Does anyone have any figures on how much more danger an unlit cyclist poses a. To themselves. b. To other road users?
Please lets not...what is this pre-occupation with the production of empirical "evidence" which is so vague and sterilised as to be often irrelevant anyhow.
What's wrong with using intuitive learning, in the old days we used to call it common sense.
If its dark, its common sense to use lights, suggesting that we shouldn't because some Oxbridge graduate has yet to spend a few million of central government funds taking a look at it...is just daft.
I don't care if recent studies suggest that the use of lights defers responsibility to the rider...riders should be responsible for themselves, again...common sense.
sorry, bit ranty...no offence