Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done

Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
mrtwisty said:
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but I wonder if anyone does the same as me? I've just started carrying a set of these in my car at all times https://ebay.us/4Crej5

Very quick and easy to fit (10 seconds), bright, very cheap.

I stop and hand them out to any cyclists I see on the road without lights.

I came very close to wiping out a cretin on a large-ish 3 lane roundabout a while ago - dark clothing, dark bike, no lights, no hi-viz. Inside lane, very poor street lighting. Really made me think.

If it saves one motorist from the horror of maiming or killing just one of these morons it'll be more than worth it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a cyclist-hater. I used to ride 200 miles a week myself. These guys really are fking idiots though.
Thats actually a really good thing. I very temporarily did similar. I bought 30 £1 rear lights for use on a charity ride I'd organised. Some of them were in my car, unused, so handed out to people at dusk without lights, mostly kids and ladies cycling so slow they defied gravity. All seemed grateful, one even gave a £10 into the charity pot once I explained. I put the rest in the car, these ones used, and did likewise.

You also get some light manufacturers doing similar - I think it was Leyzne had a pop-up on Deansgate a year or so ago, just after the clocks went back, they handed out simple lights free and were selling better lights at a discount.

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
1. So a few cyclists dying is ok? 2. Does that mean that we also dont need to worry about how we open car doors?
1. How many cyclists are dying through this? And in any case, if people want to bladder themselves, that's up to them, you'll never stop people doing risky stuff ot putting themselves in danger. Tbh, I don't have much of a problem with Darwinism.

2. Ah, well now we're talking about harming other people, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for live and let live, if people want to do risky stuff it's up to them and no-one is forcing them, but in my book you *can not* hurt other people.

Killboy

7,159 posts

201 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
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 rolleyes

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 rolleyes

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 rolleyes
  • cutting up traffic and relying on drivers to avoid them - it's called filtering and it's perfectly OK rolleyes
Eventually they will ensure the original point has been lost in the plethora of drivel posted and leave the rest of us all to ponder on why they seem so happy to defend things that none of them claim to do!

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
You forgot OP will fake outrage at something brought up to ignore the rest of a post, and then claim original point has been lost sleep

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
1. So a few cyclists dying is ok? 2. Does that mean that we also dont need to worry about how we open car doors?
1. How many cyclists are dying through this? And in any case, if people want to bladder themselves, that's up to them, you'll never stop people doing risky stuff ot putting themselves in danger. Tbh, I don't have much of a problem with Darwinism.

2. Ah, well now we're talking about harming other people, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for live and let live, if people want to do risky stuff it's up to them and no-one is forcing them, but in my book you *can not* hurt other people.
When a cyclist with no lights gets hit by a car, is it just the cyclist thats effected?

lyonspride

2,978 posts

154 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
1. So a few cyclists dying is ok? 2. Does that mean that we also dont need to worry about how we open car doors?
1. How many cyclists are dying through this? And in any case, if people want to bladder themselves, that's up to them, you'll never stop people doing risky stuff ot putting themselves in danger. Tbh, I don't have much of a problem with Darwinism.

2. Ah, well now we're talking about harming other people, that's a different kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for live and let live, if people want to do risky stuff it's up to them and no-one is forcing them, but in my book you *can not* hurt other people.
When a cyclist with no lights gets hit by a car, is it just the cyclist thats effected?
Does the pope sh*t in the woods?

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Ares said:
Sorry CBA reading all that....but Trolling is starting an (usually) pointless argument on a subject that will immediately set to wind people up....especially when the troll in question often starts one per week..
3 in all the time I’ve been here, even with your lack of mathematical ability you can see that’s not 1 a week, but then that’s how you work. Say it enough and it’s folklore.

Riding without lights is not a pointless argument in most normal peoole’s eyes but you seem to imply it’s trivial by your statement that to you it is.

Your Dad

1,925 posts

182 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Question, and it's a genuine one, of the "102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing" did she count 34 that had no lights AND were not wearing high-vis or was it 34 that had no lights OR no high-vis?

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Your Dad said:
Question, and it's a genuine one, of the "102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing" did she count 34 that had no lights AND were not wearing high-vis or was it 34 that had no lights OR no high-vis?
34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.

Polite M135 driver

1,853 posts

83 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
it's not a legal requirement to wear high vis though. so how many had no lights?

Your Dad

1,925 posts

182 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
cb1965 said:
34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.
So the opening statement you gave was "she decided to record the number of cyclists without lights while her mum drove" yet the figure of 34 out of 102 is a different record of events? So 17 cyclists out of 102 had no lights.

It's like news reports that say "100 people have been killed or injured", which is different to "one person has been killed and 99 injured". Creative reporting to make the issue sound worse.

Was going to point that out, or decided not to make the reporting different?

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
cb1965 said:
Your Dad said:
Question, and it's a genuine one, of the "102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing" did she count 34 that had no lights AND were not wearing high-vis or was it 34 that had no lights OR no high-vis?
34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.
What method of recording did she use, five bar gates?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
cb1965 said:
34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.
So one of the usual suspects, who opined that the proportion without lights was a lot less than 30%, was actually right?

Now we start to uncover what the numbers actually were, the positive takeaway for me is that ~70% of cyclists are going beyond the legal requirement in terms of making themselves visible.

Edited by Mave on Wednesday 14th November 15:52

nickfrog

20,872 posts

216 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
We all know that this data collection exercise never happened.

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
When a cyclist with no lights gets hit by a car, is it just the cyclist thats effected?
I don't know, how often does a cyclist with no lights get hit by a car? No-one is giving any indication of the size of the problem. How many does this affect? None? 10? 1500?

Before you deal with a problem, surely you've got to make sure it is a problem, and surely you have to be certain you're not ignoring much bigger problems, which may mean more people getting killed because you're dealing with trivial problems?


anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Your Dad said:
cb1965 said:
34 had one or the other or neither, but not both. She said it was about 50/50. Was going to point that out but the usual suspects were struggling enough with the overall discussion.
So the opening statement you gave was "she decided to record the number of cyclists without lights while her mum drove" yet the figure of 34 out of 102 is a different record of events? So 17 cyclists out of 102 had no lights.

It's like news reports that say "100 people have been killed or injured", which is different to "one person has been killed and 99 injured". Creative reporting to make the issue sound worse.

Was going to point that out, or decided not to make the reporting different?
The school suggested that when cycling people should have lights and hi-vis, that's why she was looking for both. Clearly if it's only 17 out of 102 it's a non issue though as heebeegeebee keeps telling us rolleyes

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
We all know that this data collection exercise never happened.
Hey that's Killboy's role, yours is just to call me a mentally ill tosser or whatever insult you are choosing to hurl today!

Shakermaker

11,317 posts

99 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
cb1965 said:
The school suggested that when cycling people should have lights and hi-vis, that's why she was looking for both. Clearly if it's only 17 out of 102 it's a non issue though as heebeegeebee keeps telling us rolleyes
You are saying "something should be done" when of course the straightforward answer to what that is, would be enforcing the Highway Code rules as they apply to cyclists, and educating those using bikes to adhere to them.


Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
When a cyclist with no lights gets hit by a car, is it just the cyclist thats effected?
I don't know, how often does a cyclist with no lights get hit by a car? No-one is giving any indication of the size of the problem. How many does this affect? None? 10? 1500?

Before you deal with a problem, surely you've got to make sure it is a problem, and surely you have to be certain you're not ignoring much bigger problems, which may mean more people getting killed because you're dealing with trivial problems?
I dont know the figures. But we all know that road safety isnt trivial.

anonymous-user

Original Poster:

53 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Shakermaker said:
cb1965 said:
The school suggested that when cycling people should have lights and hi-vis, that's why she was looking for both. Clearly if it's only 17 out of 102 it's a non issue though as heebeegeebee keeps telling us rolleyes
You are saying "something should be done" when of course the straightforward answer to what that is, would be enforcing the Highway Code rules as they apply to cyclists, and educating those using bikes to adhere to them.


Rule 60
At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
Thing is though we just don't have police on the streets any more to enforce such things (not just for cyclists). I really think we'd be better off with an advertising/public information campaign and some spot checks where the police maybe with the help of some of the road cycling organisations can do a few hours here and there in different locations and give out lights and some advice. Surely raising the awareness to those cyclists who clearly think they don't need lights that they actually do because they are in even more danger without them would be a sensible and possibly productive action.

The trouble is, as you can see from this thread, a lot of people just don't see it as an issue. If the numbers were tiny it wouldn't be, statistically at least I guess, but given they aren't (as corroborated by several cyclists on this thread) then I think we do need to look at raising awareness.

Your Dad

1,925 posts

182 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
I dont know the figures. But we all know that road safety isnt trivial.
ROSPA have figures for 2016: 102 fatalities, around 80% in daylight hours.

Common reasons for accidents are not due to deficient lighting:

Motorist emerging into path of cyclist
Motorist turning across path of cyclist
Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement
Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
Child cyclist playing or riding too fast

Edited by Your Dad on Wednesday 14th November 16:32

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED