glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Why would I hit a child?
Daytime running lights
- Thread starter Thegreatthor
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Why would I hit a child?
winjim
Smash the cistern
So all this explaining to the parents if I hit a child has got nothing to do with me as a driver having headlights on or not, but the kid needs to be lit up like a Christmas tree?
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Interestingly there was a program on telly at the weekend about the brain. One point made was the fact that all decisions are made on a fundamentally emotional basis. We may like to think that we are swayed by evidence but this is generally just window dressing, or adopted after the fact as justification.
In this case we have two fundamentally emotional points of view.
One is a gut reaction against the safety-fication of cycling and consequent victim blaming, and a yearning for a utility cycling utopia where everyone from children to grandparents sedately meet their transport needs on two wheels wearing just their every day clothes. To the tune of the New World Symphony possibly.
On the other hand there is the gut reaction to the feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness on the road in the face of dangerous motor vehicles and their operators, and a desire to redress this balance by the use of any safety equipment available.
I'm reminded of a story I heard about the physicicst Niels Bohr who had a lucky horseshoe on the wall in his office. Someone said "Surely you don't believe in that superstitious nonsense". Bohr replied "No, no of course I don't. But they do say that it works even if you don't believe in it."
As to whether you should drive on a lit street with a 30 mph limit with sidelights or full lights. Meh. I doubt it makes a ha'porth of difference either way. As long as you are not using full beams and are observing the limit and generally driving responsibly. But no, I don't have any evidence for that.
In this case we have two fundamentally emotional points of view.
One is a gut reaction against the safety-fication of cycling and consequent victim blaming, and a yearning for a utility cycling utopia where everyone from children to grandparents sedately meet their transport needs on two wheels wearing just their every day clothes. To the tune of the New World Symphony possibly.
On the other hand there is the gut reaction to the feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness on the road in the face of dangerous motor vehicles and their operators, and a desire to redress this balance by the use of any safety equipment available.
I'm reminded of a story I heard about the physicicst Niels Bohr who had a lucky horseshoe on the wall in his office. Someone said "Surely you don't believe in that superstitious nonsense". Bohr replied "No, no of course I don't. But they do say that it works even if you don't believe in it."
As to whether you should drive on a lit street with a 30 mph limit with sidelights or full lights. Meh. I doubt it makes a ha'porth of difference either way. As long as you are not using full beams and are observing the limit and generally driving responsibly. But no, I don't have any evidence for that.
Last edited:
I have to agree with @glasgowcyclist here. His POV is perfectly valid.
Even in the hypothetical situation that he hit someone whilst driving without headlights on as the street was lit with streetlights, it would be almost impossible to use that as an argument for prosecution as the highway code states that that behaviour is perfectly acceptable. It might stray into that area however, dependent on the type of street lighting.
For example there are many residential streets now that use much lower spread, lower emission lighting. if an expert were to back up the point of view that the street lighting was insufficient and the driver was thus driving carelessly by not using his headlights, this would alter the perspective.
In any event, as I stated previously it goes back to - just because you can, it doesn't follow that you should. BUT it also follows that if @glasgowcyclist is driving down a perfectly well lit main road, then lights on or off doesn't form part of the issue. One could argue that it is better to have lights on at night because that is what other road users expect. But... it also follows that by not having them on, his car draws attention through the absence of headlights and is thus more visible than if he had them on.
Visibility and protection are both emotive topics and there are strong opinions on both sides. But we need to try to back up those opinions with validation. Oh yes it is / Oh no it isn't is great for pantomime but not for discussion. I have stated a few times that I haven't seen studies suggesting that it is more dangerous to do something. That doesn't mean that it isn't It just means that there are no studies, or that I haven't seen them. We all want to be safer and treated nicely on the roads, so lets try to treat each other nicely in here too.
Even in the hypothetical situation that he hit someone whilst driving without headlights on as the street was lit with streetlights, it would be almost impossible to use that as an argument for prosecution as the highway code states that that behaviour is perfectly acceptable. It might stray into that area however, dependent on the type of street lighting.
For example there are many residential streets now that use much lower spread, lower emission lighting. if an expert were to back up the point of view that the street lighting was insufficient and the driver was thus driving carelessly by not using his headlights, this would alter the perspective.
In any event, as I stated previously it goes back to - just because you can, it doesn't follow that you should. BUT it also follows that if @glasgowcyclist is driving down a perfectly well lit main road, then lights on or off doesn't form part of the issue. One could argue that it is better to have lights on at night because that is what other road users expect. But... it also follows that by not having them on, his car draws attention through the absence of headlights and is thus more visible than if he had them on.
Visibility and protection are both emotive topics and there are strong opinions on both sides. But we need to try to back up those opinions with validation. Oh yes it is / Oh no it isn't is great for pantomime but not for discussion. I have stated a few times that I haven't seen studies suggesting that it is more dangerous to do something. That doesn't mean that it isn't It just means that there are no studies, or that I haven't seen them. We all want to be safer and treated nicely on the roads, so lets try to treat each other nicely in here too.
gbb
Squire
- Location
- Peterborough
TBF, on the subject of using only sidelights, not headlamps in a 30mph zone, i can immediately think of a situation where i absolutely wouldnt use just side lights...on a day to day (or night to night to be precise) basis.
My street has footpaths between houses that are 4ft away from the road and at 90 degrees to the road. You have to watch especially for kids running out, even in the daytime. Sidelights only will give any pedestrians less notice you're incoming, headlight will give them more warning (bearing in mind they cannot see the road or whats approaching until they are 4 ft away...2 steps and they're in the road if theyre not concentrating, as many people don't, as we all know.
So its not a concrete scenario (sidelights in 30mph roads), there are situations where i'd consider it more dangerous to do so.....and there lies the problem again, different scenarios, different locations, different peoples view on things, etc etc etc. You'll never get consistency in each scenario.
I'm a realist, for ever set of rules, there are going to be situations where the rule won't neccessarily fit.
My street has footpaths between houses that are 4ft away from the road and at 90 degrees to the road. You have to watch especially for kids running out, even in the daytime. Sidelights only will give any pedestrians less notice you're incoming, headlight will give them more warning (bearing in mind they cannot see the road or whats approaching until they are 4 ft away...2 steps and they're in the road if theyre not concentrating, as many people don't, as we all know.
So its not a concrete scenario (sidelights in 30mph roads), there are situations where i'd consider it more dangerous to do so.....and there lies the problem again, different scenarios, different locations, different peoples view on things, etc etc etc. You'll never get consistency in each scenario.
I'm a realist, for ever set of rules, there are going to be situations where the rule won't neccessarily fit.
And then of course there is the ever growing group of people who seem unable to change the bulb in their headlights. Down a darker (but streetlit) road near me, I nearly got taken out by a transit van doing an impression of a motorcycle. That's how dim some of those streetlights are on a rainy winter night.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Shouldn't you have seen him in your headlights? Or have slowed down so you could stop within what you could see? You might want to think before answering that lights misled you into riding or driving blind...
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
My bicycle has lights, but I wouldn't describe them as headlights. Also from 10mph there isn't much to slow down from, when you have what appears to be a motorbike zooming towards you. I was positioned as for a motorbike, it just turned out that there was a Tw*t in a white transit van there rather than a bike, and thus no space for me to go between the parked cars and his non-illuminated van.
I have said this before. This is why visibility for cyclists is important. A cyclist is going slower. A motorist is going faster and thus has less time to react. The white van man saw me, he just assumed that I would be able to turn into flat stanley to go past him. I was riding prime-ish due to a terrible road surface and the tendency for morons to try and overtake me on that particular road, and having seen him as a motorbike left plenty of room for a motor bike without compromising my position.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Sorry but I think your headlights sound a bit shoot if you cannot distinguish a white van from a motorbike with them, whether it has two lights on or not!
I really don't understand the logic above. How does this near-miss show that visibility for cyclists is important? The white van man saw you but was a crap driver. I think it shows more that lights to see by (proper headlights/front lights) are far more important than be-seen lights (like DRLs) because some motorists will see a cyclist and still put them in danger; and that we must not rely on identifying things from what marker lights they're showing, which is a big danger of DRLs and their encouragement to only look for the lights.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Lots of idiots out there using lights when they really shouldn't and not using then when they should. Also a number who mistake lights being on with visibility, and not being on, being invisible. Some seem to think if their lights are on, then safety is taken care of. That is clearly bollocks.
DCBassman
Guru
- Location
- The lumpy far South West
As I said, I don't have headlights. I have a single Cateye Volt 400. It's quite bright. However, try as I might, I can't get it to illuminate things coming round bends, nor to light up the road through parked cars. For that which the beam cannot illumine I am dependent on ambient lighting and the lights of the oncoming vehicle, as is everyone else. As I keep trying to explain, real life doesn't equate to the binary armchair in which you seem to live.
Further, when confronted with a very bright oncoming single headlight, that light tends to eliminate my ability to see anything else other than the oncoming headlight, particularly as I am now slightly myopic. In the dark, it is almost impossible to see what is behind a headlight until right at the last minute.
As you mentioned - the white van man saw me but was a crap driver. The reason that he saw me:-
- Volt 400 light on the front of the bike
- Reflective rucksack straps.
- Reflective pedals.
- Location
- Glasgow
Mod Note:
35!! Personal attacks, OT posts, quotes of them, various bickering, have been deleted.
This is the Advocacy section, not the Politics.
Please behave
or thread ban will be forthcoming 
35!! Personal attacks, OT posts, quotes of them, various bickering, have been deleted.
This is the Advocacy section, not the Politics.
Please behave
or thread ban will be forthcoming
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Kids running out in front of vehicles has nothing to do with the visibility of the car. The kid just isn't paying attention to traffic, most of the time they haven't even looked sideways when running across the road. Headlights / sidelights makes no difference. In fact kids running out in front of cars , has the same cause as drivers pulling out in front of cyclists, their attention is elsewhere. Visibility doesn't come in to it.
This is why much lower speed limits on residential roads should be promoted and rolled out. You can't stop kids running out into the road when playing on a residential street.
Last edited:
