Why no lights on?

[Harleyboy]

Firstly, I'm not an anti cyclist but would really like to try and understand why so many cyclists ride around in poor visibility with no lights on - surely it can't be the price of batteries?

This morning when every car had lights on, I passed single riders and groups and at least half of the single riders had no lights on, were in black and virtually impossible to see. Others only had rear lights on, presumably thinking it only important for those coming up behind them but what about anyone planning an overtake and therefore heading directly towards a cyclist? Some of the groups only had the guy at the back with a light on.

All new cars must have running lights so why wouldn't a cyclist in anything other than bright sunshine put lights on?

It's not meant to be a rant but if it were me out there, I'd go as high vis as possible.

[Harleyboy]

Your Dad said:

I'm guessing this was originally posted outside of Pedal Powered given the general tone of anti-cyclist comments.

I'll counter - why are they so many fkwit drivers driving round with no headlights on in poor weather conditions, or after dark when they forget that although they have DRLs on the front they have no rear lights?

I posted this in pedal powered from the off. Completely agree about car drivers but I think there is one subtle difference. Most car drivers are driving through necessity i.e. it is not seen a leisure pursuit and I think that breeds a certain complacency (or plain stupidity when it comes to lights), whereas cyclists have made a choice to go out and have possibly spent more proportionally (and perhaps literally) than many spend on cars which to me (note just my opinion)suggests that they have made an informed choice about going out for ride, what to wear etc. Hence why I'm so surprised about no lights on so many, even when the actual lamps are on the bikes.

As it is now a legal requirement for cars to have DRL,s perhaps bikes should be the same?

As for car driving idiots, they are at least surrounded by something large and metal, so if someone doesn't see them and hits them they stand a chance of survival.

[Harleyboy]

yellowjack said:

Harleyboy said:

I posted this in pedal powered from the off. Completely agree about car drivers but I think there is one subtle difference. Most car drivers are driving through necessity i.e. it is not seen a leisure pursuit and I think that breeds a certain complacency (or plain stupidity when it comes to lights), whereas cyclists have made a choice to go out and have possibly spent more proportionally (and perhaps literally) than many spend on cars which to me (note just my opinion)suggests that they have made an informed choice about going out for ride, what to wear etc. Hence why I'm so surprised about no lights on so many, even when the actual lamps are on the bikes.

As it is now a legal requirement for cars to have DRL,s perhaps bikes should be the same?

As for car driving idiots, they are at least surrounded by something large and metal, so if someone doesn't see them and hits them they stand a chance of survival.

Oh, how we've all been taken in.

Initially I took this thread, and the question, at face value. But you just lost any and all respect I had for you.

Necessity? Don't make me laugh. Most car journeys are short, and not necessary AT ALL. I walk to the newsagent across a footbridge. My neighbours mostly drive over a mile to get there via the nearest road bridge. To walk it's literally 500 YARDS. Commuting? Bicycles, buses, trains are all readily available. Believe it or not you can walk, too.


- "So I live in a rural location so most car journeys around here really are essential. Public transport isn't great and walking or cycling to the shops would take too long. I walk many miles with my dog each week so don't need reminding of the ability to walk"


Few "leisure pursuit" cyclists ride in the dark. Because it's not fun, and part of the joy of leisure cycling is seeing the world around you from a different angle, at a slower pace. So I'd strongly disagree about them making an informed choice about going out. They're highly likely to be commuting just the same as car drivers.


- "I didn't mention anyone riding in the dark, I referred to 'this morning' so thought fairly reasonably that cyclists out on a sunday morning would be leisure cyclists?"


Don't be surprised about lights being off, even when you can see them on the bikes. Cyclists are more likely to be caught out by battery failure than drivers are likely to be caught out by complete lamp failure all over the car.


- "Yes, could happen of course but on so many at the same time? Commuters (not that I see many of those) could surely carry spares in a rucksack?"


'DRLs' for bicycles?
It's not that they're impossible to have. With a modern dynamo and LED lamps they're easily achievable. But a lot of those 'nodders' or 'commuters' you see on bicycles are on very cheap bikes, from the likes of Sports Direct, Argos or Tesco. These are NEVER going to be equipped with expensive permanently 'ON' dynamo systems. Then there's a battery based system? Simply don't replace the batteries and it no longer functions. And mountain (or simply 'off-road) bikes? They might never see tarmac, only trail centres and paths away from roads, taken there and back on a car. They would be exempt from any 'DRL law' just the same as a MotoX motorcycle is. The law as it stands doesn't even require a daytime cyclist to own a set of lights back home in the kitchen drawer. It's totally unworkable, based on the fact that there's a thing called "Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations" (which incidentally also covers bicycles ) which fails to prevent dozy drivers from driving around all the way up to MOT day with failed lamps all over their vehicles, and similarly fails to prevent idiots in murky grey metallic cars from skipping merrily off to the motorway in sub 100 metre visibility on a foggy morning with absolutely no lights on at all. There's also the legacy issue with any new lighting laws. Just as it is with classic cars, and even some relatively modern ones, new regulations can not apply to them. DRLs, seat belts, fog lights? So introduce a new law for new bicycles and what happens? Riders stop buying these heavier, more expensive bikes, the retail bicycle industry in the UK collapses, riders just keep riding older, exempt bikes, and potential new cycle commuters might be put off to the extent that they just commute by car instead. Then ALL drivers suffer as congestion increases, there are net costs to the economy locally and nationally, and pollution goes through the roof.


- "Much detail - thank you. It was just a suggestion to improve safety"


As for your last sentence? That seems to defend/justify drivers being idiots. If that's not your intent, then I apologise, but it's how it reads. Try being so generous when someone you know and love is hit by a driver in a vehicle with no lights on because they pulled out, or worse, stepped out in front of something they couldn't see.


- "You referred to losing respect for me above - well this totally unnecessary comment has had the same effect. Do you really think it was a defence - more a possible explanation for their stupidity"


I genuinely believed this could be an honest, unbiased question. But it's simply another thinly veiled anti-cyclist thread that we can now see through. You clearly have no insight into why people make a decision to ride a bike. For many it is no choice at all. My son cannot afford to learn to drive, and definitely cannot afford to run a car. He needs to get to work in the next town. There are buses, and trains that'll get him there. But timetables are against many of his shifts. The bus adds nearly an hour to each end of his working day, the train runs more often but he relies on a bus to get him to the station. Then if he finishes a shift at 10pm (which he will do three days this week) the buses have stopped running. He could walk, but it would take well over an hour and he's on his feet for a ten hour shift so not ideal. Cycling is probably his most viable solution, but would take him down a relatively narrow 50mph road that is chockers with impatient sociopaths in their metal boxes. He'll have lights, of course. I'll make sure of that. But unless you're volunteering to give him a lift there, and back, then he he has no real alternatives to the bike from which to make an "informed choice".

Many, many car journeys are made to get to and from "leisure pursuits". Shopping, the gym, the nail bar, the coffee shop, bars, restaurants, the cinema. Even "just going for a drive". NONE of those pursuits is NECESSARY. AT ALL. I firmly believe that your argument for cars/against bikes has fallen flat on it's arse at the first examination. Over to you...


- "The cyclists I see are leisure cyclists, at the weekends, mostly in groups and cycling around the back roads. My comments were made regarding this type of cyclist not those who commute, can't afford a car etc. This is not a car vs. bike rant and I really don't see why you think it is? I have a motorbike, a mountain bike and my daughter has a horse that she rides on the roads (high vis jacket with light and rug on the horse btw). I am not anti everyone that isn't in a car. Everyone has a right to be on the road but they should be safe. If a rider chooses to ride with no lights, they are putting themselves at risk, which seems unnecessary in most cases. I'm sorry that you got so wound up by my comments - really not meant that way at all. Anyway, it's a monday morning, I need a coffee so will leave it at that. Have a good week and be safe out there whether driving, walking or riding. And sorry for the poorly structured response - I must get better at this forum stuff!!"

[Harleyboy]

yellowjack said:

...then I'll happily withdraw/re-assess some of the inferences I drew from earlier, less detailed posts. I'm not after an internet fight, nor are you, so it seems. I wasn't 'wound up' or otherwise pissed off by you particularly, but I'm sure you'll appreciate that a) I refrained from being directly abusive to you, and b) there is a very vocal core of cyclist-hating Neanderthals within the PH community who need challenging. I suspected (wrongly, as it turns out) that you were one of them. Sorry!

I totally agree that everyone should take responsibility for their safety if it is something they can control. Such as buying lights and carrying spare batteries. I don't think we're on opposite sides of the fence after all...

Thanks and yep, think we're on the same side of the fence! I appreciate your comments and I will make a note to add more detail in the future