Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done
Discussion
FakeConcern said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
FakeConcern said:
echazfraz said:
Their bikes are crap and squeaky. They're not wearing helmets or "cycling gear" They are not cyclists - they're people who need to use a bike to get to work.
You are not going to convince these people to use lights (in my opinion).
I have to agree with this as in the same way most people on PH are interested in their car and will make sure they don't only have the DRLs on at night or in fog and don't drive until the next MOT with only one head light a cyclist (as in an enthusiast) will keep the bike in tip top condition and if lights are needed they will be present.You are not going to convince these people to use lights (in my opinion).
mygoldfishbowl said:
FakeConcern said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
FakeConcern said:
echazfraz said:
Their bikes are crap and squeaky. They're not wearing helmets or "cycling gear" They are not cyclists - they're people who need to use a bike to get to work.
You are not going to convince these people to use lights (in my opinion).
I have to agree with this as in the same way most people on PH are interested in their car and will make sure they don't only have the DRLs on at night or in fog and don't drive until the next MOT with only one head light a cyclist (as in an enthusiast) will keep the bike in tip top condition and if lights are needed they will be present.You are not going to convince these people to use lights (in my opinion).
S100HP said:
Riding to work this morning I nearly got side swiped by a woman pulling out of a side road. I tapped on her window and asked if she'd seen I was there. She said I needed a brighter light as she'd not seen me. I use a Exposure Strada with an output of 800 lumens! https://www.evanscycles.com/exposure-strada-mk5-fr...
What else can I do?!
Might I suggest some lights on the helmet, it provides 2 reference points. I use the Strada 1200 up front, and tracers on the helmet. What else can I do?!
I find the latter helps greatly when you want to change lane etc, as the other road users can see your head turning and are more prepared for any movement. I tend to find most hang back a bit once you’ve performed your first lifesaver manoeuvre.
FiF said:
I just drove from Hartlebury to Worcester Uni campus and back, 26 mile round trip, I only saw two people on cycles the whole journey. Neither had any lights lit nor any reflective gear. Factually that is the absolute truth. Random anecdotes are so useless aren't they?
Not if they support the anti cyclist agenda. Ares said:
DoubleD said:
If you are riding a bicycle then you are a cyclist. A bit like if you drive a car then you are the driver.
Value of car has nothing to do with the drivers skill. But someone who is more interested in driving is more likely to be concentrating while driving.
It's nothing to do with value. It's to do with action and attitude. Both (and all) modes of transport have huge variation.Value of car has nothing to do with the drivers skill. But someone who is more interested in driving is more likely to be concentrating while driving.
Everyone on a bike is a cyclist, in the same way that the 80yr old lady that hasn't driven for 40yrs is as much of a driver as Lewis Hamilton when she gets behind the car that last moved or passed it's MOT in the late 1980s.
Ares said:
Don't forget that you can't tell if your rear light fails, or turns itself off. It's not like a car where you get a dashboard light warming you. If someone has a front but no rear, it's likely it has turned itself off, or failed. The polite thing to do is let them know....in the same way you would alert a driver that has forgotten to put their lights on and driving round on DRLs.
All the more reason to check periodically and back it up with some reflective clothing. I’m sometimes a cyclist too and would never go out in the dark and rely solely on one light. We've got a small communal toolbox in the office which includes some spanners and hexes, a pump, spare inner tubes etc. This year we put a couple of sets of cheap lamps in do if anyone gets caught out with flat batteries / lamp dropped off / got nicked, they can borrow them overnight to get home. They've been used a few times this year already, so definitely a worthwhile buy :-)
Ares said:
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
No, it wasn’t! Have never ever said such thing, but of course you know that and you just stick it in a post so one of your other chums can pick up on it later and it becomes yet more ‘anti cyclist folklore’. If I’m so easy to put down why do you all seem to resort to lying.
Pretty ironic that your first 2 posts in this thread start with you misrepresenting people's opinions and motivations..... 
In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:
Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.
Within no time the troops will have been fully mobilised and the following will be posted.
The OP will be deemed an idiot, a bigot, a mental patient, a bully and stupid.
heebeegeebeee will claim the OP and anyone posting in the slightest support of their point of view a hypocrite as they all speed in their cars and will then try and deflect the thread with a load of random links to something to do with drivers that has little or no relevance to the thread.
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
nickfrog will call the OP out as being mentally ill and tell everyone to ignore them
Ares will say he doesn't see any evidence of threat the OP is talking about an post a link to some load of s
te he's bought for his bike. He will return later to accuse the OP of starting yet another anti-cyclist thread despite the fact the OP might only have ever started 3 threads on cycling and another 20 in the F1 section for instance... i.e. all the normal behaviour of being on a forum where the idea is... to promote discussion 
yellowjack will arrive and tell the OP he is plain wrong and post five or so extreme examples of why some drivers are t
ts and tell us all that that is more important!yonex will tell the OP he's a troll and to leave the forum as obviously he owns it
Winston Wolf will tell everyone cycling is the future so we'd better get used to their behaviour
funkyrobot will pop by to tell everyone the OP is deranged and that all cyclists are wonderful salt of the earth types
80sMatchbox will appear and reference some obscure post from a previous thread that didn't actually get posted the way he remembers it, but as it's now been stated by a cyclist on PH it's folklore.
Killboy will claim the OP is a liar with no evidence as to why and then start offering to get involved in some obscure bet involving him with his obviously completely unbiased point of view coming up with perfectly fair and evenly collated 'evidence' to support his side of the argument.
After a while they will start mutually back slapping each other and using the word troll a lot.
They will eventually post a lot of conjecture about the OP and other posters' opinions being anti all cyclists and make up a few choice facts that when challenged they will point out that it seems that way or it's obvious it's that etc.etc.
Eventually the thread will descend into arguing about:
- red light jumping - they justify this by saying cyclists can make up their own mind as to whether it's safe or not, but they don't extend this courtesy to drivers over choosing to speed as they wouldn't be able to use their hypocrites argument in that case... which ironically makes them hypocrites
- riding on the pavement - they will tell you this is perfectly OK as the police take no notice and only the occasional child gets run over
- riding without lights - at least one of them claims to be able to see cyclists perfectly well when they're not lit at night so the drivers who can't see them must be unfit to drive
- close passing - they will insist that every driver should leave a chasm between themselves and a cyclist, but that it is perfectly OK for them to cycle between two buses as they are in control of that manoeuvre!
- left turning lorries - it is always the fault of the truck driver no matter what the cyclists did or didn't do as trucks drivers are nasty evil people
- cycle lanes - they don't use them as they are not designed exactly to the the poor little darlings' liking - like the roads are designed perfectly for drivers
- cutting up traffic and relying on drivers to avoid them - it's called filtering and it's perfectly OK
Put simply this thread is about cyclists not having lights at night or not wearing hi-vis. There are plenty that fall into that category as most of us normal people realise and the thread was trying to discuss how to persuade them otherwise. It is not about drivers not seeing them when they're lit, car headlights or anything else and if you wish to post threads on those subjects please do, but how about you actually focus on the subject rather than suggesting in some poor attempt at scoring a point that I've got a mental illness or anything else like that when you have probably got no idea what a real mental illness and how serious it can be!
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th November 22:42
cb1965 said:
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
This is what I actually wrote -"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."
I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
This is what I actually wrote -"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."
I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.
cb1965 said:
Trolling is not just having a different opinion to you about some cyclists. You need to learn that. You and your chums as usual are making excuses for cycling without lights by trivialising it and claiming it doesn't happen. It's your usual modus operandi on any thread where a section of the people that use bikes are in any way criticised. Note I refrained from using the word cyclists there before you have another hissy fit!
In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:
Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.
Within no time the troops will have been fully mobilised and the following will be posted.
The OP will be deemed an idiot, a bigot, a mental patient, a bully and stupid.
heebeegeebeee will claim the OP and anyone posting in the slightest support of their point of view a hypocrite as they all speed in their cars and will then try and deflect the thread with a load of random links to something to do with drivers that has little or no relevance to the thread.
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
nickfrog will call the OP out as being mentally ill and tell everyone to ignore them
Ares will say he doesn't see any evidence of threat the OP is talking about an post a link to some load of ste he's bought for his bike. He will return later to accuse the OP of starting yet another anti-cyclist thread despite the fact the OP might only have ever started 3 threads on cycling and another 20 in the F1 section for instance... i.e. all the normal behaviour of being on a forum where the idea is... to promote discussion
yellowjack will arrive and tell the OP he is plain wrong and post five or so extreme examples of why some drivers are tts and tell us all that that is more important!
yonex will tell the OP he's a troll and to leave the forum as obviously he owns it
Winston Wolf will tell everyone cycling is the future so we'd better get used to their behaviour
funkyrobot will pop by to tell everyone the OP is deranged and that all cyclists are wonderful salt of the earth types
80sMatchbox will appear and reference some obscure post from a previous thread that didn't actually get posted the way he remembers it, but as it's now been stated by a cyclist on PH it's folklore.
Killboy will claim the OP is a liar with no evidence as to why and then start offering to get involved in some obscure bet involving him with his obviously completely unbiased point of view coming up with perfectly fair and evenly collated 'evidence' to support his side of the argument.
After a while they will start mutually back slapping each other and using the word troll a lot.
They will eventually post a lot of conjecture about the OP and other posters' opinions being anti all cyclists and make up a few choice facts that when challenged they will point out that it seems that way or it's obvious it's that etc.etc.
Eventually the thread will descend into arguing about:
Put simply this thread is about cyclists not having lights at night or not wearing hi-vis. There are plenty that fall into that category as most of us normal people realise and the thread was trying to discuss how to persuade them otherwise. It is not about drivers not seeing them when they're lit, car headlights or anything else and if you wish to post threads on those subjects please do, but how about you actually focus on the subject rather than suggesting in some poor attempt at scoring a point that I've got a mental illness or anything else like that when you have probably got no idea what a real mental illness and how serious it can be!
You ok, hun?In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:
Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.
Within no time the troops will have been fully mobilised and the following will be posted.
The OP will be deemed an idiot, a bigot, a mental patient, a bully and stupid.
heebeegeebeee will claim the OP and anyone posting in the slightest support of their point of view a hypocrite as they all speed in their cars and will then try and deflect the thread with a load of random links to something to do with drivers that has little or no relevance to the thread.
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
nickfrog will call the OP out as being mentally ill and tell everyone to ignore them
Ares will say he doesn't see any evidence of threat the OP is talking about an post a link to some load of s
te he's bought for his bike. He will return later to accuse the OP of starting yet another anti-cyclist thread despite the fact the OP might only have ever started 3 threads on cycling and another 20 in the F1 section for instance... i.e. all the normal behaviour of being on a forum where the idea is... to promote discussion yellowjack will arrive and tell the OP he is plain wrong and post five or so extreme examples of why some drivers are t
ts and tell us all that that is more important!yonex will tell the OP he's a troll and to leave the forum as obviously he owns it
Winston Wolf will tell everyone cycling is the future so we'd better get used to their behaviour
funkyrobot will pop by to tell everyone the OP is deranged and that all cyclists are wonderful salt of the earth types
80sMatchbox will appear and reference some obscure post from a previous thread that didn't actually get posted the way he remembers it, but as it's now been stated by a cyclist on PH it's folklore.
Killboy will claim the OP is a liar with no evidence as to why and then start offering to get involved in some obscure bet involving him with his obviously completely unbiased point of view coming up with perfectly fair and evenly collated 'evidence' to support his side of the argument.
After a while they will start mutually back slapping each other and using the word troll a lot.
They will eventually post a lot of conjecture about the OP and other posters' opinions being anti all cyclists and make up a few choice facts that when challenged they will point out that it seems that way or it's obvious it's that etc.etc.
Eventually the thread will descend into arguing about:
- red light jumping - they justify this by saying cyclists can make up their own mind as to whether it's safe or not, but they don't extend this courtesy to drivers over choosing to speed as they wouldn't be able to use their hypocrites argument in that case... which ironically makes them hypocrites
- riding on the pavement - they will tell you this is perfectly OK as the police take no notice and only the occasional child gets run over
- riding without lights - at least one of them claims to be able to see cyclists perfectly well when they're not lit at night so the drivers who can't see them must be unfit to drive
- close passing - they will insist that every driver should leave a chasm between themselves and a cyclist, but that it is perfectly OK for them to cycle between two buses as they are in control of that manoeuvre!
- left turning lorries - it is always the fault of the truck driver no matter what the cyclists did or didn't do as trucks drivers are nasty evil people
- cycle lanes - they don't use them as they are not designed exactly to the the poor little darlings' liking - like the roads are designed perfectly for drivers
- cutting up traffic and relying on drivers to avoid them - it's called filtering and it's perfectly OK
Put simply this thread is about cyclists not having lights at night or not wearing hi-vis. There are plenty that fall into that category as most of us normal people realise and the thread was trying to discuss how to persuade them otherwise. It is not about drivers not seeing them when they're lit, car headlights or anything else and if you wish to post threads on those subjects please do, but how about you actually focus on the subject rather than suggesting in some poor attempt at scoring a point that I've got a mental illness or anything else like that when you have probably got no idea what a real mental illness and how serious it can be!
Edited by cb1965 on Tuesday 13th November 22:42
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
This is what I actually wrote -"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."
I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.
Pretty ironic accusation.
nickfrog said:
80sMatchbox said:
You ok, hun?
He isn t.
cb1965 said:
Trolling is not just having a different opinion to you about some cyclists. You need to learn that. You and your chums as usual are making excuses for cycling without lights by trivialising it and claiming it doesn't happen. It's your usual modus operandi on any thread where a section of the people that use bikes are in any way criticised. Note I refrained from using the word cyclists there before you have another hissy fit!
In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:
Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.
No, that's not it, this is not what's going on *at all*.In fact to save anyone the bother in future here is potted synopsis of all threads discussing anything negative about some people on bikes:
Poster makes a point about some cyclists not doing something right e.g. no lights at night, riding through pedestrian crossings etc.
The truth is: Poster will make yet another point about cyclists, one of the oft thrice-weekly, multiple anti-cycling threads that are a permanent feature here on PH. These multiple, oft thrice-weekly threads are just about totally without merit, explanation, logic or rationale.
For instance:
Is the fatality rate of cyclists particularly high? No, it's lower than pedestrians.
Do cyclists cause a great deal of harm to others? No, they kill about 3 a year compared to 1500 a year killed by or in motor vehicles.
Do they contribute greatly to congestion? No, they probably cost us all minutes a year across the nation, as opposed to the 25 hours a year we're all said to lose/cost ourselves as motorists on average across the nation.
Are they greatly polluting? No.
Are they harming themselves in any way? No, they're doing exercise, something that is well known to be tremendously beneficial.
Do they pay less tax? There's no evidence that ownership of bicycles reduces one's tax liabilities, except perhaps some employee scheme or something. But we all try to pay less tax.
Are they more reckless than anyone else in society? There's no evidence to suggest they are.
Do they behave any differently in any material way to the posters making the complaints? Probably not, and there's little evidence to suggest they behave any differently from their peer groups.
And so on.
I'm a motoring enthusiast and have been all my life. I have met almost all my friends through motoring activities - last night I was out with old car-club friends, this weekend i and another chum are off on a minor car rally in France, so I'll spend the whole weekend with car people. With just one exception, in my 60 years I've never come across the attitudes displayed so widely here on PH by the likes of cbeebies and others. The one exception was the wife of a marshal, an incredibly stupid woman whom I had the misfortune to be sat by at dinner one night when she started banging off about cyclists and "road tax". This on a classic car rally on which none of the cars were paying "road tax".
I can't explain the multiple anti-cycling threads on PH, other than it's the same rampant little-englander mentality that's rife in publications like the Daily Mail. Despite spending my life immersed in motoring, in my life the the only places I encounter these bizarre attitudes is the Daily Mail and Pistonheads.
To address the thread title - yes, possibly something should be done, just as possibly something should be done about the fact that all of us, including the poster, his partner, and any children that they have charge of, also ignore the HC advice on wearing reflective material at night when walking about in the dark, (and there's more of us killed than cyclists), but by gum it has to be a long, long way down the list of "Something Needs To Be Done" on our roads.
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave will pick up on the most irrelevant point in the post, deliberately misunderstand it and argue until they're blue in the face about the minutiae of the point in an attempt to deflect the thread or bore people to death such that the thread dies.
This is what I actually wrote -"I don't see anything like 30% of cyclists without lights, I think the ones that dont have lights are idiots, and this time of year I wear multiple sets and keep a spare set in my bag in case my main set gets damaged / lost / stolen. I think handing out free sets is a nice idea (just like the high viz bag covers that sometimes get handed out) , but not necessarily the most important thing to spend money on."
I'll leave other people to judge whether your statement above is a fair reflection of my post.
Pretty ironic accusation.
Re-run query
Bingo!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff