Cyclists without lits finned.

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

My comments on this: Tough. If you are cycling after dark without
lights both front and rear, then you deserve to get fined. Lights are
there for your own protection and not using them makes it easier for
the motorists to complain against us.

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite many
cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any safety
benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

The most common excuse in daylight when a car hits a cyclist is:
"I'm sorry I didn't see you"
Yet these same motorists are always saying how many cyclists they see in
the dark without lights.
It makes me wonder if perhaps it is safer WITHOUT lights (;-)

Jim Chisholm

J. Chisholm said:

The most common excuse in daylight when a car hits a cyclist is:
"I'm sorry I didn't see you"
Yet these same motorists are always saying how many cyclists they see in
the dark without lights.
It makes me wonder if perhaps it is safer WITHOUT lights (;-)

My usual interpretation of 'I didn't see you' is 'I wasn't looking',
usually when the driver has decided the road is clear enough for them
to proceed while checking their phone / changing a CD / opening a pack
of crisps or whatever.

Personally I don't care if my lights are legal or not (they are, but
that's not the point), or if the streets are well lit (ditto); I use
lights after dark for the same reason as I wear a high-vis jacket, so
that there's more chance of being seen by other road users. And
whether or not statistics showed that lights reduced accidents I would
still use them just because common sense suggests that it is a Good
Idea. And while I have seen unlit cyclists while driving after dark,
I would have seen them sooner had they been lit.

Colin
(Ordered new bike today! http://tinyurl.com/24l4es Might just hang
it up in the garage and look at it, rather than risk getting it
dirty.)

Kevin Harper said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite many
cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any safety
benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

Obviously you only ride on well lit roads at night then!

Where Tony rides is irrelevant, given that he uses lights anyway. But
these unlit cyclists were all stopped in central Oxford which (certainly
ten years ago when I lived there) was indeed blessed with well-lit
roads. Remember that a lot of them will be students using bikes for
local transport between college and department, college and pub, etc etc
- all of it on 30-limit roads with streetlights.

-dan

[email hidden] said the following on 31/10/2007 14:09:

Quoted message said:

Kevin Harper said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite many
cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any safety
benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

Obviously you only ride on well lit roads at night then!

Where Tony rides is irrelevant, given that he uses lights anyway. But
these unlit cyclists were all stopped in central Oxford which (certainly
ten years ago when I lived there) was indeed blessed with well-lit
roads. Remember that a lot of them will be students using bikes for
local transport between college and department, college and pub, etc etc
- all of it on 30-limit roads with streetlights.

This "crackdown" is now an annual event taking place just after the
clocks go back and on High Street/Magdalen Bridge. I suspect it mainly
catches first year students.

Colin

Quoted message said:

Kevin Harper said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite many
cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any safety
benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

Obviously you only ride on well lit roads at night then!

Where Tony rides is irrelevant, given that he uses lights anyway. But
these unlit cyclists were all stopped in central Oxford which (certainly
ten years ago when I lived there) was indeed blessed with well-lit
roads. Remember that a lot of them will be students using bikes for
local transport between college and department, college and pub, etc etc
- all of it on 30-limit roads with streetlights.

You mean the type of roads and journeys that are most likely to result
in conflict between other road users/pedestrains?

fred2 said:

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7069786.stm

Quoted message said:

Pc Mark Pilling, from Thames Vallley Police, said: "To stop 55 people in
just two hours shows what a problem there is in Oxford with people
cycling without lights and this campaign is intended to improve road
safety for cyclists on roads throughout the city.

This is an unfair fine, these cyclists cannot continually check whether
they have lits or not, looking down at the handle bars and seat post takes
your concentration off the road in front. ;-)

Just a thought.....
Would you need lights on a designated cycle path or heaven forbid on a
footpath at night?
Fred

i'd say yes, what the law, or a copper would say is another matter
altogether.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

My comments on this: Tough. If you are cycling after dark without
lights both front and rear, then you deserve to get fined. Lights are
there for your own protection and not using them makes it easier for
the motorists to complain against us.

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite
many cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any
safety benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

<PSmith mode=loony>
Although to be fair, a bit like many other road safety strategies, there is
no evidence of an excess accident rate due to speed despite many road users
not obeying the limits. I observe the limits but the evidence for any
safety benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.
</PSmith>

Its a dangerous area to tread.
A set of barely legal lights costs under £15 and frequently under £5 (front
and rear flashing markers).

I believe there is pretty good evidence that speed contributes to the
frequency and severity of accidents. I am not aware of any information
showing cycle lights reduce the number of accident. Personally I always
use them but it is difficult to find a justification for it outside of
the law - unlike speeding.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:31:48 -0000 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

B) Is there any concrete evidence to show that minimal legal lighting
is significantly safer than the standard reflectors that all road bikes
must be sold with?

I suggest that a front light is provided largely to warn others of
the approach of the vehicle. Not having one may or may not make any
difference to the safety of the cyclist, but that is not the only
person's safety to consider.

Transferring risk to others is one of the things people campaign
against.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:04:28 -0700 someone who may be Colin
MacDonald <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

And
whether or not statistics showed that lights reduced accidents I would
still use them just because common sense suggests that it is a Good
Idea.

There are any number of things which common sense suggests that it
is a Good Idea. However, if they are a Good Idea then the figures
will demonstrate this. If the figures don't demonstrate this then
the discussion becomes one of irrational beliefs.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:12:06 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> quoted this:-

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7069786.stm

Quoted message said:

Pc Mark Pilling, from Thames Vallley Police, said: "To stop 55
people in just two hours shows what a problem there is in Oxford
with people cycling without lights and this campaign is intended
to improve road safety for cyclists on roads throughout the city.

That could only be evaluated if they also said how many people had
lights on their bike at the time.

That is a good point. I have been caught out before now due to the
clocks changing.

Its also interesting that the government do not know how many foot path
cyclists there are, however cycling on the foot path has been upgraded
to terrorism.

From hansard:

Quoted message said:

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office) | Hansard source

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, as amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888, makes it an offence to cycle on the pavement.

The information requested is not collected centrally and is not readily available from the Metropolitan Police.

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> My comments on this: Tough. If you are cycling after dark without
> lights both front and rear, then you deserve to get fined. Lights are
> there for your own protection and not using them makes it easier for
> the motorists to complain against us.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although to be fair, a bit like many other cycling safety strategies,
there is no evidence of an excess accident rate after dark despite
many cyclists not using lights. I use them but the evidence for any
safety benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.

Quoted message said:

<PSmith mode=loony>
Although to be fair, a bit like many other road safety strategies, there is
no evidence of an excess accident rate due to speed despite many road users
not obeying the limits. I observe the limits but the evidence for any
safety benefit beyond the common sense we are all wary of, is absent.
</PSmith>

Quoted message said:

Its a dangerous area to tread.
A set of barely legal lights costs under £15 and frequently under £5 (front
and rear flashing markers).

I believe there is pretty good evidence that speed contributes to the
frequency and severity of accidents. I am not aware of any information
showing cycle lights reduce the number of accident. Personally I always
use them but it is difficult to find a justification for it outside of
the law - unlike speeding.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps he should have substituted "speed" with "exceeding speed
limit" since if MattB is to be believed exceeding speed limit is only
a factor in a small minority of accidents.

Have there actually been any studies conducted that investigate
whether cycling with lights reduces risk (either to the cyclist or
pedestrians trying to cross the road)?

In article <[email hidden]>, asrl07
@yahoo.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Have there actually been any studies conducted that investigate
whether cycling with lights reduces risk (either to the cyclist or
pedestrians trying to cross the road)?

Not that I'm aware of but I did a little while ago look at cycling
levels and accident numbers after dark and they are pro rata to the
daytime numbers.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>, asrl07
@yahoo.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Have there actually been any studies conducted that investigate
whether cycling with lights reduces risk (either to the cyclist or
pedestrians trying to cross the road)?

Not that I'm aware of but I did a little while ago look at cycling
levels and accident numbers after dark and they are pro rata to the
daytime numbers.

I wonder what the accident rates would be like if cars drove without
lits in places with street lighting. I suspect the rates would drop,
especially around rush hour time in the winter, when all you can see is
a sea of lights, and little other detail.

I cycle a lot on dark country roads and many are tree-lined so block
out any minimal light that may otherwise be there. MVs approaching
from behind tend to slow down before they pass me and give me a wide
berth when passing. I feel much safer on the roads at night than in
the daytime, when I am given much less respect. This is contrary to
the fact that we are told (sans evidence) that it is more dangerous to
cycle at night.

However, at night, in rain, and with oncoming headlights, a cager
can't really see what is in front of him. For this reason, I adopt the
'Christmas Tree' approach to lighting, so that I am seen at the
earliest possible time. If the driver has a period of blindness, and
that occurs in the little window of time he has to see an unlit or
poorly lit cyclist, then carnage maybe the result.

Quoting Martin Dann <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

This is an unfair fine, these cyclists cannot continually check whether
they have lits or not, looking down at the handle bars and seat post
takes your concentration off the road in front. ;-)

On the tandem yesterday I discovered the nice new handlebar bag perfectly
blocks my view of the headlight - in the sort of dusky conditions where
the stoker agitates to have it on, I can only check by looking for the
reflection on the side of the secondary headlight...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Sunday, October - a weekend.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I wonder what the accident rates would be like if cars drove without
lits in places with street lighting. I suspect the rates would drop,
especially around rush hour time in the winter, when all you can see is
a sea of lights, and little other detail.

It used to be the case that cars drove round on sidelights on lit
streets - in fact I think it is still legal to do so. And of course in
the war they had their lights virtually blacked out with no street
lights on.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I wonder what the accident rates would be like if cars drove without
lits in places with street lighting. I suspect the rates would drop,
especially around rush hour time in the winter, when all you can see is
a sea of lights, and little other detail.

It used to be the case that cars drove round on sidelights on lit
streets - in fact I think it is still legal to do so. And of course in
the war they had their lights virtually blacked out with no street
lights on.

Of course, that early WW2 lighting regime led to a huge increase in
road traffic accidents. One of the lesser-reported causes of death on
the Home Front.

Peter Clinch said:

How many times have I seen a Stealth Cyclist, declared them to be an
invisible eejit, and not seen the inherent contradiction in there?
"Several", if I'm diplomatic to myself...

Though it is indeed the case that not using them is handing folk a stick
to beat us with, and I'm not a great fan of being beaten.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I would agree that the unlit - dark clothed cyclists are not as
invisible as some complainers would have us believe. However, my
experience of driving at night is that I spot well-lit, high-viz
wearing cyclists a lot further away than I do the unlit dark clothed
ones. A cyclist, who has been spotted at the last second, has still
been "seen" by a driver, but if the driver has had to perform a sudden
avoidance manoeuvre rather a planned overtake it's not doing us any
favours.

Personally I take the mobile christmas tree approach when cycling -
fashion and style be hanged.

Mike

Quoted message said:

Personally I take the mobile christmas tree approach when cycling -
fashion and style be hanged.

I'm unconvinced by the Christmas tree approach myself, though I have
nothing against others using it. ISTM that the brightness of your
brightest light is more important than having lots of lights.

I've always felt my lights were adequate because up till now I've
never had near misses at night. I had my first one last night. Cycling
through a small village, no street lights, about 50 yds behind two
cars (downhill, 20 mph limit, so doing roughly the same speed as the
cars). Car parked on the right. Breakdown truck waits for the two cars
to pass then pulls out to pass the parked car. No problem, except he
fails to return promptly to his side of the road and drives up the
middle [1]. Sees me at the last minute and abruptly gives me space.
Quite scary for me as I had nowhere to go - his passing the parked car
was expected, so I didn't start to panic until he failed to return to
his side, by which time I didn't really have any options (there would
probably just have been space for me between him and the wall, but it
wouldn't have been a nice experience.

Would he have seen me earlier with more lights? Not sure. My feeling
is I needed something closer to the brightness of the lights of the
cars I was following, to which his eyes were adapted. Also, a main
beam type light that throws some light upwards to get to the height of
his cab would have been good. I usually only meet cars at night, who
are closer to the height of my light and so presumably see me sooner.

Rob

1. Not unusual round here, narrow roads, dry stone walls on either
side, being on your side means driving in the gutter, so most people
drive towards the middle if they think there's nothing else around.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

How many times have I seen a Stealth Cyclist, declared them to be an
invisible eejit, and not seen the inherent contradiction in there?
"Several", if I'm diplomatic to myself...

Though it is indeed the case that not using them is handing folk a stick
to beat us with, and I'm not a great fan of being beaten.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I would agree that the unlit - dark clothed cyclists are not as
invisible as some complainers would have us believe. However, my
experience of driving at night is that I spot well-lit, high-viz
wearing cyclists a lot further away than I do the unlit dark clothed
ones. A cyclist, who has been spotted at the last second, has still
been "seen" by a driver, but if the driver has had to perform a sudden
avoidance manoeuvre rather a planned overtake it's not doing us any
favours.

Playing devil's avocado there have been many instances at night of well-
lit vehicles on the hard shoulders of motorways being hit at full speed
by vehicles travelling along the motorway. The lights seem to act like
moths to a flame. Whether its a good idea to be visible and seen is
dubious in the light of this.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell