Cycling UK Forum

I just came back from a visit to my home town of Hull and it was incredible how many people riding bikes after sunset didn't have lights, there was one guy on a major arterial route just chipping along as if it was completely acceptable
Saying that if you're reasonably observant then it isn't a massive problem, it's only if they swerve out into your path at the last second from the gloom that it is. However those noddies in the tin boxes that just don't look/see in any case (daytime or otherwise) are the ones likely to knock them off, I've not a huge amount of sympathy for bicyclists failing to comply with the law tbh.

It seems to me that lightless cycling is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back in the day, lighting was hard because lamps were dim, batteries were expensive and didn't last long, bulbs blew, and the lamps fell off. Despite that, cyclists were (I think) more diligent about having lights.

Or perhaps I'm a BOF.

Cunobelin wrote:

hondated wrote:Given that you can buy a set of lights these days in any 99p or £1 shops there really is no excuse for anyone not having them fitted on their bike.

Which is another issue as these lights are often inadequate, poorly made and lat about.

With respect I have to disagree with you on that point. I have had their lights on my bikes for years and in fact the front lights diodes are proving to be far more efficient in lighting up the road than the more expensive one I also have on my bike.

The only problem I have had is having to remove brakes etc to fit the light because the clamp is made of plastic and breaks if you try to stretch it.

mark a. wrote:I think this time of year especially people are getting caught out. I still get surprised when it's dark when leaving work since it wasn't that long ago when it's light until very late.

I suspect it will get better once the clocks change tonight as it will definitely be dark after work.

That won't answer all of the unlit cyclists, of course. I suspect it's a combination of many things: cost, convenience, being caught-out, dead batteries etc. I know a few people around where I work just go with hi-vis rather than lights because they can get those free from work.

Well maybe getting caught out is a possibility, but I guess that's one of the beauties of shift work, you can't get caught cos at least one journey per week, no matter what time of the year, is done after the hours of dark so lights are always with the bike.

cycle cat wrote:My route to work takes me along dark country lanes with no
street lights. It seems it's up to me to avoid all the unlit walkers
runners and cyclists.

I totally sympathise with your frustrations, it amazes me to see people cycling in fast moving London traffic without lights in the dusk or dark + crossing junctions jumping the lights. They must have a death wish and/or are really stupid.

But on a point of law, isn't it still your responsibility to avoid them? And that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one!

Euskadi wrote:

cycle cat wrote:My route to work takes me along dark country lanes with no
street lights. It seems it's up to me to avoid all the unlit walkers
runners and cyclists.

I totally sympathise with your frustrations, it amazes me to see people cycling in fast moving London traffic without lights in the dusk or dark + crossing junctions jumping the lights. They must have a death wish and/or are really stupid.

But on a point of law, isn't it still your responsibility to avoid them? And that's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one!

Up to a point, yes. But as always only if you could reasonably be expected to be able to.

Just to play devil's advocate, that's quite a key point.

Compulsory (rear) lights were introduced to provide extra safety. The CTC at the time got quite concerned because they did not expect it to work this way. Instead of a world in which cyclists were even more visible because they had lights, the CTC expected one in which cyclists without lights were held to be invisible. This thread demonstrates that.

You could put it this way: "hit a lit cyclist, and your negligence is doubled", as opposed to "hit an unlit one, and there is contributory negligence". Otherwise, there's a risk that the extra visibility gets used in traffic moving faster and with less care.

None of which is an argument for riding without lights.

However:

T wrote:

gaz wrote:...a study by West Sussex Police...which found that only 10% of nocturnally injured riders were unlit.

...We need to know what percentage of the total nocturnal riders are unlit before we can even think about drawing conclusions from the percentage injured who are unlit...

True, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that only ten per cent of cyclists are unlit. Therefore, either all the noise about unlit cyclists is nonsense, or this and a number of other studies suggest that lit cyclists have more accidents. One possible explanation is this: in many circumstances, street lighting makes unlit cyclists visible. Drivers may get annoyed by those unlit cyclists, but annoyance is a reaction, and getting a reaction to your presence is a key step in safety. In some cases, that may outweigh the benefits of lighting.

But I'll still be using my nice, bright, lights...

I try to avoid hitting stuff when I'm driving or cycling.
It seems stupid not to give yourself a chance by being
visible.If you read this forum regularly you'll realise
that not all road users are sensible.
Why create the perfect conditions for a tragedy.
The Highway Code does advise people to be visible or
to carry something white.

drossall wrote:True, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that only ten per cent of cyclists are unlit. Therefore, either all the noise about unlit cyclists is nonsense, or this and a number of other studies suggest that lit cyclists have more accidents.

What if lit cyclists cover many more miles than unlit ones? (Which is an entirely reasonable hypothesis.) If 20% of cyclists are unlit but on average travel only a quarter the distance of an average lit cyclist, they're now 10% of the accidents for only 6% of the cycle miles covered, and we're back with them being nearly twice as likely to be involved in an accident.

(Actually, I'm not sure you'd be that hard pressed to find anyone who believes that only 10% are unlit - doesn't seem unreasonable to me; I don't see many unlit ones on the roads once it's properly dark. But then those figures are from the 1980s.)

Last night on the Bristol to Bath path, during a 10 minute slot around 5.30, of the cyclists returning from the city to the suburbs, fewer than 10 percent were ninjas. I know this because I made a point of shouting at each one of them.

I let off the two who were riding up close to a cyclist with lights for being creative - I wondered whether it was pre-arranged or whether the ninjas were holding hostage the one with the lights.

I caught a ninja by accident while I was flashing 10 watts of LEDs at a particularly dazzling would-be lighthouse :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYO__D-5i1E

Quite a few times I've thought about riding to the city end of the path to see how the unlit make their way from their workplaces to the start ..

Finished work a 4pm on a miserable wet evening, yesterday.
At least 2 vehicles with no lights, numerous others with defective lights...

All cyclists were displaying lights.

As the OP said, why no lights?

drossall wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, that's quite a key point.

Compulsory (rear) lights were introduced to provide extra safety. The CTC at the time got quite concerned because they did not expect it to work this way. Instead of a world in which cyclists were even more visible because they had lights, the CTC expected one in which cyclists without lights were held to be invisible. This thread demonstrates that.

You could put it this way: "hit a lit cyclist, and your negligence is doubled", as opposed to "hit an unlit one, and there is contributory negligence". Otherwise, there's a risk that the extra visibility gets used in traffic moving faster and with less care.

None of which is an argument for riding without lights.

However:

T wrote:

gaz wrote:...a study by West Sussex Police...which found that only 10% of nocturnally injured riders were unlit.

...We need to know what percentage of the total nocturnal riders are unlit before we can even think about drawing conclusions from the percentage injured who are unlit...

True, but you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that only ten per cent of cyclists are unlit. Therefore, either all the noise about unlit cyclists is nonsense, or this and a number of other studies suggest that lit cyclists have more accidents. One possible explanation is this: in many circumstances, street lighting makes unlit cyclists visible. Drivers may get annoyed by those unlit cyclists, but annoyance is a reaction, and getting a reaction to your presence is a key step in safety. In some cases, that may outweigh the benefits of lighting.

But I'll still be using my nice, bright, lights...

Not the case....

The CTC fought this on the change in responsibility.

The change was from drivers being responsible for seeing cyclists to cyclists being responsible to making themselves seen.

In effect an overtaking vehicle had the responsibility to ensure it was safe for the to do so. After the law it was the responsibility of the cyclist being overtaken to be safe

As someone who runs a 1000 lumen light on the front and two dinotte rear lights n the back, yet still "can't be seen" by a significant minority of motorists I can sympathise with this

Well thank you all,I know now Ime not alone. Posted the topic after another near miss with a unlit uni student on her bike and a week of getting it in the kneck from work mates [you cycle,why do all bikes have no lights? bla bla bla ext ext ]
As for not being seen,in 12 years on the buses i've been run into twice by cars that did not see me,and its 40ft long 10ft high and painted red, so what chance have
we got. Oh forgot about the man who walked into the side of the bus whilst stoped at bus stop,but think he was a student.

stewartpratt wrote:What if lit cyclists cover many more miles than unlit ones?

Then the lit cyclists would be seen far more often than the unlit ones, and people would not believe that large numbers of cyclists ride without lights. We are still left with two options:

• Cycling without lights is rare (less than 10% of all cycle mileage at night), or:
• Cyclists with lights have disproportionately more accidents

I'm not actually sure what to make of this - hence my stating several times that I am not arguing for riding without lights.

Cunobelin wrote:Not the case....

The CTC fought this on the change in responsibility.

I'm perfectly prepared to stand corrected - this was before my time and I am relying on reports. However, I'm not sure what the difference is between my statement that the concern was about introducing contributory negligence by the cyclist, when previously the driver was responsible, and yours that the concern was about transfer of responsibility.

I was trying to give a sense of the argument. I'm hoping that we are basically in agreement. I may not have got some fine detail correct.