Proportion of cyclists without lights

[pshore]

We get plenty of "cyclists don't have lights" comments thrown around and sometimes newspaper articles saying how many cyclists were caught. Rarely do they say how many cyclists were complying with the law.

I fell upon this Doset Police web page which does say how many were complying at four different locations. I believe this was after a campaign. It's useful to have figures to point at that are not filtered by a local paper.

My calculations from their figures show 88% compliance, 12% without lights.

http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=5122
(Are the locations in bold near the bottom in popular student areas ?)


Its difficult to pin down a figure for my own area, Cambridge, but I think compliance has gone up in recent years. However, in the city centre I see a lot of rear lights on bikes that are very weak and less effective than the reflector; hidden by a long coat; or badly fitted so spin round easily when knocked. Occasionally, I'll let someone know their light is not visible for some reason and they are genuinely thankful for the heads up and stop to immediately fix.

The further you get from the city centre the more the compliance goes up. It is 100% compliance on my dark rural roads with most having backup lights and additional hi-viz.

 

[marinyork]

I agree with your post, except the fairy bit. That's out of order. A fairy is still legal whether you like it or not.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Being 100% compliant with lighting requirements (and lots more) I have nothing to 'fear' about police initiatives, and welcome their fining of ninjas.

 

[marinyork]

I do a lot of night time cycling and when I did counts in the past the numbers were lower than people would expect. In anycase a lot of the ninjas are on the pavements, a point people frequently overlook. I'd really rather they didn't do it, but the overall risk is somewhat lower than a lot of people make out. The number of cars with broken lights of various sorts is also very much higher than people generally believe also and I don't mean people who have them broken for a day or two and fix them, I've seen the same people with broken lights day after day sometimes.

 

[Banjo]

Around town I would say a very high proportion of stealth ninjas out on the open road hardly any as they are probably decomposing in the ditch.

You couldnt pay me enough to risk it .

 

[pshore]

What's lighting compliance like in London ?

I see a lot of comments re lights and RLJ that are abviously about London cyclists.

 

[downfader]

I did my own blog thing on this a long while back and in the main they were lit up. The other day I ride into work and counted about 20 cyclists in all and only saw 1 fella without lights... I actually lost count tbh

IIRC the Argus newspaper over in Brighton ran a peice on lights and fines back in October last year, and Bournmouth Echo did one in November (though they decided to make a slight at cyclists for "not complying with the highway code" for other reasons less serious than lighting)

Figures tend to be 10-20% of cyclists without lights, depending on where you stop them. Locallity is a big effect, near schools, colleges and unis the number of unlit rises, same with poorer council estates. In more affluent areas, or as already said out in the sticks its pretty much nearer 100% compliance with lights.

 

[byegad]

Well 100% of the yoofs on BMX bikes in our area are without lights. Ride 1/2 mile out of the village and 100% of cyclist do have lights.

 

[pshore]

Interesting stuff. That does tend to tally with my observations around Cambridge. They have several sting operations a year here (actually I've only seen one this year) which has had some effect.

I'm not sure if those without lights realise it, but their reflectors are doing a lot of good to prevent them from being invisible in dark city corners. They are so good, I notice them way before cheap lights.

Recently, I've seen comments about mandatory built in lights starting to creep in on discussion forums. I am not sold on that yet though.

 

[Davidc]

Most cyclists I see on roads seem to have lights, but there are a lot of unlit roads near here. Poor lights and failing batteries are a big problem though.

My lighting is better than just legal and that's what concerns me. I intend to be seen.

 

[suecsi]

I commute from a not very nice area full of council estates about a mile from Heathrow to a more affluent area with a university and FE college.

The home end is full of unlit folks, who ride on the main A315 Staines Road, generally rather portly chaps, but 9/10 have Hi-Vis on - not because they bought it to be seen, but because their job at Heathrow requires it anyway so they would walk, drive or bus in it as well as cycle. The 1/10 is completely unlit and is cycling back from the off licence or the 24 hour Tesco with cans of lager.

The other extreme is very well lit commuters passing along the A315 who don't turn off for the airport and head towards Hounslow and possibly onwards. They have the full Hi-Vis and several sets of lights including front and rear helmet.

At the work end, there are the full hi-vis contigent, and lots of students. There is a fair few old school sit up and beg Dutch style bikes as well.

 

[bauldbairn]

Since I started shift work(last year) I'm surprised at the high level of "Ninjas" I see commuting - I'd say it's one in three round here.
I have varying start times from 4.30am and finish times up to 1.30am and it's definitely the early starters who are willing to run the risk of not being seen - and sadly they mostly ride on the roads unlit.
I'm not condoning pavement cycling but there are so many canal, cycle paths and parks for them to cycle through(round here) - there's virtually no need to use any roads.
I don't know if it's because they finish in the daylight that they don't seem to bother about lights. Cycling to work on an unlit bike on unlit roads is suicidal.
How much are a set of "be seen" lights now - I'm sure I've seen posts on here for a couple of quid a set.

I'd back the Police to pull and warn these unlit cyclists - maybe they just don't realise the danger they're putting themselves in?

 

[frank9755]

maybe they just don't realise the danger they're putting themselves in?

Personally I always use lights if it is dark or even dim (as does the overwhelming majority of people on my (London) commute), however the accident statistics I've seen show that unlit cyclists do not in fact have higher accident rates than those with lights.

 

[Riding in Circles]

In this area I would say one in three cyclists use lights at night, shocking but true. Of those who do not, 100% can confidently pass a police vehicle with absolutely no chance of being challenged in any way, it is not illegal if they are never prosecuted and it is not dangerous if no one ever says it is.

 

[661-Pete]

The further you get from the city centre the more the compliance goes up. It is 100% compliance on my dark rural roads with most having backup lights and additional hi-viz.

Good reason for this. In my area at least, go on unlit rural lanes on a moonless night, without a front light, you'll be in the ditch. And even with legal front lights you can come unstuck. I once found myself rattling up a farm track in mistake for the road. And I had a perfectly compliant front: it just wasn't bright enough. I got myself a better one!

I agree with your post, except the fairy bit. That's out of order. A fairy is still legal whether you like it or not.

What on earth is all this about, Marin?