Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done
Discussion
Ares said:
PF62 said:
Killboy said:
Although as you can see some people were not wearing the new mandatory high viz.
Their risk, their decision but not a sensible one if they decide not to.But it is their life, so their choice. However I don't understand why anyone would not do something which is no inconvenience but could help keep you alive, but if they don't value it highly who am I to argue.
bigdom said:
Plenty of posters keep harping on about hi-viz. Plenty of studies have shown the bright colour makes no difference. It’s why, even in summer daylight the advice is to ride with lights, as the colour makes little difference. However, the reflective parts are highly beneficial.
So wear reflective high viz. It can do not harm and might help so what is the downside.Edited by PF62 on Thursday 15th November 22:10
PF62 said:
So wear reflective high viz. It can do not harm and might help so what is the downside.
I have no need, and I don’t need the extra layer. My autumn/winter cycling clothing either has reflective panels, or is built into the fabric, black in the day, all lit by any vehicle lights at night.Edited by PF62 on Thursday 15th November 22:10
nickfrog said:
I agree that defective car headlights is a far bigger problem than cyclists not being visible enough. And that's talking as a driver (not that it makes any difference if you are a reasonably balanced individual). Something needs to be done.
In terms of numbers of instances, agree. No idea on proportions though.It all depends, the same journey I did other day where two out two cyclists were without lights, another day three out of three lit up like Christmas trees.
Same destinations but different route, 18 bike users, all bar one lit up. That one was a student on campus, not lit up, riding like a cock. But as before unrepresentative anecdotal evidence means little.
bigdom said:
PF62 said:
So wear reflective high viz. It can do not harm and might help so what is the downside.
I have no need, and I don’t need the extra layer. My autumn/winter cycling clothing either has reflective panels, or is built into the fabric, black in the day, all lit by any vehicle lights at night.Edited by PF62 on Thursday 15th November 22:10
bigdom said:
I’ll double check and report back tomorrow, I took the car today, although I plan to cycle in to the office
As a man of my word. On my 90 minute cycle, I encountered 14 other people on bicycles. 10 being on the road, 4 on cycle paths. Of the 10 on the road, I observed 2 with no lights - this was after the street lights had gone off (technically not illegal, most other road users were still using lights).It's pretty grotty today, and not something I would have chosen to do. I'm not sure whether this has any bearing, although both of these people were wearing Jeans, unlike the rest of the Lycra clad gang, who were fully lit up.
I still cannot get my head around people who only switch on side lights in cars, except of course, the side lights/fog light look being sported by a couple of cool kids
However, as mentioned before, the amount of lighting infringements by motorised Vehicles meant I soon ran out of fingers and toes counting. Whilst I'm sure in some circumstances, a bicycle with no lights might prove problematic, a 1.5 ton> car/van/lorry not being seen, confused for a motorcycle etc, will do far more damage.
nickfrog said:
I agree that defective car headlights is a far bigger problem than cyclists not being visible enough. And that's talking as a driver (not that it makes any difference if you are a reasonably balanced individual). Something needs to be done.
Went to pass a parked car yesterday evening (parked mostly on the path), on dark unlit road, the only oncoming traffic was a motorbike sat way over to the left in the oncoming lane......... Or so thought. Ares said:
The girlfriend comment tells a story as to the people you saw.
As for cycle paths, this time of year they are dreadful, especially in the dark. Littered with debris, slippy and with unsighted holes.
Doesn't detract from idiots riding without lights in the dark, but if I was out in the dark, I wouldn't use cycle lanes unless they were totally independent carriageways.
The cycle path I was referring to is as you describe, and one I use. It is a separate wide lane on a shared pavement that is perfectly surfaced, well lit, has nobody walking on the pavement, and has only two junctions and no driveways over a length of a mile or so. As for cycle paths, this time of year they are dreadful, especially in the dark. Littered with debris, slippy and with unsighted holes.
Doesn't detract from idiots riding without lights in the dark, but if I was out in the dark, I wouldn't use cycle lanes unless they were totally independent carriageways.
will_ said:
PF62 said:
It can do not harm and might help so what is the downside.
That all sounds well and good, but why does it only ever seem to apply to what cyclists "should" be doing? Or do you also apply it in all other areas of your life?lyonspride said:
nickfrog said:
I agree that defective car headlights is a far bigger problem than cyclists not being visible enough. And that's talking as a driver (not that it makes any difference if you are a reasonably balanced individual). Something needs to be done.
Went to pass a parked car yesterday evening (parked mostly on the path), on dark unlit road, the only oncoming traffic was a motorbike sat way over to the left in the oncoming lane......... Or so thought. FiF said:
Making assumptions based on limited information is always a bit dodgy. Those two dipped headlights could be a car, say, a fair distance away, or a twin headlight motorcycle a lot bloody closer.
I've never mistaken a twin headlight motorcycle for a car. Ever. I'm not sure anyone with adequate eyesight to legally drive would either. 80sMatchbox said:
FiF said:
Making assumptions based on limited information is always a bit dodgy. Those two dipped headlights could be a car, say, a fair distance away, or a twin headlight motorcycle a lot bloody closer.
I've never mistaken a twin headlight motorcycle for a car. Ever. I'm not sure anyone with adequate eyesight to legally drive would either. 80sMatchbox said:
FiF said:
Making assumptions based on limited information is always a bit dodgy. Those two dipped headlights could be a car, say, a fair distance away, or a twin headlight motorcycle a lot bloody closer.
I've never mistaken a twin headlight motorcycle for a car. Ever. I'm not sure anyone with adequate eyesight to legally drive would either. More anecdotal evidence. Left home at 7.30 and the plethora of cars with inadequate lighting was amusing (No lights on, one light working, sidelights on and fog lights on etc etc). Difficult to tell but perhaps 25% of cars weren't compliant. I only saw three bikes so a poor sample. They all had adequate lighting but I won't draw conclusions apart perhaps that being a moron has little to do with the vehicle used, which is stating the obvious.
Just for balance, I regular see the same trio of hobby cyclists who ride in quite a close huddle on my country lane commute to work.
They have such a number and variety of flashing lights on them, that when I first see them ahead it appears someone is driving a Christmas tree to work.
They have such a number and variety of flashing lights on them, that when I first see them ahead it appears someone is driving a Christmas tree to work.
WinstonWolf said:
bigdom said:
WinstonWolf said:
I like that top, what is it?
Bioracer winter jacket
It's always a case of damned either way when it comes to cyclists v drivers.
lyonspride said:
WinstonWolf said:
bigdom said:
WinstonWolf said:
I like that top, what is it?
Bioracer winter jacketIt's always a case of damned either way when it comes to cyclists v drivers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff