Cycling UK Forum

Without lights and in dark clothing

You should put "without lights" in the title, as that's what most likely makes it unacceptable.

Does "poor light" include night?

I think at this point you are going to have to qualify in your terms what you mean by 'poor light'. Are we taking about it being slightly cloudly? Or during the evening or night?

If the conditions of poor light are occuring between the hours of sunrise and sunset there is no legal requirement for a cycle to be lit on a UK road.

Neither is wearing dark clothing a criminal act.

That's my evidence base that it is acceptable to ride a cycle on UK roads in poor light without lights and in dark clothing.

Nobody will force you to do so and you are free to use lights and hi-vis if you wish.

I've replied 'yes' to this one...

Looking through my partner's big book of psychology (she's got qualifications I could never hope to achieve) I'm wondering if the above question had been raised not because of any safety concern but something else, more personal...

This survey has been created as a direct response to your first survey which suggests that cyclists should have 'day time running lights and that they should be compulsory'.. where it was shown your view was not supported. Further to this you've attempted to hide the second survey in a different part of the forum.

And at this point I'm not sure why you're even raising the question because in previous threads, it's already been noted that you won't cycle on the roads, as you believe them to be dangerous..

..which leaves the only reason to raise the above survey is to protect your own view point as a motorist, and using the view point if all those who answered 'no' as some sort of self justification to continue to request that all cyclists have day time riding lights, despite the fact that lights are only legally required if one rides during the hours of darkness.

Does the foisterng of responsibility onto the vulnerable parties have any demonstrable positive effect on safety outcomes?
As we see elsewhere, removing focus and responsibility from those that do the harm ends with more harm no matter what those getting harmed do.
I was late to driving but did circa 350,000 miles over 25 years, lots through (and around) London, I've never not seen a person riding a bike with no lights and/or dark clothing nor a pedestrian with dark clothing on a country lane. Shifting the onus doesn't work and has created a roadscape that is dominated with might is right and horrendous victim blaming on an epic scale such that it's impacted significantly modal share of non motoring transport never mind the death and injury toll.

Maybe a question to ask is, 'Is it acceptable for motorists to drive at same speed in poor light/reduced visibility conditions as that in broad daylight/good visibility?

fastpedaller wrote: ↑15 Aug 2023, 9:23pm I'm wondering if Pinhead is trolling

He's very persistent, whatever you choose to call it!

Pinhead wrote: ↑15 Aug 2023, 8:08pm Without lights and in dark clothing

Again you fail to understand the way that context is important, and sweeping statements/questions like this don't really make sense as absolutes.
The lane I stay on is unlit. It also has vanishingly little through traffic and what there is tends to be slow, and were I to encounter any I'd have plenty of time to dismount and stand aside for it. If I've just got off the bus at the bottom with my Brompton and for some reason my lights aren't working it would be no problem at all riding home as long as there was enough light to see where the road edges were.
There again, if it's something like a busy rural trunk road with lots of bends and constant traffic it'd be pretty damn stupid.

You need to stop thinking in black and white and sweeping highly variable sets of situations in to one thing. The world isn't like that. Where context changes things you need to account for it and add some nuance to these absolute positions you tend to take.

Pete.

I think we just need to accept that some people don’t do “shades of grey” very well, which is fine unless or until they expect everyone who does to cease doing so.

I voted “yes” on the basis that in the dark lighting and reflectors are probably more important to visibility than clothing colour.

Oh ….., wait a minute, this is now about lights ….. any possibility that the question could remain static?

This is getting more than slightly silly.

I voted yes because I read "poor light" as during the daytime, but overcast. This is because I am fortunate enough to have decent eyesight, so don't need any help seeing where I am going in such conditions.

If the OP meant "during the night" then I'd change my vote to no. Because despite my decent eyesight, I can't see in the dark.

Clothing is irrelevant in either case.

I didn't vote, because there isn't an option for "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that"

Pinhead's previous effort in online polling, on compulsory DRLs, I was happy to vote no to, 'cause even while DRLs are a legitimate personal choice, making them compulsory on bikes is really not a good idea on a great many levels.

Pete.

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.

pwa wrote: ↑16 Aug 2023, 10:36am 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.

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.