Philip Pullman's "damn fools" rant about cyclists without lights or hi-vis; Dan Martin's Brexit ballache; Nine points and hefty fine for close pass shocker; Cyclist calls 30-second timeout on driver; Pelé-ton & Virgil van Bike + more on the live blog

You could argue that if you are aware that there are cars about without lights on then you must be able to see them, so maybe we don't need lights at all?

Try seeing an unlit cyclist on a busy road at night when they are backlit by headlights, so if turning ot of a side road in front of oncoming traffic for example, if it's raining it's even worse.

It is true that if you drive for the conditions you should always be able to see an unlit cyclist, but quite frankly I find this being constantly used as some sort of defense as ridiculous.

Half the time the cyclists is seen, it will be when they are nearby and coming the other way. As earlier, it's no good seeing a cyclist going in the same direction late due to no lights.

You see unlit cyclists when they are within the range of your lights but you won't see them when they are off to the side, above you, obscured by the lights of oncoming traffic.

yupiteru wrote:

If you are aware that there are cyclists without lights and hiviz then surely you must be able to see them?

You can only conclude that you can see some of them. How would you know you'd seen them all?

yupiteru wrote:

If you are aware that there are cyclists without lights and hiviz then surely you must be able to see them?

If they were totally invisible you would not be aware of any cyclists being there at all.

I always use lights day and night myself but I can always see the unlit cyclists because my lights light them up, just like a car headlights would.

At what distance can you see the unlit cyclist?

5m? 

10m?

30m?

100m? 

20mph has a braking distance of 12m*

30mph has a braking distance of 23m*

*usual stuff about tyres, road, weather etc applies.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Of course lights not being used is going to be used as another stick to beat us with. They are, after all, a legal requirement. The respondents below who are transferring responsibility on to the car driver (not supposed to drive faster than they can see etc) why would you not want to use lights? I'll also ask if you've been seriously, life changingly injured while out on your bike. As someone who has, I find this constant shift of responsibility to the car driver unfathomable. Yes, they should be looking out for other road users ... But so should we. In the good old days, lights had batteries that could be changed; so you carried spare batteries or money so you could buy new ones. Now, USB charging has all but made that redundant, and not all lights have adequate end of life warnings. Small, high intensity lights that clip on your seat post or handlebars are a very cheap alternative to the spare battery and as a backup to your main lights. There really is no excuse for riding at night with no lights.

I hope your injuries still allow you to enjoy cycling in some form. Or at least some of the benefits (mobility, exercise, the outdoors) if not on a bike.

Never been seriously injured, had some close calls, had some injuries through my own stupidity. Thankfully never hit anyone else in any vehicle.

You say "I find this constant shift of responsibility to the car driver unfathomable." Why? And why do you think it's a shift of responsibility?

I'm sure you're a better individual than I am in terms of "mustn't grumble" / getting on with the positives of living. I'm interested - are any / several / none of the following your point?

• That cyclists have a responsibility to protect themselves (paying no attention to any other factors).
• That motorists and cylists both have a responsibility to other road users (ignoring specific interactions between them).
• That - given that we are enjoined / expected to "share the road" - both cyclists and motorists have a responsibility towards others.
• That - given that we are enjoined / expected to "share the road" - but also given that motorists are not a risk from cyclists but cyclists are at risk from motorists - cyclists are effectively "taking their own lives in their hands" by choosing to be on the road and so it's really on them to look after themselves.
• As above but because motorists are making a choice as much as cyclists are - but bring personal immunity but more danger to others to the situation - motorists have a greater responsibility.

Your opinion may something completely unrelated to the points above. It may be the same as before your accident, it may not. I'm just interested what it is.

Thank you ChrisOnATrike

(I've not quoted the whole post for brevity)

Part of the many injuries I sustained, was my left kneecap was shattered in to 4 pieces and my PCL was snapped in two. The kneecap was brought back together using pins and tension wire, but the PCL was left (I don't blame them, it was emergency surgery, and I had enough trauma to recover from. From what I've read, PCL recovery is an absolute nightmare; as it was I couldn't walk unsupported or bend my knee for 4 months)
Despite hours of intense physio, this has left me with a limp and I can't walk very far without a stick.
One of the hardest things was laying in my bed in HDU, on a breathing tube, wires everywhere, and having to look at my kids (youngest was 8 and refuses to remember anything about it). I don't have the vocabulary to describe my feelings that my kids nearly lost their dad, and that is only through sheer chance (a paramedic unit saw the accident, stopped and got my heart restarted a few times until help arrived).

Btw, the collision happened at 1745 in broad daylight, with no mitigating circumstances.

Cycling wise .. I tried getting back on a bike. I was ok for about 15 miles or so if it's flat; after that it hurt. I mean, *hurt*. Not just for the immediate day, but for almost a week after. I must admit, there were times of get home from a (much shortened) club ride, I'd be in tears and hit the industrial strength painkiller.

I'm a hobby cyclist; I cycle purely for fun and for the health benefits. I have s stressful job (don't we all nowadays), and cycling helps - especially group cycling.

I hired an e-bike ... Wow - what a difference.
I went out and brought one, and there has been no stopping me since. I've recently completed my first 100 mile ride (ok, I was in bits afterwards, not going to lie about that).

As for the 'mustn't grumble' ... I whine like a scalded cat . I've had depression since the accident. My mental outlook isn't anymore positive than anyone else's. If there's a dark side to something, I'll look at that first.

The accident had changed the way I ride. Unless I'm in a group, you won't find me hugging the kerb. Closest I'll get is the nearside wheel rut. Normally, I'll sit in the middle of the lane. I've become more aggressive, less passive in my riding; I tend to ride like I drive my car: its *my* lane, and if you don't like it, you're free to overtake ...
I still get close passes - had one or two NMotD on here - but I tend to be quite calm about them now. I've stopped myself shouting expletives by shouting the reg number instead (you'll not be surprised to know I ride with front and back cameras).

I pretty much agree with your bullet points, and that's why I find the shift unfathomable.
My interpretation of some of the posts below is "so what if you've not got lights. Car drivers *should* see you; it's their responsibility, so it's fine to ride at night without lights"

I'm sure that I'm not alone in reading that message.

We are vulnerable, we are not surrounded by amour plate.
We have a duty to our families, ourselves, friends and other road users to protect ourselves.
I don't agree with hi-vis; it's a waste of time. Brights with reflective strips work better (although I love my ProVis jacket, but where I am is rual and it gets *dark).

Why wouldn't someone want to give others as much notice as they can of their presence? Why would you want to put your life at risk like that ... for the sake of £20?
Why do some people see it as a defeat; that we're pandering to the car driving fraternity? We're not, it's a legal requirement.

My claim will be going to the High Court (I'm in Scotland), even though we have admission of 100% responsibility from the other party ... and the accident happened 3 years ago.

If you don't have lights on at night and get seriously injured, then you can forget any real compensation.
I lost 18 months wages ... I'll get that back, but if a rider had no lights, then it's mitigating circumstances, and good luck getting a payout.

Sorry if it's a bit rambling as I'm on my phone, and if you got this far ... thank you.

TLDR: protect yourself, aint none else going to do it.

I think we tie ourselves in knots over this because we constantly confuse the aims of public policy with those of private initiative.

Public policy should make changes to our world to create a better safer place, and not instead constantly seek accommodations to allow us to safely endure the status quo.

Private initiative takes the world as it is and makes us safer within it.

So in the case of every councillor's daughter, public policy should be to make the streets safe to walk without fear of harassment or worse, at any time of day or night. And yet which councillor would not advise their daughter to cover up a little more, maybe avoid certain places at night?

I don't see a conflict between these two positions.

In the case of cycling of course public policy should aim to build proper infrastructure and make motorists drive safely. Crucially, public policy should not be for cyclists to accommodate dangerous driving, it should be to eliminate dangerous driving. But that does not mean that cyclists should not respond to the world as it is.

So as a cyclist I run DRLs and wear a helmet, whilst railing that I should not feel it necessary to do so. In other words I do take these measures whilst arguing vehemently against making them mandatory.

Sriracha wrote:

I think we tie ourselves in knots over this because we constantly confuse the aims of public policy with those of private initiative. Public policy should make changes to our world to create a better safer place, and not instead constantly seek accommodations to allow us to safely endure the status quo. Private initiative takes the world as it is and makes us safer within it. So in the case of every councillor's daughter, public policy should be to make the streets safe to walk without fear of harassment or worse, at any time of day or night. And yet which councillor would not advise their daughter to cover up a little more, maybe avoid certain places at night? I don't see a conflict between these two positions. In the case of cycling of course public policy should aim to build proper infrastructure and make motorists drive safely. Crucially, public policy should not be for cyclists to accommodate dangerous driving, it should be to eliminate dangerous driving. But that does not mean that cyclists should not respond to the world as it is. So as a cyclist I run DRLs and wear a helmet, whilst railing that I should not feel it necessary to do so. In other words I do take these measures whilst arguing vehemently against making them mandatory.

In the case of lights on a bike at night, there is no room for conflagration.

The Law clearly states that lights at night must be used by all road traffic, with the exception being pedestrians, who are advised to wear a reflective strip. Organised walks (qty of persons undefined) are supposed to have a white light to the front, and a red to the back (try selling that one to the Edinburgh ghost walks ... ).

This Public policy does make our world a safer place (true, there are exceptions, but by their nature, they are exceptions) as it enables other road users to see us from a far greater distance, and in the vast majority of cases, alter their behaviour accordingly.

I do wonder, how many of the respondent's below engaged in onus-shifting, ride at night with no lights?

Indeed, those who argue against lights at night should not be afforded the time of day!

Oldfatgit wrote:

In the case of lights on a bike at night, there is no room for conflagration.

True - a naked flame wouldn't conform to BS6102/3.

mdavidford wrote:

Oldfatgit wrote:

In the case of lights on a bike at night, there is no room for conflagration.

True - a naked flame wouldn't conform to BS6102/3.

It worked for trains

Early bicycle lights burned acetylene generated from calcium carbide.

Once went caving getting the light from a similar system.

I have two front and two rear lights. Each front/rear pair is on a different charge cycle so as to prevent having no lights due to running out of charge. 

So many delivery cyclists with poor or non existent lights and reflectives. If they change the status of these workers then l would like to think that the company has to take more responsibility for health and safety.

I agree with what you say, though most that I saw were commuters not delivery cyclists.

Haha, I misread the time. I'll pay more attention in future.

IanMK wrote:

So many delivery cyclists with poor or non existent lights and reflectives. If they change the status of these workers then l would like to think that the company has to take more responsibility for health and safety.

Yes they would. If they are employed the employer must ensure that they are provided with sufficient H&S equipment to carry out their job safely.

In addition, the employer must also conduct H&S risk assessments for the role (the previous implies that teh above has been done, otherwise how would you identify what equipment the employee requires?)

Facking elf and safety. No wonder tech billionaires can't turn a profit.... 

IanMK wrote:

So many delivery cyclists with poor or non existent lights and reflectives. If they change the status of these workers then l would like to think that the company has to take more responsibility for health and safety.

You're very much right - I did notice this evening though, strolling back from a cheeky pre-prandial snifter with Mrs H in the local, that all the JustEat riders, in this neighbourhood at least, had excellent wired-in lights on their ebikes. Probably the difference between company-supplied bikes and other companies like Deliveroo where, I believe, the rider supplies their own bike?

Just before Pandemic in Jan 2020 I was in London walking back to my Tower Bridge hotel. The CS there had a significant proportion of cyclists either without lights, with lights but poor rear ones that you could barely see after 10 yards, and one memorable woman whose long coat dropped down past her stem mounted rear light. In the old days with the D battery eaters, it was probably more understandable, but in this age when a decent pair of lights cost about £30-40 and can be charged anywhere, it is perplexing. 

haha or the even earlier D size  'Never Readies' - had to stop every now and then to hit them

Flippant comments aside, riding in the dark without lights is actually pretty stupid.

OnTheRopes wrote:

Flippant comments aside, riding in the dark without lights is actually pretty stupid.

It's also illegal

See my comment below about walking in Oxford recently - yes we saw them, but much later and so being forced to react more hastily (thereby increasing the chances of one of us, as pedestrians, making an error) than we would if they'd had lights on.

If you, as pedestrians, are having to take evasive action to avoid cyclists, I would say that the bigger problem is with their general manner of cycling rather than their lack of lights. 

Well you might say that but if that is the case then I guess motor vehicles don't need light either, in fact when I was a youngster cars only used sidelights making cyclists more visible under street lighting. Since a succesful campaign to make vehicles use full headlights it makes cyclists and pedestrians harder to see when against a background of headlights making lights for cyclists fairly important if you wish to live.