Lights anyone??

Bananaman
Posts: 122
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 2:27pm

Lights anyone??

Postby Bananaman » 19 Sep 2008, 1:14pm

Ok so we know (??!!!) that helmets are a risk, and all dedicated bike lanes :( just plain dangerous. Given the nights (and mornings) are drawing in, lets see what sort of case we can make against the use of light on bikes.

Queue strained arguments on risk compensation, dodgy conclusions drawn from dutch accident statistics, and references to unpeered bit of 'research'.

EMD_Nic

Postby EMD_Nic » 19 Sep 2008, 3:01pm

well no case for the pillock a five am this morning who was nearly side swiped by a car who didn't see him (dark clothing, no lights, complete liability to himself.)
Have to say I did offer as witness for the car driver (who was very shaken up, especially after the verbal abuse she received from the cyclist) if she decided to take the matter further, which is likely because the cyclist kicked her car and put a large dent in the back wing on the car)

My morning was made nice again when I have a cheery 'Good Morning' from a chap who passed me on his bike going up Honiton Road...see most of us were nice...and he had lights on his bike

:lol:

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 44278
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Postby Mick F » 19 Sep 2008, 3:17pm

What about "Night Vision"?

It's never pitch dark anywhere on earth. When I was in the RN and had cause to visit the bridge during the night to check on equipment or discuss stuff with the officers on watch, I would have to stand at the back for a few minutes before I could see anything. But lo and behold, after a while, I could see people and things quite clearly. And if I looked out to sea, I could see the sea and right out to the horizon!

So basically, if no-one had lights on, and there were no street lights, there would be no light pollution, and we could all see well enough! Just think about all the energy we'd save.

Simple!
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8876
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Postby Cunobelin » 19 Sep 2008, 8:13pm

Two valid points....


1. The CTC at the time campaigned against the legislation as it was a significant change in responsibility.

Prior to the introduction of lighting it was the responsibility of the overtaking vehicle to see the bicycle, now it has become the responsibility of the cyclist to be seen.

Not easy - My 60 watt off road lights are invisible to Portsmouth Taxis

2. The increase in headlighting efficiency allows faster speeds - should we introduce maximums to restrict speeds?

eileithyia
Posts: 7705
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Postby eileithyia » 19 Sep 2008, 8:30pm

Ahhhh tis that time of the year again and I await with baited breath the torrent of letters that start appearing in newspapers around now regarding unlit cyclists.

How is it that all these unlit dark clad cyclists are so easily viewed by so many motorists. Why is it that brightly lit, hi viz clothed cyclists remain unseen and collide with cars. Your "friend" excepted that is emd-nic. :?:

Why is it that cars who have not bothered to light up, or are displaying less lights than myself never get a mention :?:
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells

drossall
Posts: 4365
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 19 Sep 2008, 8:37pm

Against lights:

Agree with Cunobelin that the legislation brought an important and detrimental change in legal responsibility. In that sense only, it's probably a bit dangerous.

In many town situations, lights are not the critical thing in being seen owing to street-lighting (but you're never sure when you'll ride into the shadows)

For lights:

Clearly, a cyclist with lights is more visible than one without and thus should be safer.

I'd say the balance usually comes out in favour of lights, but not always. The ideal would be all cyclists with lights, but no account taken of whether they had them in deciding fault in an accident. That way, all the benefit goes to increased visibility.

Really though I am more worried about DRLs and bright night-time car lighting reducing the comparative visibility of cyclists.

drossall
Posts: 4365
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 19 Sep 2008, 8:40pm

eileithyia wrote:AHow is it that all these unlit dark clad cyclists are so easily viewed by so many motorists.


That's the killer, really, isn't it. Especially when it's plain that they didn't notice the lit cyclists (because whenever I look, the percentage of cyclists with lights, even if it could be improved, is much higher than such letters suggest).

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8876
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Postby Cunobelin » 19 Sep 2008, 10:58pm

The problem is the attitude to lights.....

Classic


Cycling in Portsmouth....

Exposure Maxx with 720 Lumens (60 odd watts Halogen equivalent) and taxi pulls out in front of me at a junction. Luckily twin front discs work well.

Now face to face with driver ask if it was possible that he hadn't seen me...

The reply - "I thought you were a motorbike"

I then asked how him thimking I was a vehicle faster, heavier and equally vulnerable excused his actions...

"Motorcycles have good brakes so they can stop quickly!"

So there we have it even if you can be seen it is not going to guarantee your safety if the river is going to ignore you anyway....


The motorist who ignores the lights is the problem. Prove to the public that lights are worthwhile and they will be more than happy to use them?

User avatar
Phil_Lee
Posts: 726
Joined: 13 Jul 2008, 3:41am
Location: Cambs

Postby Phil_Lee » 21 Sep 2008, 7:46pm

I hope you got his taxi plate number.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8876
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Postby Cunobelin » 21 Sep 2008, 9:25pm

Phil_Lee wrote:I hope you got his taxi plate number.


I am a regular with the Licensing Office!

Tony
Posts: 408
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 2:48pm

Postby Tony » 24 Sep 2008, 2:28am

I have posted this elsewhere, but it's still a good'un.
It's a bright sunny summer's day, around noon. I am in an eye-wateringly yellow shirt (those who remember a certain York Rally Velovision photo will know the one). A car goes to pull out straight into me. I shout. She says sorry......




"Butchoo dint ave no lights on!"

drossall
Posts: 4365
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Postby drossall » 24 Sep 2008, 8:18am

Actually, once DRLs on cars are established, I'd expect that to be advanced as a serious defence, possibly in court :(

User avatar
petercook80
Posts: 190
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 3:38pm

Postby petercook80 » 1 Oct 2008, 2:14pm

Cant really see whats to debate about.
When its dark, cyclist must use lights, its safer than not having lights. end of discussion.

And before you all start YES it really is that simple.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8876
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Postby Cunobelin » 1 Oct 2008, 7:16pm

petercook80 wrote:Cant really see whats to debate about.
When its dark, cyclist must use lights, its safer than not having lights. end of discussion.

And before you all start YES it really is that simple.



Only once you define a light!

Is a small pen torch taped to the bars a light?

aesmith
Posts: 548
Joined: 22 Feb 2008, 11:32am
Location: Aberdeenshire

Postby aesmith » 1 Oct 2008, 7:38pm

petercook80 wrote:When its dark, cyclist must use lights, its safer than not having lights. end of discussion.


Reflective material can be effective as well ..

Image