Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done

[Killboy]

Guys, seriously. cb1949 is just trying to raise awareness for a very serious issue. If this thread saves one life, it will be worth it!

[Jagmanv12]

As has been pointed out this is not really a problem.

"Strict liability" was raised a few years ago. Just introduce this for road users without lights.
Anybody (cyclist, motorcyclist, car driver, van driver, truck driver, etc) using the roads without lights is automatically the one at fault in the event of an accident.

[Ares]

cb1965 said:

Ares said:

cb1965 said:

Ares said:

cb1965 said:

Troll, liar, mentally ill and stupid. What a lovely bunch you PH cyclists are

The real question is why you all get so defensive of things you claim never to do, but the answer to that is obvious of course.

Where have you been called mentally ill and stupid?

The others are obvious

All in the thread and by your pals if you can be bothered. Pathetic really!

Show us where then? (or prove the first two points being truer. Again).

Not sure why you can't read the thread yourself, but here is an example from your pal nickfrog

nickfrog said:

No point engaging with the OP as he is just an attention seeking agent provocateur with a persecution complex and other mental illnesses. Very Trump actually.

The organ grinder always gets the Monkey to do the menial work.

"persecution complex and other mental illnesses" isn't quite the same though is it.

And what about calling you stupid...?

[will_]

cb1965 said:

will_ said:

cb1965 said:

I do, however, think that, in London at least, there is a higher percentage of cyclists that do stupid things than drivers, but the reasons for that are obvious!

I've asked this before, and you flounced/avoided then, but I'll ask again to give you an opportunity to explain yourself; why does the percentage matter?

Implying I’m a mouth breathing moron and then wanting a sensible reply. I don’t think so.

I had no expectation of a sensible reply.

Avoidance yet again of course.

I only called rabid anti-cyclists mouth breathing morons. Does that apply to you?

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

cb1965 said:

will_ said:

cb1965 said:

I do, however, think that, in London at least, there is a higher percentage of cyclists that do stupid things than drivers, but the reasons for that are obvious!

I've asked this before, and you flounced/avoided then, but I'll ask again to give you an opportunity to explain yourself; why does the percentage matter?

Implying I’m a mouth breathing moron and then wanting a sensible reply. I don’t think so.

I had no expectation of a sensible reply.

Avoidance yet again of course.

I only called rabid anti-cyclists mouth breathing morons. Does that apply to you?

No, but you implied it did as well you know.

[Kuji]

Mave said:

Again, "the way you operate in general" - a vague accusation if ever there was one, especially in the context of Cbeebies rather long post. If there's something specific you want to say, why not, you know, say it?
Alternatively, how's about I write a short essay on the trends of how you operate "in general"? Maybe I should start with how you like to jump in discussions and start playing the man without even touching the ball - this particular thread being a case in point. Have you contributed a single comment about lights on bikes?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 15th November 08:38

Well, I think this is accurate, based on what you do.

Convince me otherwise!

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.

[Mave]

Kuji said:

Mave said:

Again, "the way you operate in general" - a vague accusation if ever there was one, especially in the context of Cbeebies rather long post. If there's something specific you want to say, why not, you know, say it?
Alternatively, how's about I write a short essay on the trends of how you operate "in general"? Maybe I should start with how you like to jump in discussions and start playing the man without even touching the ball - this particular thread being a case in point. Have you contributed a single comment about lights on bikes?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 15th November 08:38

Well, I think this is accurate, based on what you do.

Convince me otherwise!

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.

Ah, the old guilty until proven innocent routine, and a judge with an agenda. Let's see if you can demonstrate some impartiality. In a discussion about registering bikes, I wanted to discuss what level of risk an activity should represent before you start compulsory registration. Cbeebies claims that this is irrelevant to the discussion. What do you think? Relevant or irrelevant?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 15th November 18:07

[Mave]

Kuji said:

Mave said:

Again, "the way you operate in general" - a vague accusation if ever there was one, especially in the context of Cbeebies rather long post. If there's something specific you want to say, why not, you know, say it?
Alternatively, how's about I write a short essay on the trends of how you operate "in general"? Maybe I should start with how you like to jump in discussions and start playing the man without even touching the ball - this particular thread being a case in point. Have you contributed a single comment about lights on bikes?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 15th November 08:38

Well, I think this is accurate, based on what you do.

Convince me otherwise!

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.

Ah, the old guilty until proven innocent routine, and a judge with an agenda. Let's see if you can demonstrate some impartiality. In a discussion about registering bikes, I wanted to discuss what level of risk an activity should represent before you start compulsory registration. Cbeebies claims that this is irrelevant to the discussion. What do you think? Relevant or irrelevant?

Edited by Mave on Thursday 15th November 18:21

[PF62]

bigdom said:

I’ve yet to see anyone on the roads cycling this week without lights

Really?

The count this evening on my short 10 minute drive to the station was one cyclist with a rear light but no front light, and two with no lights and dressed in black (with one carrying his girlfriend on the handlebars). And for bonus points, all choosing not to use the cycle path next to them.

[Killboy]

Tonight's insanity!!1!1! Every bike in this queue had lights (sadly the timing of the photo was off, should have recorded). Although as you can see some people were not wearing the new mandatory high viz. Does the orange count? Its not reflective.



Although disclaimer, I later saw one bike without any lights, and one with only a rear one, no front. Both without high viz.

[PF62]

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.

[FakeConcern]

As people are posting their recent experiences, here's mine; I ended up being out a bit later than I meant to on my bike and after sunset (so pretty dusky/dark as it was a cloudy day) I saw four pedestrians, walking on unlit country roads. Three had no hi viz or lights and of those two needed a stick to walk with and two were on the wrong side of the road as in walking the same way as traffic on the left. The forth had hi viz and was on correct side of road. I saw two other bikes both with lights, one of which had some kind of LEDs in various colours that completely outlined the bike frame! I saw many more cars than bikes or pedestrians, but didn't count them as too many, but of those, one had no lights at all and two had DRLs only so no rear lights. I was wearing a day glo jacket with reflective strips and front and rear lights, even though I didn't expect to be out until dark. I should add that it was not London!

[Ares]

PF62 said:

bigdom said:

I’ve yet to see anyone on the roads cycling this week without lights

Really?

The count this evening on my short 10 minute drive to the station was one cyclist with a rear light but no front light, and two with no lights and dressed in black (with one carrying his girlfriend on the handlebars). And for bonus points, all choosing not to use the cycle path next to them.

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.

[Ares]

Killboy said:

Tonight's insanity!!1!1! Every bike in this queue had lights (sadly the timing of the photo was off, should have recorded). Although as you can see some people were not wearing the new mandatory high viz. Does the orange count? Its not reflective.



Although disclaimer, I later saw one bike without any lights, and one with only a rear one, no front. Both without high viz.

Next week's PH Topic*: Cyclists have lights that are too bright/flashing lights which blind/distract.


(* Last week/month/year)

[Ares]

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.

In central London? With street lighting so bright it's permanent daylight?

[DoubleD]

PF62 said:

bigdom said:

I’ve yet to see anyone on the roads cycling this week without lights

Really?

The count this evening on my short 10 minute drive to the station was one cyclist with a rear light but no front light, and two with no lights and dressed in black (with one carrying his girlfriend on the handlebars). And for bonus points, all choosing not to use the cycle path next to them.

Maybe that was the point that he was making, he hadnt seen any, so god knows how many he missed!

[nickfrog]

Killboy said:

Tonight's insanity!!1!1!

What ? Why aren't they all jumping the red light ? That's what they do "in London" it's chaos ...apparently, (Not that I ever see it there and I go most weeks).

[GOATever]

Ares said:

In central London? With street lighting so bright it's permanent daylight?

Quite, you can see the roads in central London from space ( pretty much ) and I believe there’s a frequently overlooked stipulation about lights on vehicles in relation to street light spacing, which means that you don’t actually need lights in certain areas, if there’s sufficient street lighting.

[bigdom]

DoubleD said:

PF62 said:

bigdom said:

I’ve yet to see anyone on the roads cycling this week without lights

Really?

The count this evening on my short 10 minute drive to the station was one cyclist with a rear light but no front light, and two with no lights and dressed in black (with one carrying his girlfriend on the handlebars). And for bonus points, all choosing not to use the cycle path next to them.

Maybe that was the point that he was making, he hadnt seen any, so god knows how many he missed!

Not quite; full quote as written below.

bigdom said:

I’ve yet to see anyone on the roads cycling this week without lights, plenty in luminous green, not a look I go for myself, although my stuff has a lot of reflective parts.

There was one cyclist tonight on the cycle path near the office car park, although as a teenager with his hoody up, who looked more like a drug dealer - I blame the parents.

I’ll double check and report back tomorrow, I took the car today, although I plan to cycle in to the office.

To be fair, it doesn’t seem to be a ‘thing’ around my area, we have plenty of unlit road sections, so we’re all pretty visible. All of the cars in the household and 1 of the motorbikes either have Xenon or LED headlights, so I have no issue noticing any other roads users.

The biggest issue I notice daily, since the change in recent light conditions, is that it seems to have brought out all the vehicles with no headlights, one headlight or just front DRL brigade.

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.

[nickfrog]

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.