Bongman said:
Its not the concept that cyclists should have lights I disagree with. I don't, of course cyclists at night benefit from lights. Its the conclusion drawn from one 'study', at one time, on one road, on one evening.
Every cyclist I saw on Stretten Avenue last night had lights on. From that I conclude that every cyclist in Cambridge has lights on at night. Clearly, thats absurd, but it is only as absurd as the conclusions of this article.
And when a journalist draws such silly conclusions from patchy data like that, it matters. Take this quote there:
Mill Road is straight, long, narrow, busy, and light. Very light. Even wearing black without any lights a cyclist will be visible there to any motorist who is actually looking; it isn't a shady suburban street, it isn't a dark country road, it is lined with shops spitting light on to the street, well illuminated takeaways, and ample street lighting. It is implied here that cyclists are responsible for the problems this road has because at night they're not using lights, when really the issue is that the road is narrow and extremely congested. Its an accident blackspot for cyclists for that reason, because most cyclists in Cambridge are quite incredibly passive in their road positioning they basically get squeezed out.
The impact of an article like this is entirely negative; yes, of course cyclists should have lights. No, the fact that quite a few of them don't on this street isn't the point, in fact when one looks at the stated goals of those claiming this figure, thats a complete red herring.
