Is it acceptable to ride in poor light on unlit roads

[mjr]

Follow the money, and you will find someone with an agenda, whether actual money is involved or not. Treat each other with a bit of respect and we'll all get along and get where we're going safely. Eg. Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible? Is it respectful to whizz by a cyclist with 1 foot of distance, at breakneck speed?

I think the key is to put yourself in the place of the driver, as a cyclist, and vice versa. In the end, it is just people trying to get along.

How about taking your own advice and putting yourself in the place of the cyclist? Cyclists wearing dark colours are probably not "trying to look invisible". They're far more likely to be trying to be comfortable or trying to look smart. Not everywhere I've worked would have been OK with me turning up in fancy dress as a bin man.

The added "fly around" makes me suspect the real objection is "is it really respectful to motorists to travel on your bike quicker than they can?" To which the answer is yes, of course. It's far more disrespectful to all other road users to get in their way with a car and pollute the air for everyone nearby, when you could reasonably have used a bike, bus or train.

[SwiftyDoesIt]

Follow the money, and you will find someone with an agenda, whether actual money is involved or not. Treat each other with a bit of respect and we'll all get along and get where we're going safely. Eg. Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible? Is it respectful to whizz by a cyclist with 1 foot of distance, at breakneck speed?

I think the key is to put yourself in the place of the driver, as a cyclist, and vice versa. In the end, it is just people trying to get along.

Cycling 'invisible' isn't really accurate though is it? Only if you're not looking and seeing is someone or something not there, so what would be the situation for fallen trees, wild or farm animals and even broken down vehicles with no electrics, do they need to be not invisible to be "respectful"? If ou crash into any of these is it our fault or someone else's?
A person or a pedestrian not being visible to those that choose to get around without obeying HC126, isn't harming anyone, a person who "whizzes" past someone at speed within 12" f them has committed a criminal offence, a common assault, if the victim wobbles from that attack then outcomes can get progressivel worse. Someone riding with no lights harms who, another person the would bump into, how often is that a thing and morever, how many people have ever being harmed by a person on a bike (or a pedestrian for that matter) in that scenario? people on bikes alread do less harm than pedestrians regards deaths when the two parties collide (see 2018 'Cycling Safety' report), never mind compared to motorists. .

There is no equity in your statement nor equivalence, so just getting along as in both parties taking equal responsibility is not acceptable nor right in a civil society, it's proven to be detrimental to vulnerable parties and now we have the vulnerable having to take up even more slack by what they do, what they wear or have on their bikes.
the CTC back in the 1930s wasn't wrong about it being the thin end of the wedge regards compulsary rear lights https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-wedge/

[pjclinch]

Eg. Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible?

I don't really understand this. When driving and coming across cyclists that might reasonably be described as "sub-optimally visible" I've never felt they were being "disrespectful" of me in my armoured box which could easily kill them.

And again we run in to the problem of absolutes. If it is "disrespectful" to drivers then where, exactly, do we draw the line between "trying to look invisible" and being "respectfully visible"? Do we, for example, take the illustration of the Highway Code's Rule 59 to indicate that anyone wearing dark shoes is "disrespectful" to other road users?



Pete.

[mjr]

Do we, for example, take the illustration of the Highway Code's Rule 59 to indicate that anyone wearing dark shoes is "disrespectful" to other road users?

Can we take it as indication that it's OK to ride with only what looks like a non-RVLR-compliant Cateye Opticube light from about 10 years ago?

[gaz]

Can we take it as indication that it's OK to ride with only what looks like a non-RVLR-compliant Cateye Opticube light from about 10 years ago?

The illustration is of a person on a cycle stopped at the left hand side of the road in daylight. Even in the hours of darkness this situation does not require any lighting .

[cycle tramp]

Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible? Is it respectful to whizz by a cyclist with 1 foot of distance, at breakneck speed?

I think the key is to put yourself in the place of the driver, as a cyclist, and vice versa. In the end, it is just people trying to get along.

It's been over a year, but do you remember what you wrote on the 1st Jul 2022, at 3.53 under the thread 'can hi-vis do harm'?
If you can't I can quote it here;

'As a car driver I notice hi-vis and flashing lights and I would have had very close calls with cyclists without them'.

These are your words, aren't they? You wrote them freely and without duress? That suggests to me, that perhaps either your sight, your hazard awareness or even your own ability to drive isn't that high...and that perhaps its either time to get better or stop altogether before you seriously hurt, maim or even kill someone. And that rather than try and force people do take a course of action, you'd be better off examining your own life choices.

[plancashire]

I take the view that the bike should do the visibility bit, not the rider, so I ignored the dark clothing part. I take Thoreau's view: https://thecuriouspeople.wordpress.com/ ... walden-21/. Riding a bike should be possible in normal clothes, the way the Dutch do. Driving a car is. In the dark that means lights and reflectors, as required by the law. No more. In practice it also means building facilities to keep speeding tonnes of metal away from people on bikes and on foot. The proliferation of daytime lights on the front of cars introduces a dangerous competition for attention.

Why do you ask?

[Pebble]

Is it really respectful to motorists to fly around on your bike trying to look invisible? Is it respectful to whizz by a cyclist with 1 foot of distance, at breakneck speed?

I think the key is to put yourself in the place of the driver, as a cyclist, and vice versa. In the end, it is just people trying to get along.

It's been over a year, but do you remember what you wrote on the 1st Jul 2022, at 3.53 under the thread 'can hi-vis do harm'?
If you can't I can quote it here;

'As a car driver I notice hi-vis and flashing lights and I would have had very close calls with cyclists without them'.

These are your words, aren't they? You wrote them freely and without duress? That suggests to me, that perhaps either your sight, your hazard awareness or even your own ability to drive isn't that high...and that perhaps its either time to get better or stop altogether before you seriously hurt, maim or even kill someone. And that rather than try and force people do take a course of action, you'd be better off examining your own life choices.

I didn't write that but I would largely agree with it, Flashing Lights and in particular reflective clothing allows the cyclist to be seen further away, this as a driver gives me more time to adjust my driving appropriately. And it is this observation as a driver that has compelled me as a cyclist to have flashing lights and plenty of reflective strips on my clothing. There is NO excuse not to see me when I am on the road.

[pwa]

I voted yes. Not because I want others to be banned from doing anything, but because I chose to interpret the question as if I were being asked if I would find it acceptable for me or my loved ones to be in the position of cycling on unlit roads in poor light without having lights. I'd not want anyone I care about to be in that situation. If they were in that situation I would be trying to do something about it, because it wouldn't be something I could accept and feel relaxed about. And I believe that the concern I show to myself and my family should be extended to everyone.

Again, it needs nuance and context.
Are you really concerned that I'm okay to ride up on an unlit lane in poor light that has hardly any traffic on it, that if there was something coming I'd have plenty of time to get off, and where I know the road well and won't be going fast as it's uphill? If it were someone you cared about, would that scenario really be setting off alarm bells?
The actual risks involved there are far, far lower than most cycle commutes to work, even though there are other contexts where it's none too smart.

We need to beware of sweeping generalisations and rote-answers to road safety questions.
We also need to better understand that beyond the "road safety is everyone's shared responsibility!" party line that the only person a numpty on a bike typically endangers significantly is themselves, while a numpty behind the wheel of a tonne plus box easily capable of 100 mph is a much bigger danger to a lot more people, so the limits of "acceptable" need to be tilted to reflect that.

Pete.

Yes, nuance and context are important. I chose to interpret the question as it would relate to people I care about cycling on a road in a normal sort of way, not pulling over to one side for approaching vehicles. But yes, as you say, someone who intended getting off the road every time a vehicle approaches could reduce the danger to levels I would find acceptable. Though if they were doing that sort of journey regularly I'd still be buying them some lighting.

[pjclinch]

Yes, nuance and context are important. I chose to interpret the question...

Good questions for polling purposes shouldn't be open to a range of interpretations as to what they actually mean.
It's actually quite tricky writing poll questions well, but that doesn't get past the fact that answering yes/no when "well, that depends..." is the real answer will often suggest to whoever organised the poll with a leading question that they have more of a point than they do. So I prefer to call out the question than answer it.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

Flashing Lights and in particular reflective clothing allows the cyclist to be seen further away, this as a driver gives me more time to adjust my driving appropriately. And it is this observation as a driver that has compelled me as a cyclist to have flashing lights and plenty of reflective strips on my clothing. There is NO excuse not to see me when I am on the road.

There is NO excuse not to see any road user or any hazard on the Road, whether bedecked as a Christmas tree or otherwise. By inflection, your statement suggest that if a vulnerable road user was not using the same equipment as you, there may exist an excuse, no matter how unwarranted.
If this is not a true comprehension of your post, then you did very little to counter it.

The concerning point with your post is the phrase 'as a driver gives me more time to adjust my driving appropriately'.
As a road user your driving should be appropriate to the conditions at all time, as per the highway code 'travel at a speed that you can easily stop in know it to be clear'.

The undercurrent of this thread is that those who appear to wish vulnerable road users to wear lighter clothing or use lights or hi vi's, have adopted a set of questionable road habits, when they drive, and that rather than improve on them, they have taken the much lazier route of telling others what to wear whilst cycling and how to equipped their bicycles.

[pjclinch]

I didn't write that but I would largely agree with it, Flashing Lights and in particular reflective clothing allows the cyclist to be seen further away, this as a driver gives me more time to adjust my driving appropriately. And it is this observation as a driver that has compelled me as a cyclist to have flashing lights and plenty of reflective strips on my clothing. There is NO excuse not to see me when I am on the road.

I've bought in to this idea in the past, but with time and further thought I've rejected it.
Yes, I can see a Yellow! coat literally half a mile up the road in some cases where someone in a business suit or jeans and a dark T would have escaped my attention, and I have seen that and thought "Wow! that makes a difference, and this far out too!"... but when it comes down to it a half mile warning is irrelevant because if I'm driving to Highway Code 126 (as I try to do) then as long as I can see the cyclist just beyond the distance I can safely stop in, it's a moot point. Impressive on the one hand, irrelevant on the other.

As for the possibilities of hitting you despite being ostentatious...


People that don't look won't see. People who do look can generally see person sized/shaped objects on bikes in their line of vision, and while it's not a problem if you want to dress up very brightly it's important that we don't victim-blame around it or suggest it's wrong not to do that, because that can make the difference between e.g. image-conscious teenagers giving up riding because they have to dress to do it in a way they're not happy to do, and keeping on riding to the benefit of their health and independence.

Pete.

[Pebble]

In answer to the above couple of posts; Are we talking about an ideal world or the reality of UK roads?

In an ideal world where I was king, driving would be a privilege for the very careful and considerate, I would even revoke the licences of those who can't be bothered to park properly, cycling would be a lot more pleasant. (although with a lot more cyclists, we would may be need licences for push bikes so as we could remove the danger of the idiotic cyclists, of which they would be many)

However if we are considering the reality of the currant situation where the roads are largely un-policed, drivers regularly speed and play with their phones, sometimes even both at the same time, and thats before we get to all those drivers with defective vision (which I guess are many) Then getting seen becomes a challenge, you need to stand out a bit more if the driver sending a text is only paying 20% attention to the road ahead. I am not for suggesting for one second that a cyclist in dark clothing is in anyway to blame if a mobile phone obsessed driver ploughs into them, but to my mind that cyclist stood a better chance of been seen had they be lit up like a manic xmas tree. It is not an ideal situation but it is what we have

And I am also in no way suggesting that there is any guarantees in bright and reflective clothing, drivers are capable of crashing into the bleeding obvious, as per PJ's post above. But I would guess they would crash into more visible cyclists less, and as such I put a bit of effort and thought as to how I may appear to drivers.

[cycle tramp]

Thanks for the clarification there..

..so the only reason for using light clothing and other visibility aids is due to the habits of other road users, which might whilst be described as unacceptable, may also be described more accurately as illegal, wreckless or dangerous?

[Pebble]

Thanks for the clarification there..

..so the only reason for using light clothing and other visibility aids is due to the habits of other road users, which might whilst be described as unacceptable, may also be described more accurately as illegal, wreckless or dangerous?

exactly

although I still feel being seen further away may help the good careful drivers a little, gives them a chance to modify their speed so as they will arrive behind on a section of road where they may know there is a good chance of passing.