kW of motive power

[edit per benb, thanks]


----------



## LinchPin (21 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> No, it's just about being seen.
> 
> If you can't see a moving car on a well lit urban street at night without floodlights you should not;
> 
> ...


That's not fair I thought you were talking about some typical UK town with dodgy lighting and potholes everywhere where a cars lights illuminate those things and even a cyclists lights. 
I've lost sight of what this thread was about, I thought it was about people not having lights on full stop and now it seems to have morphed into 'the world should change'; Yes, ideally it should but even with the best will in the world it'll take years to happen and in the meantime?


----------



## LinchPin (21 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Something less binary?


I actually thought of saying something similar about it not being a binary proposition of either no lights or eye-burning-uber-lights and now I have.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Why not conclude "therefore we need to turn it all back down a bit so that it is easier for the things that need to stand out to stand out?"


I don't believe we need to. Those were different times.


----------



## benb (21 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> I would suggest that the same considerations apply to seeing a pedestrian, with the additional restriction:
> 
> Be trusted with a two tonne vehicle and 50kW of kinetic energy



Watt is a unit of power, not energy.
It's joules you were thinking of.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Surely anecdote and strong opinion can suffice?


In combination with a Sobranie and a double-espresso they usually carry the day.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2014)

cd365 said:


> I have one of the massively bright LEDs on my bike for my commute, but that is down unlit country roads so I can see the benefit of them. Recently I did tell a cyclist on the other side of the road to angle his light down since it was right in your face!


It wasn't right in my face. Perhaps your face was in the wrong place?


----------



## mjr (21 Nov 2014)

bikeman66 said:


> Obviously, having a decent set of lights is basically an exercise in self preservation, but it is also a legal requirement.


And do all the bikes you ride at night fulfil the legal requirement, in full? Despite what I've written above, one of mine doesn't: its back light has a steady mode but no British Standard or equivalent approval, as far as I know.

There's no excuse for dazzling but a combination of questionable legislation, rubbish retailing and negligible enforcement makes it pretty fiddly to fulfil the legal requirement.


----------



## Mugshot (21 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> I rode home today along the seafront bike path. Met a friend on the way and we rode some of the way together. When we were about _two miles_ from the Mumbles, we saw an extraordinary white light at the bike path level. I thought something like this must have pulled onto the path:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have two of the blighters that blind me most evenings on the unlit stretch of NCN4 I use regularly, one of them seems to have realised that my polite pointing it out one evening, followed by rather louder complaining the next time I saw him, followed by shouting the next time I saw him was for good reason and he now covers it up when he sees me approaching, I think I need to introduce some fruitier language for the other one though.


----------



## mickle (21 Nov 2014)

Does anyone have an opinion on high powered lazer pens affixed to the helmet or sweatband and used to persuade nobbers to turn their lights down?


----------



## benb (21 Nov 2014)

mickle said:


> Does anyone have an opinion on high powered lazer pens affixed to the helmet or sweatband and used to persuade nobbers to turn their lights down?



I only have an opinion that it's laser, not lazer.
*L*ight
*A*mplification by
*S*timulated
*E*mission of
*R*adiation


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> I only have an opinion that it's laser, not lazer.
> *L*ight
> *A*mplification by
> *S*timulated
> ...


You say potato...


----------



## winjim (21 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> I only have an opinion that it's laser, not lazer.
> *L*ight
> *A*mplification by
> *S*timulated
> ...


It's lazer in the West Country.


----------



## benb (21 Nov 2014)

winjim said:


> It's lazer in the West Country.



No, it's lazerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Dan B (21 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> And do all the bikes you ride at night fulfil the legal requirement, in full? Despite what I've written above, one of mine doesn't: its back light has a steady mode but no British Standard or equivalent approval, as far as I know.


AFAICR any light with a quick-release bracket (i.e. that you can change the angle of without use of tools) does not meet the BS requirement. 

Happy to say that my front light meets the German standard. The rear is a Smart 1W jobbie and I can't remember if is has a steady mode or not


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2014)

Who gives a toss about useless out-dated formerly gold-standard but now badly tarnished and severely dented BS standards apart, I guess, from kippers?


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Nov 2014)

benb said:


> I only have an opinion that it's laser, not lazer.
> *L*ight
> *A*mplification by
> *S*timulated
> ...



Lasers are afixed to sharks, everyone frickin' knows that.

I think 'blaster' is what we would all like to see on bikes, cars and peds.


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Nov 2014)

We complain about cyclists with no lights...

We complain about cyclists with lights that are too bright.....

We complain......


----------



## winjim (21 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> We complain about cyclists with no lights...
> 
> We complain about cyclists with lights that are too bright.....
> 
> We complain......


We complain that motorists break the law, then we claim that the law is outdated and poorly enforced so shouldn't apply to us.

(Whoever "we" are...)


----------



## winjim (21 Nov 2014)

User said:


> That is poor equivalence. The law on cycle lighting is awful but fortunately not enforced in detail. Other laws motorists break are well established and reasonably clear.


QED


----------



## Turbo Rider (21 Nov 2014)

Umm, I think it's slightly silly for anyone to make themselves vulnerable but therein lies a completely different question really. My route is reasonably well lit, so I think I could probably get away with no lights and be perfectly safe, even in the darkest parts. I choose to use lights, but that's more so I can be seen while I skim through slow moving or stopped traffic, in case people get the sudden inclination to swerve in on me. That said, if I were more cautious and took things slowly then I really can't see a safety issue at all and I'd add that if people have trouble seeing me then they really should pop down to the optician.

As for the value of life, well that's a deep, personal question and I haven't the time to interview everyone, so I really couldn't answer it, but I imagine that some people really couldn't give a sh1t, no, and some might even be praying to get hit.

On another note though, I was riding home this fine evening and I found myself following another cyclist. I can confirm that until I got very close to them, I couldn't see that they were wearing high-viz so I'm very happy that I never spent a penny on that poop


----------



## Hip Priest (21 Nov 2014)

I'm lit up by the sparks coming from my bottom bracket.


----------



## winjim (21 Nov 2014)

Not really.


----------



## cd365 (22 Nov 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It wasn't right in my face. Perhaps your face was in the wrong place?


I'm pretty sure my face is always in the same place.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Nov 2014)

winjim said:


> We complain that motorists break the law, then we claim that the law is outdated and poorly enforced so shouldn't apply to us.
> 
> (Whoever "we" are...)




Or is there true equivalency?

Look at the wide range of LEDs, patterns, curves and shapes that form the rear lights of many newer cars

Are these complying strictly with lighting regulations, or are they simply accepted?


----------



## Turbo Rider (22 Nov 2014)

cd365 said:


> I'm pretty sure my face is always in the same place.



Are you saying that the world revolves around your face?


----------



## sheffgirl (24 Nov 2014)

I saw a girl today with fairy lights on her bike. She was literally lit up like a Christmas tree


----------



## Pat "5mph" (24 Nov 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> I saw a girl today with fairy lights on her bike. She was literally lit up like a Christmas tree


That must have been @Sara_H 
Look here.


----------



## sheffgirl (25 Nov 2014)

Looking at that I don't think it was Sara_H but I will keep an eye out for her.
I might get some of those lights, once I get my bike back on the road. I was told (by the police) that the driver that hit me (head/side on) may not have seen me because I don't have lights on my sides? Although if they had looked before turning it would have been very hard to miss my front light


----------



## cd365 (25 Nov 2014)

The crap car driver excuse! Blame the cyclist grrr


----------



## KneesUp (25 Nov 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> Looking at that I don't think it was Sara_H but I will keep an eye out for her.
> I might get some of those lights, once I get my bike back on the road. I was told (by the police) that the driver that hit me (head/side on) may not have seen me because I don't have lights on my sides? Although if they had looked before turning it would have been very hard to miss my front light



Do cars have lights on the side? Does the driver drive into other cars? What an ridiculous thing to say. I presume the car had headlights - a function of which is to illuminate that which in front of the car/


----------



## wait4me (25 Nov 2014)

Thomk said:


> I wonder what happens when two cyclists without lights approach each other in the dark at a junction...




Don't know. I couldn't see them


----------



## wait4me (25 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> I guess in the video one is concentrating on the ball so misses the Gorilla. I'd suggest that when driving at night cars are looking for the lights(ball) and missing the unlit cyclist(gorilla).
> Then again if as you said you were illuminated like a Xmas tree and still had an altercation then what do we learn, perhaps if you weren't illuminated he'd have killed you; then again perhaps the lights made him think you were a fast moving car and he misjudged your speed so you'd be better off being unlit.
> Or perhaps a previous almost killed you but saw you because of your lights.
> Or perhaps ... ad infinitum




Or perhaps he had read enough of Grumpy Gregory on here and wanted no more


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Nov 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> I saw a girl today with fairy lights on her bike. She was literally lit up like a Christmas tree


She was literally lit up like a girl on a bicycle surely?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Nov 2014)

wait4me said:


> Or perhaps he had read enough of Grumpy Gregory on here and wanted no more


I'm so wounded.

But thanks for moving the debate on in a meaningful way.


----------



## LinchPin (25 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Photo or it didn't happen.


I'm sure there's a parallel between the comment Denis Healey made about Geoffrey Howe. "It's like being ravaged by a dead sheep".
Of course GG==DH minus the eyebrows


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> I'm sure there's a parallel between the comment Denis Healey made about Geoffrey Howe. "It's like being ravaged by a dead sheep".
> Of course GG==DH minus the eyebrows


GG==DH minus the eyebrows, the grammar school education, the double first degree from Oxford, the membership of the communist party, the army commission, the MBE, the scandalous treatment of the Chagossians, the life peerage and the nice house in Alfriston.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Nov 2014)

User said:


> Photo or it didn't happen.


Will this do?


----------



## Broughtonblue (26 Nov 2014)

So quite a few interesting responses to this thread, the main argument amongst the neigh Sayers seems to be that you shouldn't need a light to be seen, the others should be able to spot you. 
I wonder if these people, if they were ever unfortunate enough to be in a plane crash, when putting on the inflatable lifejacket would rip off the attached light saying no need for this, I disregard any responsibility on my part to be seen and place that responsibility onto someone else to spot me?


----------



## Mugshot (26 Nov 2014)

Whilst riding home the other night I chanced upon a horse and rider coming towards me along one of the lanes, another driver had been thoughtful enough to let me know before I got to them, (I had waited for them in a passing place and they stopped alongside me, I wonder if they let other road users know about cyclists too?) anyway, neither the horse nor the rider had any lights on at all what they did have however was a car driving along behind them with the hazard lights going, seemed like a good idea.


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> So quite a few interesting responses to this thread, the main argument amongst the neigh Sayers seems to be that you shouldn't need a light to be seen, the others should be able to spot you.


I thought the main argument was: yes, it's wrong, but why does it matter to you so much more than the factors which contribute to more collisions? ;-)


----------



## Dan B (26 Nov 2014)

Broughtonblue said:


> So quite a few interesting responses to this thread, the main argument amongst the neigh Sayers seems to be that you shouldn't need a light to be seen, the others should be able to spot you.
> I wonder if these people, if they were ever unfortunate enough to be in a plane crash, when putting on the inflatable lifejacket would rip off the attached light saying no need for this, I disregard any responsibility on my part to be seen and place that responsibility onto someone else to spot me?


I wonder if comparing a road to an ocean loses a salient distinction between an intrinsically hazardous natural environment and a public space regulated by civility and law, and whether a swimming pool would not be the better analogy? I don't go to any special lengths to make myself highly visible when swimming in the public baths.

But we could go round and round on this topic forever, which is eventually going to leave even the neigh sayers sounding a little horse


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Nov 2014)

Dan B said:


> ....which is eventually going to leave even the neigh sayers sounding a little horse


I vote that this pun be stricken from the record, on the grounds of foal play. Only in this way can we stop Dan B's rein of terror, and keep Cyclechat stable, hay?


----------



## LinchPin (26 Nov 2014)

mjray said:


> I thought the main argument was: yes, it's wrong, but why does it matter to you so much more than the factors which contribute to more collisions? ;-)


The best I can do is  http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx
_'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions._​
*Common Cycling Accidents*​

Motorist emerging into path of cyclist
Motorist turning across path of cyclist
Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement
Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
Child cyclist playing or riding too fast

No mention of lights at all...


----------



## mjr (26 Nov 2014)

LinchPin said:


> The best I can do is  http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx


That bullet list looks like it isn't in what I remember as the order from the TRL study but hey, it's TRL so check it carefully.  The TRL website is giving me an error instead of PPR 445 anyway. RoSPA's "often riding off a pavement" is weasel wording, whereas I think "motorist disobeyed stop signal or give way" is in the TfL top 5 for 2011-2013 but it's missing from RoSPA's list.

Either way, "no lights" doesn't show up on anyone's list of top causes.


----------



## sheffgirl (26 Nov 2014)

Well technically it was neither becauseit was ddaylight


----------



## SpokeyDokey (26 Nov 2014)

Turbo Rider said:


> Umm, I think it's slightly silly for anyone to make themselves vulnerable but therein lies a completely different question really. My route is reasonably well lit, so I think I could probably get away with no lights and be perfectly safe, even in the darkest parts. I choose to use lights, but that's more so I can be seen while I skim through slow moving or stopped traffic, in case people get the sudden inclination to swerve in on me. That said, if I were more cautious and took things slowly then I really can't see a safety issue at all *and I'd add that if people have trouble seeing me then they really should pop down to the optician.*
> 
> As for the value of life, well that's a deep, personal question and I haven't the time to interview everyone, so I really couldn't answer it, but I imagine that some people really couldn't give a sh1t, no, and some might even be praying to get hit.
> 
> On another note though, I was riding home this fine evening and I found myself following another cyclist. *I can confirm that until I got very close to them, I couldn't see that they were wearing high-viz* so I'm very happy that I never spent a penny on that poop



Specsavers have some good deals at the moment.


----------



## Turbo Rider (26 Nov 2014)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Specsavers have some good deals at the moment.



Meh, they always have deals on, but it's a bit like DFS really in that the deals never seem to end and many other outlets offer equally good deals with better customer care. I'm sure it would be cheaper for me to buy a highlighter pen and colour all of my clothes in though


----------



## Sara_H (29 Nov 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> I saw a girl today with fairy lights on her bike. She was literally lit up like a Christmas tree


Was it this bike?
https://www.facebook.com/ChrisWatso...5404834496565/755403311163384/?type=1&theater


----------



## glenn forger (29 Nov 2014)

Pffffft:


----------



## glenn forger (29 Nov 2014)

So....here it is, ladies and gentlemen; welcome to the Worlds Brightest Bike Lights.
How bright? 100,000 lumens. Remember that figure.
http://tesladownunder.com/WorldsBrightestBike.htm


----------



## sheffgirl (30 Nov 2014)

@Sara_H Yes, that's the one!

Sorry, I can't get the quote thing to work on my phone.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Nov 2014)

sheffgirl said:


> @Sara_H Yes, that's the one!
> 
> Sorry, I can't get the quote thing to work on my phone.


Brilliant! The bike belongs to a local artist and cycle campaigner who has helped in organising the space 4 cycling ride among others.
She has a blog called Crafty Bike Girl, her bike is always elaborately decorated for organised rides.


----------

