Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done
Discussion
giantdefy said:
Teddy Lop said:
Handing out freebies to law breakers is exactly the attitude the precipitates the stupid and reckless behaviour of many cyclists.
Would they pull over someone driving a car with bald tyres and fit some new ones for free?
No, but we do applaud police who pull over speeders and give them just a bWould they pull over someone driving a car with bald tyres and fit some new ones for free?
kingWithout wishing to be stereotypical the majority of no lights riders I see other than kids appear to be low income non indigenous individuals on inappropriate and or poorly maintained bicycles of questionable origin looking like they’re heading to/from work
Not sure how you police it but if you did I bet the local crime rates would drop
Not sure how you police it but if you did I bet the local crime rates would drop
cb1965 said:
Look I know the usual mob will roll their eyes, but this has actually come from my partner's 12 year old daughter who did a school project about cycle safety (really good idea by the school). Anyway she was with her mum yesterday travelling a journey of about 12 miles at 6:30pm, her mum was driving and she decided to record the number of cyclists without lights while her mum drove. In short she saw 102 cyclists of which she recorded 34 riding without any form of lighting or hi-vis clothing.
That is not a 'tiny minority'! It also pretty much backs up what I used to see in London.
I'm not getting into a drivers vs cyclists argument over this (as the vast majority of drivers have lights on their vehicles that work anyway), but asking what can sensibly be done? I believe the police did an operation in Birmingham last year where they stopped cyclists without lights, showed them why it was a stupid idea to not have them and then issued them with a free set. I think this needs to be rolled out across the country. I know people will say they should buy their own, but to be honest if it saves just one from being knocked down and killed and the angst to the driver who has to carry that for the rest of their lives it's a small price to pay. It's clear some education is required at the very least.
Thoughts?
I think that if you don't want to get into one of your "cyclists vs motorists" arguments then don't post antagonistic "cyclist vs motorist" diatribe in your very first sentence.That is not a 'tiny minority'! It also pretty much backs up what I used to see in London.
I'm not getting into a drivers vs cyclists argument over this (as the vast majority of drivers have lights on their vehicles that work anyway), but asking what can sensibly be done? I believe the police did an operation in Birmingham last year where they stopped cyclists without lights, showed them why it was a stupid idea to not have them and then issued them with a free set. I think this needs to be rolled out across the country. I know people will say they should buy their own, but to be honest if it saves just one from being knocked down and killed and the angst to the driver who has to carry that for the rest of their lives it's a small price to pay. It's clear some education is required at the very least.
Thoughts?
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.
yonex said:
So this fictonal person saw all 104 cyclists, doesn’t sound too tricky to navigate them
When cycling you are always relying on other road users seeing you and reacting appropriately. Increasing the odds that they don't by choosing not to use lights or wear reflective high viz is just plain stupid.Perhaps an IQ test should be required before buying a bike.
Steve91 said:
To play devils advocate, I see several cars on my drive home in the dark with only their DRLs on, rather than the headlights.
Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
If you haven't got proper lights on in a car, and someone crashes into you, you're probably more likely to survive /no serious injury than someone crashing into a cyclist without proper lights on. Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
wazztie16 said:
Steve91 said:
To play devils advocate, I see several cars on my drive home in the dark with only their DRLs on, rather than the headlights.
Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
If you haven't got proper lights on in a car, and someone crashes into you, you're probably more likely to survive /no serious injury than someone crashing into a cyclist without proper lights on. Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
80sMatchbox said:
wazztie16 said:
Steve91 said:
To play devils advocate, I see several cars on my drive home in the dark with only their DRLs on, rather than the headlights.
Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
If you haven't got proper lights on in a car, and someone crashes into you, you're probably more likely to survive /no serious injury than someone crashing into a cyclist without proper lights on. Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
Twenty years ago when lights were halogen bulbs and a set of C or D type batteries lasted only a few hours, there was an 'excuse' - now we have LED's that are small, light and almost throw away in price where batteries last much much longer - there is hardly any excuse at all.
Or, how hard would it be to fit basic LED lights in the framework of the bike that were solar or dynamo powered - this way, they cant get stolen and would never run out batteries! If that was a legal UK requirement then over the next 10 years or so, the issue would reduce.
Or, how hard would it be to fit basic LED lights in the framework of the bike that were solar or dynamo powered - this way, they cant get stolen and would never run out batteries! If that was a legal UK requirement then over the next 10 years or so, the issue would reduce.
NerveAgent said:
Ah the monthly cb1965 anti-cycling garbage. How refreshing.
What is anti-cycling about suggesting that cyclists might want to improve their chances of being seen by actually using the lights the law requires them to do?Or is it any criticism of cyclists is "anti-cycling" (and don't come out with the stupidity that these cyclists aren't real cyclists).
Tomo1971 said:
Or, how hard would it be to fit basic LED lights in the framework of the bike that were solar or dynamo powered - this way, they cant get stolen and would never run out batteries! If that was a legal UK requirement then over the next 10 years or so, the issue would reduce.
You would get the MAMILs moaning about the weight and impact on performance and they would simply remove them as they do with the reflectors which are legally required when a bike is sold.You cannot legislate for stupidity.
Teddy Lop said:
a car with DRLs in an urban environment can still be seen and the driver is not at anywhere near the personal risk of the cyclist. But this kind of whataboutism is quite irrelevant to the topic.
Oh but topics like this demand a bit of whataboutism.. 
All I wanted to confirm from him/her was if I interpreted it correctly. A vehicle wthout lights on is far more dangerous to every other road user, I thought that would be obvious. Maybe not.
As someone mentioned earlier, you get stupid people. Some walk, some drive, some ride bicycles, some do all 3. The OP can only see them on bicycles as he's proved time and time again.
80sMatchbox said:
wazztie16 said:
Steve91 said:
To play devils advocate, I see several cars on my drive home in the dark with only their DRLs on, rather than the headlights.
Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
If you haven't got proper lights on in a car, and someone crashes into you, you're probably more likely to survive /no serious injury than someone crashing into a cyclist without proper lights on. Whether on a bike or in a car, you can't educate the stupid.
I'm saying that the injuries to people in a car will generally be less severe when hit than if a cyclist is hit in the same situation /circumstances.
PF62 said:
What is anti-cycling about suggesting that cyclists might want to improve their chances of being seen by actually using the lights the law requires them to do?
Or is it any criticism of cyclists is "anti-cycling" (and don't come out with the stupidity that these cyclists aren't real cyclists).
Don’t worry, yonex, Mave and few others are so caught up in their perception of me they’d argue anything to the contrary of what I say no matter what it is. Ignore them, I am.Or is it any criticism of cyclists is "anti-cycling" (and don't come out with the stupidity that these cyclists aren't real cyclists).
The fact is several others on here have observed similar ratios and it cannot just be passed off as a tiny minority. It’s important as it doesn’t just affect those doing it, but those who may well end up colliding with them as a result. The cycling lobbies spend a lot of time complaining about drivers (much of the time with justification), it would be a really good idea if they also picked up the whole lights/hi-vis thing as one of their crusades. Other cyclists could also start having a word with the offenders as they might listen then, they are unlikely (it seems) to listen to a driver offering them some potentially life saving advice.
wazztie16 said:
You didn't.
I'm saying that the injuries to people in a car will generally be less severe when hit than if a cyclist is hit in the same situation /circumstances.
Makes sense.I'm saying that the injuries to people in a car will generally be less severe when hit than if a cyclist is hit in the same situation /circumstances.
I was thinking that it's not just the risk of being hit that is a danger, it's also the hitting of others. I know this isn't the part that you were talking about.
matthias73 said:
Nothing needs to be done.
The fewer rules governing the petty aspects of our lives, the better. If someone wants to commit velosicide against a bus, then let him have his Darwin moment.
Amen. Alas, the idea that people should be responsible for themselves appears to be fallig out of fashion.The fewer rules governing the petty aspects of our lives, the better. If someone wants to commit velosicide against a bus, then let him have his Darwin moment.
CrutyRammers said:
matthias73 said:
Nothing needs to be done.
The fewer rules governing the petty aspects of our lives, the better. If someone wants to commit velosicide against a bus, then let him have his Darwin moment.
Amen. Alas, the idea that people should be responsible for themselves appears to be fallig out of fashion.The fewer rules governing the petty aspects of our lives, the better. If someone wants to commit velosicide against a bus, then let him have his Darwin moment.
cb1965 said:
Don’t worry, yonex, Mave and few others are so caught up in their perception of me they’d argue anything to the contrary of what I say no matter what it is. Ignore them, I am.
The fact is several others on here have observed similar ratios and it cannot just be passed off as a tiny minority. It’s important as it doesn’t just affect those doing it, but those who may well end up colliding with them as a result. The cycling lobbies spend a lot of time complaining about drivers (much of the time with justification), it would be a really good idea if they also picked up the whole lights/hi-vis thing as one of their crusades. Other cyclists could also start having a word with the offenders as they might listen then, they are unlikely (it seems) to listen to a driver offering them some potentially life saving advice.
I’m not worried at all sir, everyone is laughing at you . Most cyclists would say something if they came across someone in danger. They’d also stop and help generally, because unlike the motorists in your world people are actually pretty decent. Show me any pro cycling group who don’t suggest being visible?The fact is several others on here have observed similar ratios and it cannot just be passed off as a tiny minority. It’s important as it doesn’t just affect those doing it, but those who may well end up colliding with them as a result. The cycling lobbies spend a lot of time complaining about drivers (much of the time with justification), it would be a really good idea if they also picked up the whole lights/hi-vis thing as one of their crusades. Other cyclists could also start having a word with the offenders as they might listen then, they are unlikely (it seems) to listen to a driver offering them some potentially life saving advice.
You’re obviously bored and fancied a troll. 2/10
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff