# Cyclists without lights....



## Flyingfox (9 Oct 2008)

I did my first commute home in the dark (as opposed to dusk) last night. Now I know my commute to SE London from the West End is pretty well lit, but I was amazed at how many cyclists there were without any lights whatsoever. Most of them were wearing dark clothes as well, and I had a hard time seeing them, so how can we expect drivers to do the same. 

Also while I'm on the subject of night cycling, does everyone else hit more potholes etc. when cycling in the dark ? I found it quite unnerving not being able to see them as clearly as when I cycle during daylight.


----------



## Jaded (9 Oct 2008)

For the potholes you probably need better lights.

For the invisible cyclists, I veer between shouting at them for their stupidity and recognising that not everything on the road can have lights - so all road users should be prepared for unlit things.


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Oct 2008)

First 2 cyclists I saw when I left workk at 19:00 on Monday didn't have lights or rear reflectors. One was going along Bishopsgate which is busy enough at that time as well.


----------



## Bollo (9 Oct 2008)

...are silly. I nearly took out a schoolgirl last week while driving - she was to all effects invisible and I only spotted her at the last minute. I'd feel shocking if I hit anybody, irrespective of how responsible they were.

I've just strapped on some Lupine Bettys on the vanity bike for some after-dark shenanigans through the lanes of Hampshire. I don't think I can be accused of having no lights.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (9 Oct 2008)

I rode home on Tuesday after playing 5-a-side and was very shocked to see that the road that leads to the road I live off seemed extremely dark at 7.30pm (I'm usually home by about 5pm)... it was quite unnerving and I was thinking that I must update my lights... then I finally noticed that the street lights were not working along most of the 1/2 mile stretch!! I'm amazed it took me so long to figure out what was different, I'm guessing that I must have been a bit freaked and concentrating harder to see the road and listen for other vehicles etc.

No idea whether I'd have been able to see anyone without lights on that stretch, I suspect not!! As many cyclists seem to rely on street lighting it was a real eye opener just how much we do use them.. well, for me at least!


----------



## Jake (9 Oct 2008)

i've been ranting about this for ages. lights are cheap as chips and so is a reflective vest thingy, £3 at market. cyclists and joggers should be wearing something. so dangerous!!


----------



## small fish (9 Oct 2008)

I saw a guy make an emergency stop as he nearly got taken out by a right turning car about 20 metres in front of me last night - he had no lights and as I passed him I said 'that was bit close you should get some lights' and he just said 'yeah I should... I've bought some but never got round to putting them on...'


----------



## Batch (9 Oct 2008)

I stuck around at work till after dusk last night as well. Didn't strike too many unlit cyclists on my London City to NW6 commute but did see a lot of joggers who were wearing clothing so black that it absorbed light


----------



## ianrauk (9 Oct 2008)

Have 2 lights. One of those a beam lowered specifically for the potholes and other crap that happens to be in the road. _(have I mentioned how bad Lewisham roads are before?_ )


----------



## joebe (9 Oct 2008)

Imagine if you will the A4 just west of the Hammersmith Flyover, heading out of London at 7pm, 3 lanes of pretty fast traffic, not the most friendly of places to be especially when you're riding along at about 15mph with no lights or reflectors. That's what I came across last night. I felt obliged to ride behind this nobend for the last 1/4 mile up to the Hogarth Roundabout as his life expectancy couldn't have been very high.

Then again he was wearing a yellow jacket so he probably thought it was alright.


----------



## neslon (9 Oct 2008)

We have more than our fair share of ninja bikers (all black, no lights) but they all seem to be students, so can be considered consumable. The joggers are the most invisible, but as they tend to have few metal/carbon fibre components, will not damage your bike if you encounter one.


----------



## hackbike 6 (9 Oct 2008)

Really I've just really given up caring what cyclists do now after the last two weeks.I got buttonholed tonight by a work colleague who seemed to be delighted that he had seen a couple of cyclists almost collide due to one of them red light jumping.

I had a cyclist red light jump today at Stepney Green then saw him have an altercation with a car.Wondered what was going on,it was an unmarked police car and they pulled him over.I thought I would get pleasure from this but no I didn't.I thought they should be out sorting these ahole motorists who insist on using their mobiles without noticing they are drifting from their lane into the cycle lane yet again and all the other crap motorists get up to.

No I don't like the RLJing brigade but motorists are worse.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Really I've just really given up caring what cyclists do now after the last two weeks.I got buttonholed tonight by a work colleague who seemed to be delighted that he had seen a couple of cyclists almost collide due to one of them red light jumping.



I solved this with one particularly vehement person....by pointing out that Harold Shipman wore black laced up shoes - as my nursing colleagues was also wearing these - I would take responsibility for other cyclists if she would take responsibility for Health care professional who murder their patients.

Seems fair to me!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2008)

Posted elsewhere - I have lights - BIG lights, a Maxx Exposure, one ofthe brightest on the market, yet a taxi still pulled out on fornt of me - because he thought I was a motorbike!

He was of the opinion that a motorcyclist would have good brakes and therefore stop!


This is the big problem - a lot of vehicles will see the lights / Hi-Viz etc and then either discount you as an irrelevance, or simply in their way. This is what needs to be dealt with. Until then thee is little point in lights!


----------



## snapper_37 (10 Oct 2008)

Everywhere I look at 6a.m., are the stealth bikers. 

I really don't know how they have the guts to ride without lights.

It's no exaggeration when I say I see only 2 out of 10 with lights. I don't get it because they aren't expensive... compared to one's safety.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2008)

Had a chat with one ...

Ninja - Your lights are too f***ing bright
Me - That's so i can see all the cyclists without lights
Ninja - F*** Off 

Yep - Darwin rules!


----------



## HLaB (10 Oct 2008)

Since its turned a bit darker earlier out there I've not seen too many cyclist without lights, I don't know if that's a good thing or not .


----------



## Bollo (10 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Posted elsewhere - I have lights - BIG lights, a Maxx Exposure, one ofthe brightest on the market, yet a taxi still pulled out on fornt of me - because he thought I was a motorbike!
> 
> He was of the opinion that a motorcyclist would have good brakes and therefore stop!
> 
> ...



I've had the opposite experience 'cause I've found an evil set of lights generally gives you some road presence in the dark. I've had a car coming the other way stop in puzzlement at WTF was approaching. I think he thought he was going to be abducted. They're also useful to persuade drivers that cyclists too appreciate dipped headlights when passing - knocking mine on to 'full beam' soon gets the message across.


----------



## ianrauk (10 Oct 2008)

A few cyclists this week when seeing me coming towards them with my LED blinking away, then switch on their lights


----------



## snapper_37 (10 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> It's makes you a better cyclist cause you are more alert, use the light from cars overtaking to see the road ahead. Be cautious about the size of vehicle overtaking you and check behind to see what traffic is doing.



Sorry but that is bollocks! 

So, coming up to an roundabout (we call them islands where I am from), the bloke in his car can't see you're doing about 28 MPH and all is clear your side .... and still pulls out?

I've had it done (with lights and the tw*t didn't even stop). It didn't make me a better cyclist - it made me a shoot scared cyclist.

Sorry mate, but if you want to ride on the road, use the rules of the road. That means lights.


----------



## hackbike 6 (10 Oct 2008)

Yeah that reminds me of something I lifted from the paper yesterday,

MOT for bikes and other stuff...I'll post it up soon.


----------



## hackbike 6 (10 Oct 2008)




----------



## yenrod (10 Oct 2008)

I run one LED on the back (seatpost) and have a helmet mounted LED - though I am going to ADD to that a flashing LED, too!

Riding at night is a real survival episode.

you've got to put yourself in primary as its so often called here quite a lot of the time if not push towards the position..- to make yourself VISIBLE


----------



## Bollo (10 Oct 2008)

yenrod said:


> to make yourself VISIBLE



When you're colourblind like me, this bit is quite ironic

I'm a helmet-sceptic (wear one on the vanity road bike, bare-headed for commuting) but a light-evangelist. I know there are arguments against too many lights giving conflicting information to drivers (I think Cyclecraft has something to say about it), but being seen is most of the battle for night-riding.

User3143 - can't agree with you on this. The chances are a vehicle wouldn't be overtaking you, it'd be ploughing into you. Read my first post about the schoolgirl. I saw her _by chance_. Another time she would have been bonnet candy. And I look at bikes for fun.


----------



## hackbike 6 (10 Oct 2008)

I have 3 flashing LEDs on my rucksack and one steady standlight on my bike.

Also a backup for Emergency.


----------



## dondare (10 Oct 2008)

Both the law and common sense say ride lit.
Bike lights were an emergency wartime measure, introduced because of the number of accidents during the blackout. The CTC opposed it's continuation after the war on the grounds that it placed the onus for cyclists to be visible rather than motorists to drive more carefully after dark. 
Well, they lost that one.
But a lot has changed. 
So much so that I can't be bothered, right now, to spell it all out.
I ride with lights that'd show up on Google Earth, which at least will help in court.


----------



## hackbike 6 (10 Oct 2008)

Whatever Cyclecraft says I generally stick with my old tricks and don't really have any problems and that goes with my front and rear lights/reflectives.


----------



## dondare (10 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Yeah that reminds me of something I lifted from the paper yesterday,
> 
> MOT for bikes and other stuff...I'll post it up soon.



DON'T GET ME STARTED!!

I actually get a few of my letters to these free rags printed from time to time, so I'll compose a suitable one on this subject. 

Appologies to Picts&Scots who don't get them...


----------



## Bollo (10 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> So much so that I can't be bothered, right now, to spell it all out.
> I ride with lights that'd show up on Google Earth, which at least will help in court.


OK Lighting cock flight  Lupine Betty - 1440 lumens. Top fikking trumps!


----------



## hackbike 6 (10 Oct 2008)

dondare said:


> DON'T GET ME STARTED!!
> 
> I actually get a few of my letters to these free rags printed from time to time, so I'll compose a suitable one on this subject.
> 
> Appologies to Picts&Scots who don't get them...




Errr sorry just what I found in da rag.


----------



## dondare (10 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> OK Lighting cock flight  Lupine Betty - 1440 lumens. Top fikking trumps!



Cateye singleshot plus forward; with a couple of others angled to the side to attract the attention of motorists turning into or pulling out of side roads. 2 Cateye 1100s and a Blackburn Mars as tailgunner and a TL-AU BS just to make it legal. 

I know that some Maglights and Sabrelights give 5,000,000 candlepower but lighting the road ahead, and being seen, is more important than being able to put a spot on the Moon.

As an aside, I visited a lighthouse recently and was amazed to find that they use just one car headlamp bulb. With the right mirrors and prisms, and directed out over the sea where there isn't any competition, it shows up for miles.


----------



## swee'pea99 (11 Oct 2008)

I don't give a toss whether 'it's the law'. It's about being visible to people doing 30, give or take, in vehicles weighing upwards of a ton. Not having lights is moronic, period.


----------



## hackbike 6 (11 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> Don't forget not every motorist has 100% eyesight either and some are over 70.


----------



## dondare (11 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> When do motorists do 30?


----------



## threefingerjoe (11 Oct 2008)

Just a quick tip for those of you who are smart enough to use lights: Try mounting an extra headlamp low on the side of the fork. It causes objects in your path to cast a long shadow, and show up better.

Joe


----------



## summerdays (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> It's makes you a better cyclist cause you are more alert, use the light from cars overtaking to see the road ahead. Be cautious about the size of vehicle overtaking you and check behind to see what traffic is doing.



It might make YOU more alert, but I think that over half the people that do it are the type that don't understand cyclecraft, hug the kerb, don't look behind etc.


----------



## dondare (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Bit harsh, am I a moron?




Riding a bike after dark without lights is very foolish. Why would you?


----------



## swee'pea99 (11 Oct 2008)

I stand by 'Not having lights is moronic', you can do the math.


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> 1+1=2?



Yup. 

1 cyclist without lights.

+

1 car driver who doesn't see you.

=

2 ruined lives.


----------



## Perry (11 Oct 2008)

A responsible cyclist would use lights at night.

I do a lot of night riding, quite often cars pull out on me even though they do see me. It seems they don't realise the speed bikes are doing or just don't care.


----------



## hackbike 6 (11 Oct 2008)

Not really,I doubt whether some motorists would really care,esp when it isn't their fault.


----------



## hackbike 6 (11 Oct 2008)

Lee,you are on a wind up.Nice one.


----------



## Perry (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> what about if I see the motorist and act before they see me? which is often the case when I am riding at night.




I make you right, but what if you don't see them? Surely your health & safety is worth the price of a light.


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Not really,I doubt whether some motorists would really care,esp when it isn't their fault.



I think that's a bit unfair. Motorists are human beings, and whilst they may end up winning a court case against any dangerous driving offence or similar, they would almost certainly be affected for having killed or seriously injured someone.

Not everyone is like that Taxi Driver from a few days ago who blatantly didn't care. Most people are "normal"



User3143 said:


> what about if I see the motorist and act before they see me? which is often the case when I am riding at night.



Often? Or always? 

You might well be right, you could well be the Invincible Gonzales and immune to the legal requirements as well. However, I think that there's a distinct possibility that you're just being a dick. Don't be like that, just stick the lights on your bike.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (11 Oct 2008)

So you're travelling along a road and a car comes from the opposite direction wanting to turn right across your path... do you just stop and wait for him as he probably hasn't seen you... or do you plough on and hope you make it either before he turns or after he's gone?

If you ride at night without lights you are a muppet. Simple really.


----------



## wafflycat (11 Oct 2008)

Last night I took WMnr grocery shopping. On the way back from supermarket to his place, within a couple of hundred yards of each other, two ninja cyclists. One adult female, one adult male. Both wearing dark clothing, no reflectors on bike, no lights on either bike, front or rear. Morons. At least in the intermittent streetlighting they were visible, albeit poorly. A basic 'be seen by' LED light is as cheap as chips - under a fiver. There really is no excuse. When I'm cycling at night, I'm wearing acres of reflectives, have multitudinous lights front & rear... it's not difficult and it doesn't have to be expensive.


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Wow, I'm amazed that people have taken my posts the wrong way.



No, I think we have probably taken them the right way. It's not just about you seeing other people, and other hazards, its partly about _them_ seeing _you_. 

Think about it another way. Think about cars driving at night without lights. Just like you, they can often see the road quite clearly up ahead, and spot other cars around them, especially on A roads.

Why do you think they use their lights?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> No, I think we have probably taken them the right way. It's not just about you seeing other people, and other hazards, its partly about _them_ seeing _you_.
> 
> Think about it another way. Think about cars driving at night without lights. Just like you, they can often see the road quite clearly up ahead, and spot other cars around them, especially on A roads.
> 
> Why do you think they use their lights?



Of course it does raise the question as to how we can allow unlit dark cars to be parked unlit on the road.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2008)

The "see or be seen" is an interesting point....

When the lighting law first came in there were objections by the CTC and other cycling groups as it was a significant change in responsibility.

The introduction of the law changed responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to ensure there was nothing ahead (to see) changed to the vehicle ahead being responsible for being seen.

This was a significant change in responsibility and a shift in legal status!


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> No, I think we have probably taken them the right way. It's not just about you seeing other people, and other hazards, its partly about _them_ seeing _you_.
> 
> Think about it another way. Think about cars driving at night without lights. Just like you, they can often see the road quite clearly up ahead, and spot other cars around them, especially on A roads.
> 
> Why do you think they use their lights?



Of course it does raise the question as to how we can allow unlit dark cars to be parked unlit on the road.


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course it does raise the question as to how we can allow unlit dark cars to be parked unlit on the road.



This is actually a very good point. In my mind, the difference is movement. There are certain cues that people look out for when using the road - stationary hazards, such as parked cars, road junctions, or houses, and moving hazards. At night, the moving hazards are typified by moving light, because they give advanced warning that they are coming.

In Lee's example, he might be cycling along a road, and a car is waiting to the side, not indicating. There's no other traffic, and Lee might rightly think that its safe to pass.

The driver, on the other hand, might check to see if anyone else is coming. Seeing no other lights, he might not bother to indicate (we all know people do this) and pull out...

Stationary cars don't do that very often. Unless they've got a broken handbrake of course.


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> This was a significant change in responsibility and a shift in legal status!



My personal feeling (and it is not a legal standpoint) is that everyone using the road has a responsibility to make sure that it is used safely. Their safety and of those around them, no matter the mode of transport of choice be it foot, hoof, pedal or motor.


----------



## hackbike 6 (11 Oct 2008)

*I think that's a bit unfair. Motorists are human beings, and whilst they may end up winning a court case against any dangerous driving offence or similar, they would almost certainly be affected for having killed or seriously injured someone.*

Ok fair enough.


----------



## Flyingfox (11 Oct 2008)

Gosh so many responses to my post, am glad the majority agree with my thoughts that to cycle without lights this time of year is crazy.


----------



## cycling fisherman (11 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> My personal feeling (and it is not a legal standpoint) is that everyone using the road has a responsibility to make sure that it is used safely. Their safety and of those around them, no matter the mode of transport of choice be it foot, hoof, pedal or motor.



+1 and well said...


lee, if you honestly ride without lights switched on at night i would prepare a will for yourself, its only £39...


http://www.wills.org.uk/Content/default.asp


While you're at it you might as well prepare your funeral...


http://www.axa-sunlife.co.uk/funera...28-046D&se=goog&kwd=funeral+preparation+Broad


You might think that you are safer and more alert without lights but, and now think about this don't just discount it please, what about the bloke who has just had 6 pints and his judgement and alertness is practically zero.

He will not see you, yet if you were riding with just one blinking red led rear light he probably will.

You have to raise your chances when riding at night and that is simple, hi visibility clothing and lighting.

Food for thought, I just don't want your family to be without a loved one this christmas.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> My personal feeling (and it is not a legal standpoint) is that everyone using the road has a responsibility to make sure that it is used safely. Their safety and of those around them, no matter the mode of transport of choice be it foot, hoof, pedal or motor.



No problem with that, however the shift in legal responsibility from the overtaking vehicle to the overtaken was a different issue.

Hence a campaign on Dartmoor and the New Forest for wild ponies to have reflectives or lights!


----------



## PBancroft (11 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> No problem with that, however the shift in legal responsibility from the overtaking vehicle to the overtaken was a different issue.
> 
> Hence a campaign on Dartmoor and the New Forest for wild ponies to have reflectives or lights!



That's a shift in legal status. Should it swing back the over way, I would still be saying the same thing as I have today.

A court case to be proved right or wrong is one thing, but dead is dead.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2008)

The problem though as I have posted beforeis not always the lighting, butthe response. I am still fequently experience vehicles pulling out or overtaking dodgily, not because I am unlit, but because they simply do not react in an appropriate manner!

I have an EN 471 (Emergency Services Standard) reflecytive jacket or a Foska Bones depending on weather. I then have a 50 watt HID coupled with a USE Maxx Enduro at 60 watts and the RVLR compliant CAteye on the front and two Cateyes and a pair of Dinottes on the back.

Over 80 times the required lighting on thefornt and 40 times on the back and I still have problems with "being seen"!


----------



## BentMikey (11 Oct 2008)

LOL, this topic is hilarious! I can see Lee's credibility is on the rise.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Oct 2008)

You can change your refusal to be filmed anytime sunbeam, but it speaks words as to your quality of riding. Mind you, so does your regular RLJing admission and claim that you "ride like a messenger".


----------



## PBancroft (12 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem though as I have posted beforeis not always the lighting, butthe response. I am still fequently experience vehicles pulling out or overtaking dodgily, not because I am unlit, but because they simply do not react in an appropriate manner!



Absolutely. People will do that in broad daylight, but they're a different type of dangerous driver. They're the ones who are either ill-informed or don't give a shoot. They need to be combated with education.

In my view you have to give yourself a fighting chance. Not using lights makes you that much less likely to be seen, and to see other hazards. No one solution is ever a catch-all.


----------



## Jaded (12 Oct 2008)

Should badgers be forced to use lights?


----------



## PBancroft (12 Oct 2008)

Jaded said:


> Should badgers be forced to use lights?



I'm not entirely sure what point you're making there. Last time I checked, badgers didn't have the mental faculty nor the physical attributes necessary to strap lights to themselves. They probably don't understand what cars are beyond 'big bastard thing which kills them sometimes if they walk on the hard stuff'.

Human beings, on the other hand, are a fair bit smarter than that. Some, anyway.

Meh, feck it. I'm off for a ride.


----------



## hackbike 6 (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not as funny as watching your vids



What happens in his vids generally shows the wallyness and unsafe driving by cagers out there.


----------



## swee'pea99 (12 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> so does your regular RLJing admission.


Without wishing to go OT, might I be allowed to interject a protest at the word 'admission'? Also, of course badgers should be required to wear lights. Also hedgehogs.


----------



## hackbike 6 (12 Oct 2008)

I think BM is entitled to cycle in the middle of the road if he wants.Why do people have to do a dangerous close overtake to save a few seconds?
Is it because they are thick and think it is clever?


----------



## Jaded (12 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> I'm not entirely sure what point you're making there. Last time I checked, badgers didn't have the mental faculty nor the physical attributes necessary to strap lights to themselves. They probably don't understand what cars are beyond 'big bastard thing which kills them sometimes if they walk on the hard stuff'.
> 
> Human beings, on the other hand, are a fair bit smarter than that. Some, anyway.
> 
> Meh, feck it. I'm off for a ride.



I guessed you wouldn't understand.

You see, you look at it from the badger's responsibility, not the driver's responsibility.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

Last time I checked it wasn't a legal requirement for a badger or a hedgehog to be wearing lights at night. It is a legal requirement for a cyclist. Lights cost hardly anything to buy - there is no excuse for not having 'be seen by' lights front & rear when cycling.


----------



## PBancroft (12 Oct 2008)

Jaded said:


> I guessed you wouldn't understand.
> 
> You see, you look at it from the badger's responsibility, not the driver's responsibility.



It's not so much I don't understand, it's that I don't appreciate the point you are making. I don't believe that badgers are on a par with humans.

If someone plows into a badger in their 4x4, the beast gets pushed to the side of the road if its lucky. The driver will probably be somewhat annoyed and/or upset about the damage done to his car.

If someone plows into User3143 on the other hand, my bet is there are a hefty number of people who will be majorly affected. His loved ones, for starters, his wider circle of friends - truth be told, as much as I disagree with him if I heard that anyone on this board had been killed on the road, I think I would be affected - and also the driver himself and his family. 

Yes, the driver probably would be cleared of dangerous driving charges if Lee did nothing to make himself visible... but my bet is that running someone over isn't something that makes you sleep easily at night. 

As I said before, as human beings we should all take the responsibility to make traveling on the roads as safe as possible. That includes making ourselves seen so that other people can see us in good time and react accordingly.

And just to be absolute-vodka-ly clear on this, I am not suggesting that any driver should be dissolved of any responsibility either. This means that all drivers should be alert and attentive as well - but since we know that isn't always the case, we should have the extra bases covered as well.


----------



## Andy 71 (12 Oct 2008)

I used to remark on people without lights, but don't bother so much now. I mean, if they are so thick as to not understand why lights are important (especially in cities) I wouldn't hold much chance of getting through to them.

A couple of conversations I had went something like this:

ME: Excuse me mate/friend, where's your lights?
THEM: Eh?
ME: Your lights. It's quite dark and a bit dangerous to not have them.
THEM: Can't afford it.
ME: Don't take this the wrong way, but you can afford £5 for that pack of fags in your breast pocket but you can't afford the same amount for a cheap lights. 
THEM: Silence.
ME: Argos do a cheap set - £4.99 - Surely your life is worth that. I can point you to the nearest store if you'd like.
THEM: Silence.
ME: Look (gestures towards cab drivers/buses) - Don't give them an excuse to mow you down - you won't have a leg to stand on with no lights. Don't want to see you hurt friend.
THEM: I know / I hear what you're saying.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> If this was me, I would tell you to mind your own business. Calling me mate/friend eh? Mind you own.



Easy Pal.


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Oct 2008)

It has to be said that there is a fine line between genuine advice and a lecture, although not in this case.


----------



## wafflycat (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> The person you spoke to probably thought that they were five years old again and back at school.



Which, if they are cycling without working lights at night, is exactly how they are behaving.


----------



## dondare (12 Oct 2008)

lee; what are your priorities? Cycling after dark without lights is illegal and dangerous; filtering inside HGVs is dangerous but not illegal. You are so down on cyclists who filter but are quite happy to justfy cycling unlit.

And don't get me started on RLJing.


----------



## kikzen (12 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Point taken Pal(very good!), but in his post he is so sanctomonius it almost made me cringe. I wish I knew where my local Argos was. Stop being so patronising to other cyclists Andy 71. I have seen countless cyclists at night without lights do I preach to them? (no jokes about me not seeing them or me being hypocritical please) *I don't because it's not my business to.* The person you spoke to probably thought that they were five years old again and back at school.



if someone told you to get some lights (for your own good!!), youd tell them it wasnt any of their business? well, no i suppose it isnt in the sense that it probably wont have a direct impact on their lives if you got hit from not beinging visible - but ultimately theyre just trying to help, and as long as their tone isnt ridiculously patronising then it should be taken in the good faith its intended with.

and 'it's not your business' - if you saw a little kid getting mugged, i guess you wouldnt help either, for the same reason?


----------



## tdr1nka (12 Oct 2008)

Again we are missing the fact it was simple good advice given 'to get lights'. No one needed to feel they were 'told to', to react to this is more like a resentful and guilty admission of the truth than anything.

No harm in that.

If someone is 'untouchable' enough to ride without lights then so be it.
I see having full lights as part and parcel of defensive riding but if as a cyclist you expect people to drive and ride around respectfully then you have to be making your presence visible to some extent.


----------



## PBancroft (12 Oct 2008)

kikzen said:


> and 'it's not your business' - if you saw a little kid getting mugged, i guess you wouldnt help either, for the same reason?



+1

There is a point when you have to stand up and say "*No.*"

Sometimes its difficult, sometimes its important, and sometimes it isn't. But sometimes it has to be said, and then it has to be backed up.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

Thanks Hackers!

Lee, I think your riding is irresponsible going by your own words. RLJing and no lights at night? Riding like a 5 year old. No wonder you're so oversensitive on being "patronised".


----------



## Andy 71 (13 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> If this was me, I would tell you to mind your own business. Calling me mate/friend eh? Mind you own.




Er Lee, 

It is our business when our taxes are used to pay the Police to scrape your remains off of the road. It is our business when it comes to finding money to pay the hard-pressed ambulance service to transport what is left of you to the morgue. It is our business, when it comes to paying the Police to investigate the circumstances of your demise and the coroner to make a ruliing. Tot that up - how much do you think that comes to?

Frankly, I'd rather see public money used on more worthy causes, such as the disabled, sick, elderly or people who have enough nous to realise why it is simply idiotic to ride around after dark with no lights.

You complain about potentially being spoken to like a five-year-old. Tell me, what is 'mature' about persistently and deliberately putting the safety of yourself and others in jeopardy?

Do you think I have nothing better to do? I can assure you I do - It's just that the sight of a cyclist lying in a pool of his/her own blood does not turn me on in the least.

Tell me, if you saw someone preparing to jump off a high building, would you just walk on by? If not, why do you think my reaction to seeing people with no lights on busy streets would be any different? So was it a lecture? - well, call it what you want. But if that makes just one person re-think and take a basic, simple step to stay alive (like shelling out a fiver!), I can live with being called a sanctamonius twit. Sticks and stones won't save YOUR bones.

Do you want to know why people don't 'mind their own' sometimes? It's a reaction - being taken back, aghast at the sight of such stupidity and wondering what it is about you that doesn't understand or even care about what you are doing.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

That's my response as well - it is my and everyone else's business when someone misbehaves on the public highway.


----------



## Domestique (13 Oct 2008)

Going slightly ot, is it only me that finds it strange that new bikes come with reflectors but not lights.


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

Not really. Don't forget many a new bike comes without pedals! There's such a vast choice of lights out there, that what you have is going to depend upon where you're going to be cycling. 

Cycling along a well-lit urban street is an entirely different matter to cycling along an unlit country lane with nothing for ambient light other than perhaps the moon & stars. A basic front light is of little use when cycling an unlit country lane, but may be entirely adequate when cycling the urban road with excellent street-lighting.


----------



## Bollo (13 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Cycling along a well-lit urban street is an entirely different matter to cycling along an unlit country lane with nothing for ambient light other than perhaps the moon & stars. A basic front light is of little use when cycling an unlit country lane, but may be entirely adequate when cycling the urban road with excellent street-lighting.


Beat be to it - there's lights to see and lights to be seen with. For most circumstances, the thankfully cheap as chips to-be-seen-with lights are enough.

Mr C's point has come up a few times with or without lights. There's a difference between seeing and cognition, but for sure you can't -cog- without the seeing bit first. And seeing is the only bit that a cyclist can objectively improve on. You can try to improve the chances of Joe Roaduser's brain bothering to process the images but that's more tricky, and too many lights _may _muddle the equation now and again. There's still also the chance that Joe Roaduser is a c0ck, and will pull out or buzz you anyway.
Finally Lee, if you end up trying to get some insurance money out of a driver that hits you at night, forget it. No matter how culpable and negligent the driver was, you've given them a gaping contributary negligence mine to dig. Why not just spend a fiver? D'ya want us to buy you one?


----------



## Jaded (13 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Last time I checked it wasn't a legal requirement for a badger or a hedgehog to be wearing lights at night. It is a legal requirement for a cyclist. Lights cost hardly anything to buy - there is no excuse for not having 'be seen by' lights front & rear when cycling.



Is the big issue being legal or being seen. 

?


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

Both.


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

Jaded said:


> Is the big issue being legal or being seen.
> 
> ?



Both.


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Both.



Jinx!


----------



## Jaded (13 Oct 2008)

So what's with dissing the badger post then?


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

Jaded said:


> So what's with dissing the badger post then?



Jaded, you never struck me as being stupid, indeed you used to come across as being quite sensible, but you do seem to be adopting an increasingly trolling attitude - quite different from another place. I wonder why?


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

Even I've noticed that, Jaded. I'm sad...


----------



## Jaded (13 Oct 2008)

Why?

The overall tone of the thread is battering people that don't use lights (and those that dare to muse about riding without lights). This time of year catches people out who have ridden all summer long as the change in light levels moves earlier quickly from day to day and not everyone has the foresight to carry a full set of lights round with them. 

Much like hi-vis and daytime running lights there is more to this than meets the eye. Road-kill is a huge issue in rural areas (which I'm sure you are aware of) and the premise that things on roads should be well lit up and visible to drivers takes quite a part of this. Drive on unless you can see a light or a sign ahead!

If you are interested in another place, perhaps you should go there? My letters to The Sun are not written in the same way as my letters to The Times. Are yours?


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

No thanks, Jaded. I'm sorry you seem to have changed from the Jaded I used to have a lot of respect for.


----------



## Jaded (13 Oct 2008)

Well, that's mutual, I'm afraid. although I do still have a lot of respect for you.


----------



## Origamist (13 Oct 2008)

Jaded's argument is a rehashing of the CTC position 60 years ago when there was a move to make rear lights compulsory after WW2. 

It might surprise a few of you, but the CTC were against the legislation for some of the reasons that Jaded has put forward. 

Maybe Roger the Hill Dodger can locate the relevant papers at the CTC archive...


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

Yup - I know the history. But we have to deal with the now.


----------



## Origamist (13 Oct 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Yup - I know the history. But we have to deal with the now.




That's because you've been around the block, so to speak - not everyone has...


----------



## wafflycat (13 Oct 2008)

Now that does definitely show my age!


----------



## Bollo (13 Oct 2008)

Be careful about legal as well. How many out there are riding clipless sans reflectors? All got our rear reflectors?


----------



## Maz (13 Oct 2008)

I was in the cycling mecca that is Cambridge at the w/e. Plod was on Riverside nicking cyclists without lights.


----------



## goo_mason (13 Oct 2008)

Sad but true - 6.45am this morning on the bus to work and I counted 20 cyclists on the road between the bottom of Leith Walk and the West End of Princes Street. Only *one* had lights on; and he was also the only one who stopped at reds.

Crazy, irresponsible idiots.


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

I saw one with a yellow front light today,what is the point of yellow?

Yes I know,better than nowt.


----------



## potnoodle (13 Oct 2008)

I have front and rear reflectors as well as lights.

Even have red lights on the back and front of my helmet.. Dont have reflectors on my pedals as they are clipless


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

*I have front and rear reflectors as well as lights.*

BM says they don't work.


----------



## potnoodle (13 Oct 2008)

Who or what is BM?



hackbike 6 said:


> *I have front and rear reflectors as well as lights.*
> 
> BM says they don't work.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (13 Oct 2008)

That'd be BentMikey, a user on here.


----------



## 4F (13 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> Be careful about legal as well. How many out there are riding clipless sans reflectors? All got our rear reflectors?



I am not required by law to have reflectors on my pedals


----------



## Maz (13 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> Be careful about legal as well. How many out there are riding clipless sans reflectors? All got our rear reflectors?


I think it's only bikes made after 1985 (?) that require pedal reflectors. It's bizarre, whatever the rule is.

My very old and very stationary exercise bike has pedal reflectors on it!!


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> *I have front and rear reflectors as well as lights.*
> 
> BM says they don't work.



That's rather a distorted misquote, and is nothing like what I actually said. Tut tut!!!


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

Cyclists do get caught without lights sometimes, and it's especially at this time of year when it's light when you leave work and dark by the time you get home. That's understandable, what isn't is a deliberate refusal to use lights or a defence of riding unlit. Certainly motorists should drive a lot more carefully in the dark but the corpses of badges &c. shows us that they don't. 
Stealth cyclists even pose a danger to pedestrians, (those who bother to look before crossing the road).


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

potnoodle said:


> Who or what is BM?



Big Momma?


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> That'd be BentMikey, a user on here.



Ah... that BM.

IIRC BM says pedal reflectors don't work on 'bents.


----------



## Tynan (13 Oct 2008)

given the size and cost of modern lights there's no excuse for being 'caught without lights'

would you accept that as an excsue froma car after dark with no working lights?


----------



## jonathan ellis (13 Oct 2008)

After having had some beer. I can state that it's statisically safer to cycle at night.


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's rather a distorted misquote, and is nothing like what I actually said. Tut tut!!!



Joking.


----------



## Plax (13 Oct 2008)

I was horrified tonight by a cyclist with no lights. I'm used to seeing ninja bikers in Bangor (quite often also on the pavement), which is well lit so they are still visable enough. Tonight however, driving home from Tesco along a 60mph B road which is unlit, so very dark, guess what I catch a glimpse of - yep the silhouette of a cyclist in dark clothing and no lights. The car coming up behind him nearly hit the stupid sod. I was very surprised to see such stupidity along that road. I've cycled along there in the dark and how on earth he managed to see anything when there was no cars is beyond me. I have a 10w and a 5w light and it was bad enough!


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

22,000 accident free miles is only a sign of how safe cycling is, and says very little about anyone's skills either way. You keep saying how excellent a rider you are, and yet you refuse to be filmed, and you keep telling us things that indicate you're not a good rider, at least that's my perception.


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

Can't agree with your safe stance on cycling mikey.If there were no vehicles cyclists and peds then all we would have to contend with is falling off for whatever reason.Mechanical failure,weather conditions,mistakes due to tiredness.More than once i've had to rely on instinct and not panicking in dodgy situations.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> *But good riding skill will, which I have in spades.
> 
> *I know my road space I'm excellent at reading the road and what other drivers do.



You aspire to "ride like a messenger", and I wouldn't be able to keep up. 2 months away, and you don't have time for a ride when I've offered to come across to your area and am flexible on when?

*walks away chuckling*


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

Im from an opposite universe.Im lit up like a christmas tree.BM would a fenix be any good for changing traffic lights as they don't 'see' my lights on early morning commutes.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Oct 2008)

Lee I think you mean riding without lights makes you a 'far better nuicance', to other road users at least.

I have lights because I'd rather another road user had some indication of my approach rather than making them jump and possibly react/drive in a way that could endanger everyone involved.

Being able to read traffic keenly should be possible with or without lights, your agument is very sloppy.

You are making a separate rule for yourself and so far have been very lucky IMO. Good luck to you.


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

What about if said motorist is on mobile phone?
How old are you lee? 20's?


----------



## dondare (13 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Something else happened tonight on my ride home as well of interest.
> 
> As I said I was cycling without lights on an unlit A road coming up to a left hand turn junction. As I approach a car comes come from the left looking to turn right onto the A road and therefore come across my path.
> 
> ...




I find that filtering up the inside of HGVs makes me a better cyclist.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I don't rely on luck, if need be I would have stopped on the side of the ride while the driver made their turn and was on their way.



He probably saw your pedal reflectors.


----------



## tdr1nka (13 Oct 2008)

Interesting.
You left out 'needing to be just as aware of traffic with or without lights' in my quote you quoted there Lee.
Why might that be?

Hmmmm.


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

Have you ever been pulled by plod lee?


----------



## hackbike 6 (13 Oct 2008)

I guessed you may have answered this but im posting from a MP and its a bit of a pain surfing looking for the answer when it was easier to ask you.I guessed your age range and was right.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Oct 2008)

I'm not against the idea that riding without lights will improve your skill level. In one way it's perhaps not that different to having a heel brake on inline skates. It's the easiest and best way of stopping, and yet I regularly see skaters for whom this has become a crutch, and has severely limited the development of other necessary skating skills and more advanced stops.

OTOH I think it's pretty stupid and irresponsible to be riding at night without lights, because of the direct effect on other road users, and the indirect effect on the rest of us cyclists. With lights and a bike, there isn't as much benefit to be gained in skill terms, and the risks are higher, both to yourself and others, which makes it a bad plan.

Lee, I've done plenty of rides outside of commuting, but I don't feel the need to justify myself, not to you at any rate. Ahahahahaha! Oh, and my offer was to meet you anywhere in greater London, which is anything inside the M25, and I'm quite happy to travel further afield too. Still can't see you agreeing, even though you've already given the game away about your quality of riding.


----------



## swee'pea99 (14 Oct 2008)

Lee, while saluting your tenacity over the last 16 pages, there's one thing I still don't understand. Why? Where's the benefit? Do you do it to save weight, or money, or what? RLJ I understand - indeed do - but there's a clear benefit: you don't squander momentum; you get there faster. But where's the actual benefit to riding without lights?


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (14 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> But where's the actual benefit to riding without lights?[/B]


It makes you a better rider, and stops you assuming that car drivers have seen you.

I've got lots of lights, by the way, 'cos I'm a bit of a chicken. But I still assume that car drivers haven't seen me: all those years of riding a motorcycle with a VERY bright light showed me that quite a few people can't see anything further away than their satnav or mobile.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Something else happened tonight on my ride home as well of interest.
> 
> As I said I was cycling without lights on an unlit A road coming up to a left hand turn junction. As I approach a car comes come from the left looking to turn right onto the A road and therefore come across my path.
> 
> ...


Either you are trolling deliberately, or you're just a complete idiot. I'm erring towards the latter.


----------



## Baggy (14 Oct 2008)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> It makes you a better rider, and stops you assuming that car drivers have seen you.



But Lee implies he's not used lights on A roads and unlit routes as well - I can't see how that makes you a better cyclist unless you develop the ability to ride in hedges?


----------



## swee'pea99 (14 Oct 2008)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> It makes you a better rider, and stops you assuming that car drivers have seen you.
> 
> I've got lots of lights, by the way, 'cos I'm a bit of a chicken. But I still assume that car drivers haven't seen me: all those years of riding a motorcycle with a VERY bright light showed me that quite a few people can't see anything further away than their satnav or mobile.


Sorry, but doesn't your second sentence illustrate perfectly why your first is a heap of monkey poo?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (14 Oct 2008)

It seems rather counter productive - he RLJs (obviously only when it's safe. No, really, he knows when it's safe) to keep up his momentum and minimise journey time (presumably - can't see any other reason for doing it) but then is happy to stop to let traffic cross his path when they don't see him unlit at night.

As I said. Idiot or troll, you decide for yourself and either stop feeding on this thread or feel pity for the lack of working grey matter he has.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (14 Oct 2008)

Baggy said:


> But Lee implies he's not used lights on A roads and unlit routes as well - I can't see how that makes you a better cyclist unless you develop the ability to ride in hedges?


Dunno. I'm just paraphrasing the reasons given. Me, I got LOTS of lights.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (14 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> I put the second sentence in there to illustrate that I don't agree with the first one: in the first one I was just paraphrasing the reasons that have been given. Don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## Baggy (14 Oct 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Either you are trolling deliberately, or you're just a complete idiot. I'm erring towards the latter.



Facts Lee has given us:

He was a messenger years ago
He has ridden over 22000 miles
He's in his 20's

I'm assuming that he does of course mean 22000 miles a year, otherwise the "I was a messenger" maths doesn't quite work out 

If he's not trolling, good luck to him on not being turned into road-toffee. But nobody's going to change his mind.


----------



## Baggy (14 Oct 2008)

Lazy-Commuter said:


> I put the second sentence in there to illustrate that I don't agree with the first one: in the first one I was just paraphrasing the reasons that have been given. Don't shoot the messenger.



Ah, I thought you could see his logic and were agreeing.


----------



## Origamist (14 Oct 2008)

Baggy said:


> Facts Lee has given us:
> 
> He was a messenger years ago
> He has ridden over 22000 miles
> ...




He did actually say earlier in the thread: 

"I understand what people are saying with the use of lights but *sometimes *I like to ride without". 

This suggests he doesn't do it as a matter of course and is proabably not convinced by his own rationale (otherwise he would ride without lights all the time).


----------



## swee'pea99 (14 Oct 2008)

And here's me still baffled...why would you 'like' to ride without lights? What's to like?


----------



## Cab (14 Oct 2008)

Generally, when I see a cyclist on the streets without lights, I don't care. I mean, it doesn't matter, I've seen him. All too often people complain about the number of cyclists they *see* without lights on in cities, and I feel they're missing the point. 

I use lights because I think its marginally safer on the routes I ride to do so, and because it is a legal requirement if cycling in the dark. I don't believe I'm very much more visible with lights on than with good reflectors and bright clothing, as I'm almost always on well lit city streets where effective visibility is as far as the next corner.

While cyclists should of course have lights on, I do wish that those who most vocally complain about cyclists not all having them (frustrated motorists, for the most part) would get a sense of perspective.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (14 Oct 2008)

Baggy said:


> Ah, I thought you could see his logic and were agreeing.


Re-reading it, I've missed out the word "apparently" at the end of the 1st sentence .. that might have made it clearer.

Anyway, I did a quick head-count on the way home last night and we ARE a good bunch of children round my way. Of six bikes on the way home, including me, we all had some kind of hi-vis / reflective / Sam Browne affair going on, everyone had lights on their bikes and 5 out of 6 of us were even using them.

The one guy who wasn't using his lights was OK as it went, 'cos it was dusk (half hour before sunset) and he was on the bridleway with nobody else about; well, other than me but I could see him from a way off 'cos it wasn't _that_ dark. The others were on roads and so needed lights on.


----------



## Baggy (14 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> He did actually say earlier in the thread:
> 
> "I understand what people are saying with the use of lights but *sometimes *I like to ride without".
> 
> This suggests he doesn't do it as a matter of course and is proabably not convinced by his own rationale (otherwise he would ride without lights all the time).


But he's not _actually_ said that, he's just gone on to offer arguments and examples about how riding without has given him better riding skills. 

He also said earlier he hadn't said it was safer to ride without, but subsequently has kept arguing about why it's ok not to use them.

In summary, the argument is going nowhere.


----------



## Origamist (14 Oct 2008)

Baggy said:


> *But he's not actually said that*, he's just gone on to offer arguments and examples about how riding without has given him better riding skills.
> 
> He also said earlier he hadn't said it was safer to ride without, but subsequently has kept arguing about why it's ok not to use them.
> 
> In summary, the argument is going nowhere.



Well, he has: it's written down - but you're certainly right, contradictory statements abound. 

As I've said, if Lee is being genuine that riding without lights heightens his perception, he'd do it all the time, not sometimes. 

Lee just likes to argue the toss...


----------



## swee'pea99 (14 Oct 2008)

Hello Lee! Hope we didn't wake you up. Now, about that actual _benefit_ of riding without lights...?


----------



## swee'pea99 (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> There is no ''actual benefit''


Well, that's about as clear as it gets. Thanks!


----------



## MartinC (14 Oct 2008)

I have friends who are partially sighted. To them people like User3143 are selfish twits. I tend to agree with them.


----------



## MartinC (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Thank you, I'll add that to the list. Your friends who are partially sighted are they peds or drivers?



Flippant. Are you able to respond to the obvious and substantive point? Riding in the dark without lights makes it hard for pedestrians with poor sight to see you.


----------



## MartinC (14 Oct 2008)

Point 1 - there's no way that you can know that you always see pedestrians in the dark. Believing that you can is dangerous overconfidence.

Point 2 - they can't see you. If your argument is that because you can see them you can always mitigate all the risks then this is dangerous overconfidence too. It's also very arrogant.


----------



## MartinC (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> I can see any and all peds that would interfere with the line I take on a bike. You would be surprised how well the human eye can see with fully adjusted night vision.



Believing you can do that in any light conditions is arrogant and foolish.

It also ignores the point that other people (however acute their sight is) need to see you. Disregarding that is also arrogant and foolish.


----------



## hackbike 6 (14 Oct 2008)

This thread is funny.Well done.

19 Pages?


----------



## hackbike 6 (14 Oct 2008)

Congrats.


----------



## MartinC (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> No, it's not it's looking and scanning the road ahead.
> 
> I don't disregard other people at all and their ability to see me. You are being very presumptuous



The only presumption I'm making is that you ride in the dark without lights - because this is what you said. This is implicitly disregarding other people's ability to see you.

Your belief in your ability to look and scan perfectly in any light conditions is presuming an awful lot.

Their doesn't seem to be much logic in your argument.


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Oct 2008)

My guess is that you must eat an inordinate amount of carrots?

On the subject of peds you avoid, does it not occur to you that you might, your skills accepted, really put the sh*ts up people who can't see you and ignorance of that could be considered anti social behaviour?

I'd imagine it would be equally possible, using your skills, to walk back and forth across a motorway without getting hit. Maybe no danger to yourself, but probably putting the fear of God into motorists.


----------



## dondare (14 Oct 2008)

lee, do you ride without lights in order to make yourself a better cyclist or because you keep forgetting them?


----------



## BentMikey (14 Oct 2008)

Last winter I rode back home on some unlit country lanes, no moon, no reflected streetlights, with my two cateye EL530s, one of which had run out of batteries, and the other one had gone to the dim stage. (It was a 4 hour ride) Eeek!

Others could still easily see me, but it was very hard to see where I was going, I was using car headlights to scan the road, but there weren't enough cars, so inbetween I could only do about 5mph.


----------



## domtyler (14 Oct 2008)

Had to work a little later unexpectedly tonight! 

Didn't enjoy the ride home at 6pm with no lights!

I need my winter bike back!!!! Spent a bloody fortune on Schmidt dynohub and lights and now it is sitting there on a bike with a broken frame!


----------



## tdr1nka (14 Oct 2008)

Can you not swap them over to the current steed?


----------



## HJ (14 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> ...I've just strapped on some Lupine Bettys...



Humm I like the use of the plural, if night suddenly changes to day, I will know Bollo is riding behind me


----------



## jassy-x (14 Oct 2008)

....I also always ride at night without lights....or reflectors....no reflective gear....or helmet....I love to RLJ and when I come to a junction or encounter other traffic I like to close my eyes for added effect while reciting the lord's prayer.....


....aw come on guys...I want to be a senior member too.....please.!!!!


....ok...no more drugs...


----------



## jassy-x (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> But you are from Scotland, I thought all you lot were on drugs?


......drink and drugs.....but that's usually just at weekends...


----------



## jassy-x (14 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Maybe next time you should take an e that has been cut with ketamine, or do a line of coke that is cut with drain cleaner,carry on.


....think I'll just stick to Tennents lager & Ibuprofen.....


----------



## hackbike 6 (15 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Humm I like the use of the plural, if night suddenly changes to day, I will know Bollo is riding behind me



What a load of bollo.


----------



## jassy-x (15 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah, that and not posting about stuff you don't know or at least read the whole thread.


....what are _you_ on ...don't know about drugs...but you definitely need a 'chill pill' ....


----------



## Bollo (15 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Humm I like the use of the plural, if night suddenly changes to day, I will know Bollo is riding behind me



The singular I'm afraid. But just to make the point that I only use these on proper night rides through the lanes, where the interaction with traffic is practically non-existent. They're definitely NOT a commuting light and they're not to everyone's taste. I like a much wider beam than most road lights give you 'cause I don't like that 'riding in a tunnel' sensation. If you're happy with a narrower road-specific beam, there are better (and certainly cheaper) options out there.

Lee - you could go the ironic lighting route....


----------



## Bollo (15 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> What a load of bollo.


408 posts and my name has already become synonymous with BS. There's pride in that.


----------



## swee'pea99 (15 Oct 2008)

You've reminded me (totally OT) that when I were a youngster I were sent off on a potholing week - this would be back at the beginning of the '70s - and we used carbide lights on our helmets. You had to put these crystals in them and add water, and when the gas flame started to die down, you'd find somewhere with water running down the walls and dribble a bit more in, then the flame would perk up again for a bit. Sounds positively medieval now, but of course we didn't think twice about it at the time.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (15 Oct 2008)

I've got a carbide cycling light...







Mmmmmmm, steampunk.


----------



## HJ (15 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Bit harsh, am I a moron?



Evidently yes...


----------



## HJ (15 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Sometimes I forget them.



That is why have a couple of really cheep lights permanently mounted on my bike. They are functional but look so tacky no one has ever bother to steal them and I never get caught out without lights. It's not difficult...


----------



## hackbike 6 (15 Oct 2008)

Yeah and I always carry spares.


----------



## HJ (15 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Wow, I'm amazed that people have taken my posts the wrong way. Riding home last Sunday at about 2030hrs in the pitch black with no lights down a main A road doing a 15 mile journey...
> 
> ...Do you see now?! Common sense, forward thinking and being alert. It's not about being on the wind up, being a dick. I understand what people are saying with the use of lights but sometimes I like to ride without, it's a good test of alertness and forward planning.



Good forward planning is taking light with you before you go out, being alert is noticing that it get dark earlier at this time of year...


----------



## PBancroft (15 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> 408 posts and my name has already become synonymous with BS. There's pride in that.



There's quality and there's quantity mate!


----------



## goo_mason (15 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> That is why have a couple of *really cheep lights* permanently mounted on my bike. They are functional but look so tacky no one has ever bother to steal them and I never get caught out without lights. It's not difficult...



Not so much Cateye, more BirdsEye then....


----------



## swee'pea99 (15 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> That is why have a couple of really cheep lights permanently mounted on my bike. They are functional but look so tacky no one has ever bother to steal them and I never get caught out without lights. It's not difficult...


As I said on another thread, £5 flashers from ebay, then Araldite them in place. That way no one can nick them even if they want to, and they're always there when you need them.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Oct 2008)

Lights have come on a long way, when I was a kid it was those grey plastic things from Halfrauds with huge batteries and feeble output for about an hour tops, back light was equally huge, l.e.d. technology has made a huge difference.


----------



## HLaB (16 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Lights have come on a long way, when I was a kid it was those grey plastic things from Halfrauds with huge batteries and feeble output for about an hour tops, back light was equally huge, l.e.d. technology has made a huge difference.



When I was a kid it was they stupidly large lights that took D batteries, they were totally ineffective and were a pain to attach. I don't recall if i ever suceeded in fitting mine to the bike (I could only afford a rear and I bought that in a jumble sale) but if made a good light for my hidey holes.


----------



## Riding in Circles (16 Oct 2008)

HLaB said:


> When I was a kid it was they stupidly large lights that took D batteries, they were totally ineffective and were a pain to attach. I don't recall if i ever suceeded in fitting mine to the bike (I could only afford a rear and I bought that in a jumble sale) but if made a good light for my hidey holes.



Those were the ones. Metal saddle clamp for the rear stays, you went over a bump and the light ended up in the wheel, only way to get it solid was to tighten it so much it started to crush the frame, front went on that huge metal plate.


----------



## swee'pea99 (16 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Those were the ones. Metal saddle clamp for the rear stays, you went over a bump and the light ended up in the wheel, only way to get it solid was to tighten it so much it started to crush the frame, front went on that huge metal plate.


Remember the front lights of the era? The ones that took those weird double-cell batteries with a copper strip on the front that didn't go in anything else?


----------



## Bollo (16 Oct 2008)

Kaipaith said:


> There's quality and there's quantity mate!



I'm trying to introduce the concept of 'qualtity'


----------



## Andy 71 (16 Oct 2008)

The ones I remember as a kid ( and I might still have in my garage somewhere) are the Ever Ready lamps, the front one of which attached to a bracket or braze-on on your front fork. Took two massive HP2 batteries that weighed a ton.

Then in the 80s, they bought out those removeable ones, with the 'big dipper' style bracket. 

Around that time, I invested in a Union dyamo light set. Great output, but the drag was crippling.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (16 Oct 2008)

> Cyclists without lights...



Hmmmm, isn't it?


----------



## PBancroft (16 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> I'm trying to introduce the concept of 'qualtity'



Qualtity (noun) - One really nice breast


----------



## mr_cellophane (16 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> Like this


----------



## swee'pea99 (16 Oct 2008)

That's the feller! God but that takes me back...


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> Like this




Great lights for their time,brings back memories.


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

Hi jeff,have you got lights?


----------



## PBancroft (17 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Hi jeff,have you got lights?



I sure hope that he doesn't do *Facial Feminization Surgery * in the dark!


----------



## dondare (17 Oct 2008)

Don't get me started about facial feminization surgery. 

_____________________________________________________


http://www.onlyanalbleaching.com/


----------



## Riding in Circles (17 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Hi jeff,have you got lights?



You realise that you are talking to an adbot don't you?


----------



## HF2300 (17 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> You realise that you are talking to an adbot don't you?



That's OK, so long as it's a sensible adbot with well thought out views on lighting...


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (17 Oct 2008)

Wonder where it stands on helmets and RLJ?


----------



## Bollo (17 Oct 2008)

That's got to be one sorry adbot to end up on here. Come to think of it, you lot might all be adbots?! I might be the only human/ape member of CC. I am alone? Is there anyone out there? Anyone? With lights?


----------



## redjedi (17 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> You realise that you are talking to an adbot don't you?



That's a clever adbot 



jeffdean said:


> In the contemplation of retiring my rigid to other duties and buying a more up to date hardtail just for mtn biking I was thinking about an Orange and quite like the P7,it being steel, British and having a good pedigree.I'm only an occasional mtn biker now.
> 
> _______________________________________________________________
> 
> Confronta cellulari Facial Feminization Surgery



An adbot that likes to go MTBing


----------



## PBancroft (17 Oct 2008)

redjedi said:


> That's a clever adbot



Hm. I hate to think what will happen when the Turing Test is finally defeated...


----------



## HF2300 (17 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> ... I might be the only human/ape member of CC...



And can you prove that?


----------



## Bollo (17 Oct 2008)

HF2300 said:


> And can you prove that?



If I am not filmed by Magnatom, can I be said to exist?


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> You realise that you are talking to an adbot don't you?



Well you seemed fine in the past,anyway I had a skinful last night so I don't know who I was talking to.(Well earned day off)


Also I don't care,Adbots should have lights like everyone else.


----------



## mr_cellophane (17 Oct 2008)

Saw one last night. Going round the Aldgate one way, no lights, no hands and eating. Probably had an mp3 player as well, but it was too dark to see that.


----------



## HF2300 (17 Oct 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> Saw one last night. Going round the Aldgate one way, no lights, no hands and eating. Probably had an mp3 player as well, but it was too dark to see that.



I didn't realise adbots needed to eat - or listen to mp3s. Doesn't surprise me that they don't have hands though.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Oct 2008)

So my question is why hasn't a mod disabled the adbot account and deleted the posts yet?


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

Where is this adbot?

What's it's views or RLJing?


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Oct 2008)

redjedi said:


> That's a clever adbot
> 
> 
> 
> An adbot that likes to go MTBing



It is a quote from someone elses post, it is quite a clever one but not clever enough to get past me, I have ran forums myself in the past and have seen them get more and more sophisticated, it certainly fooled you enough for you to start defending it.


----------



## hackbike 6 (18 Oct 2008)

No doubt it fooled me then.

Hang on it's gone.


----------



## HF2300 (18 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Hang on it's gone.



That'll confuse anyone trying to make sense of the last two pages!


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Oct 2008)

HF2300 said:


> That'll confuse anyone trying to make sense of the last two pages!



Potato


----------



## HF2300 (18 Oct 2008)

Potato Potato Potato


----------



## wafflycat (18 Oct 2008)

badger badger badger


----------



## Iainj837 (18 Oct 2008)

I always use lights on my bike, I seen this young girl last night riding with no lights, dark clothing.
Worst of all, she came up to a roundabout went the wrong way @ the round-a-bout and almost got wiped out by a car.
How lucky she was


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Oct 2008)

Raleigh Man said:


> I always use lights on my bike, I seen this young girl last night riding with no lights, dark clothing.
> Worst of all, she came up to a roundabout went the wrong way @ the round-a-bout and almost got wiped out by a car.
> How lucky she was



And she will carry on regardless till she learns a lesson. Whether she falls off after hitting something she couldn't see, gets hit by something that couldn't see her, or gets a nice little £30 fine for it, she will learn one day. Darwin award to her.


----------



## PBancroft (19 Oct 2008)

ComedyPilot said:


> And she will carry on regardless till she learns a lesson. Whether she falls off after hitting something she couldn't see, gets hit by something that couldn't see her, or gets a nice little £30 fine for it, she will learn one day. Darwin award to her.



And then she'll start driving because cycling's too dangerous.


----------



## Riding in Circles (19 Oct 2008)

ComedyPilot said:


> And she will carry on regardless till she learns a lesson. Whether she falls off after hitting something she couldn't see, gets hit by something that couldn't see her, or gets a nice little £30 fine for it, she will learn one day. Darwin award to her.



And she will claim to be blameless.


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> And she will claim to be blameless.





Kaipaith said:


> And then she'll start driving because cycling's too dangerous.



And therein lies the fundamental problem with today's society. Lots of people wanting to do as they please with little or no acceptance of the responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Bollo (19 Oct 2008)

ComedyPilot said:


> And therein lies the fundamental problem with today's society. Lots of people wanting to do as they please with little or no acceptance of the responsibility for their actions.


Way to blow the scope of the argument Com! Are you my wife?


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Oct 2008)

Not unless she is a bloke that has just been to the university of life and has (a little) common sense. No point prolonging the argument, going over the same ground. Cut to the chase and get it over with.


----------



## HLaB (19 Oct 2008)

A little off topic, three kids on bikes with no lights decided they wanted to cross the road in front of my mum's car just half an hour ago. Two of them decided not too and came to a quick stop but one eejit decided not too. I'm glad my mum wasn't going fast, a speeding driver could never had stopped in time, because I think I spotted the two that stopped before I saw the other eejit.


----------



## fossyant (20 Oct 2008)

It's not quite yet totally dark on my commute, but certainly see many many folk on bikes with just a little flasher on the front....nothing else...eek !


----------



## hackbike 6 (20 Oct 2008)

I would settle for that and any kind of hi-viz than that comedian I nearly collided with the other week,I was going fast and he was almost invisible till the last moment.Certainly tested my reflexes out.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (20 Oct 2008)

ComedyPilot said:


> And therein lies the fundamental problem with today's society. Lots of people wanting to do as they please with little or no acceptance of the responsibility for their actions.


"I know my rights". Uh-huh, now let's talk about your responsibilties. It's funny, not many want to know about that second bit. You've hit one of my personal high horses there!!


----------



## Wolf04 (27 Oct 2008)

Recently prior to the clocks going back it's been dark during my morning commute and most cyclists I see have lights on even if one had red on the front? Tonight coming home in the dark the count was one with lights and seventeen with no lighting at all, mad!


----------



## HF2300 (27 Oct 2008)

On the way in the other day came across a guy on a side street that I could only see by his fag end; couple of days ago I was stood in the street afte dark talking to a neighbour when a guy came by cycling the wrong way (one way street), without lights.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Oct 2008)

You are lucky,one of mikeys mates who I didn't see till very late was not even lit with a cigarette end.


----------



## Fab Foodie (27 Oct 2008)

Good News...

In Oxfordshire the Police are stopping and fining cyclists without lights. £30. Short Blitz, but it all helps.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (27 Oct 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> Good News...
> 
> In Oxfordshire the Police are stopping and fining cyclists without lights. £30. Short Blitz, but it all helps.



Sure I read on C+ forum a wile back that a police force was issuing a choice to cyclists without lights: turn up at the police station the next day with working lights fitted or pay a £50 fine – always thought that sounded like a pretty positive initiative


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Sure I read on C+ forum a wile back that a police force was issuing a choice to cyclists without lights: turn up at the police station the next day with working lights fitted or pay a £50 fine – always thought that sounded like a pretty positive initiative



Now that really is a good idea


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

Intelligent policing. Whatever will they think of next?


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Oct 2008)

Unintelligent policing?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Oct 2008)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Sure I read on C+ forum a wile back that a police force was issuing a choice to cyclists without lights: turn up at the police station the next day with working lights fitted or pay a £50 fine – always thought that sounded like a pretty positive initiative



Good idea. £50 is enough to get a reasonable set of lights.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Oct 2008)

£10 is enough to get a reasonable set of lights. At least the kind you need to be seen.


----------



## fofo (28 Oct 2008)

nearly crashed into an idiot with no lights on last night. I asked him why he didn't have any he told me he "couldn't afford them" He was riding a very expensive looking Bianchi with brand new wheels and tyres. I just rode on with a very bemused look on my face.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

But you saw him, didntcha? It's the ones that you didn't see that you *really* need to worry about.


----------



## fofo (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> But you saw him, didntcha? It's the ones that you didn't see that you *really* need to worry about.



only when I was nearly on top of his brand new yellow wheels- he was wearing a ninja cycling outfit; black jacket, black trousers and no reflectors


----------



## JonoB (28 Oct 2008)

*Suicidal Ninja Cyclists*

Now, after years of being on a motorbike, I can say that I do look out for cyclists too (especially now I am one ). Edinburgh is a city where you can see cyclists without lights all the time - dark suited and invisible. I've nearly hit a few over the years. The most recent gave me the excuse (I had just shouted something "direct and cutting" through the window) that he hadn't got lights because I had lights on my car. Umph. Is it me?


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2008)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Sure I read on C+ forum a wile back that a police force was issuing a choice to cyclists without lights: turn up at the police station the next day with working lights fitted or pay a £50 fine – always thought that sounded like a pretty positive initiative



Update...

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3799622.Police_fine_83_cyclists_with_no_lights/

And for balance...

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3803320.Police_check_catches_out_77_drivers/

Fine bunch of boys and girls, the local plod!


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> *The students have a point though, just because they will have to buy some lights. Does not really mean that they will put them on their bike.
> *
> This sort of thing just reinforces the negative attitude that some people have against the Police when they do something like this that they are only doing it to raise revenue.



And you solution is what exactly?
Maybe, just maybe this will "remind" some of the nations potential brain-boxes that lights and obeying a simple bit of law is valuable. Alternatively they can pay their £30 into the Police coffers. And please explain how having to buy a set of lights is funding plods Xmas piss-up?

I regularly ride at night in Oxford. IMO I'm happy to support plod on this one.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> The operation as perceived by those that it is aimed at. ''Yes, I won't have to pay a fine because I will go and buy some lights, but what are the Police doing here anyway? They should be out catching real criminals etc.''



By that token, we should ignore all forms of minor criminal activity or unsafe practice? Fine until some fresher gets killed on his way home from a night-out by an innocent driver (who will also have to live with it). There's also an antisocial angle to it.... like RLJ'ing. I guess it depends what kind of society you want to live in.
I think once in a while, RLJ'ers, speeders, unlight cyclists are fair game. Hopefully some will learn and live a bit longer.


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> What? So ignoring cyclists riding without lights is being compared with ''minor criminal activity'' whatever next.
> 
> Would be interesting to see how many of those cyclists are actually riding without lights now after being stopped. In addition how many officers were there that night.


Trivial it may be... but it's still against the law, like driving without proper lighting. There are those that think that speeding is not a criminal activity and too trivial for the Police to waste their time on.

Compared to the Policing that a normal Friday or Saturday night out in Oxford requires scraping piss-heads of the pavement the resources involved in 3 hours noise about cycle lights is small beer.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Oct 2008)

FF, it's just Lee 'fishing' again, I'm sure. He doesn't *actually* believe what he's writing, he's just winding you up. 

It's obvious really, no-one could really be as dim as that, could they? 

Oh... my mistake... he advocates riding without lights as it makes you a better rider who's more alert blah, blah, blah...


----------



## dondare (30 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> What? So ignoring cyclists riding without lights is being compared with ''minor criminal activity'' whatever next.
> 
> Would be interesting to see how many of those cyclists are actually riding without lights now after being stopped. In addition how many officers were there that night.




Not a direct response to this post, but:

In another context you regard cyclists who position themselves so that they are invisible to a driver who might then run them over as being in the wrong. But isn't that what every unlit-after-dark cyclist is doing?


----------



## BentMikey (30 Oct 2008)

In fairness to Lee, I don't think he was trying to argue riding without lights was right, but instead that it helped improve his riding skills. I got the impression he knew he'd be in the wrong if he was involved in an accident.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> You can f*** off as far as I'm concerned, if you are so dumb as not to read a whole thread in reference to the bus overtake incident, then that is your problem. But don't be posting shoot about me assuming that when I write something I am automatically fishing. What an ignorant c***.



LOL, you get very emotional when you're caught out in stupid posts. Take a chill pill sunbeam, there's no-one to blame but yourself.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (30 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Take a chill pill sunbeam,



Mr Phoebus was a Sunbeam.


----------



## swee'pea99 (30 Oct 2008)

Jesus wants you for a sunbeam. Or so I have been led to believe. I'm not sure why - perhaps someone out there can elucidate?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Whose stupid? I posted that I was fishing in that thread Tuesday night and yet I have sharky, mag and cab posting saying this, that and the other after this. If they had actually been bothered to read the whole thread they would have realised this. *But oh no they didn't and then they get all irate*.


Actually I did read the whole thread, but as Cab said in there too it sounded like you believed what you were saying, got told you were being an arse, and then changed to say that you were "Just joshing Chief, it's good for morale" (well, the forum equivalent of this).

I did say in that thread too that people would, from now on, probably just assume you're fishing again when you join in and make comments.. and lo, here we are. 

I also don't believe I, or any of the others, got particularly irate in that thread. "Irate" would require a fair degree of seriousness to have been taken at the argument/points of view put forward by you.. as they were clearly just a pile of crap there was no real issue in this respect... I think we were more amused with your grasp of reality.

Carry on, squire... but calm yourself just a little, for the sake of your health dear boy.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Oct 2008)

Woaaah there. Let's be nice, eh?
I'll agree that Lee's posts were very much in the "Devils Advocate" stylee and provocative (Lee it does seem your way), but not overly mischeivous in this case IMO. I can't comment on behavoiur on others threads. If somebodie's being offensive I'll report them, if just being an arse than ignoring is preferred. It's not raining... be joyful!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> sharky by name and by nature as well


 errrr... yeah... okay... whatever you say... does that mean that your username implies a mix of 2 of the following then :- age / shoe size / IQ?


----------

