Cycling UK Forum

drossall wrote:

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.

Confirmation bias. People who have already bought into the idea that lots of cyclists ride without lights notice the unlit ones and forget about all the lit up ones.

I think there's something in the idea that unlit cyclists do fewer miles, but I'd also suggest that they're more also more likely to be riding on pavements. The two seem to go together to a certain extent - perhaps not surprisingly, if you've got a "doesn't apply to me if I don't want it to" attitude towards the law.

When I were a lad, I got stopped by the police on the way home from a time trial. We were a bit late and it was getting dark. We all got a right rollocking from the PC for not having any lights. Can't see that happening today though.

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...

Entirely anecdotal but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of cyclists I pass on my bath > Bristol commute have lights. I would be very surprised if as many as one in ten are unlit.

It winds me up to see a bike ninja and I don't recall getting wound up that often on my dark ride home (unless they're all hiding in the shadows!!!)

karlt wrote:Confirmation bias. People who have already bought into the idea that lots of cyclists ride without lights notice the unlit ones and forget about all the lit up ones.

Absolutely, and I am sure that that is part of what is happening.

10% of cyclists being unlit, however, would be a relatively small proportion (although still too many). Also, if unlit cyclists are less safe, then they have more accidents each. Thus, the unlit cyclists having 10% of the accidents would have to be far fewer in number than 10% of the total.

What's more, the noticing of the unlit ones is the point - if you get noticed by not using lights, isn't that a reason why it would be safer not to do so? We're all aware of the issue where, even in daylight, a motorist appears to see a cyclist, but not remember that he is there for long enough to take any action about it.

Playing devil's advocate here. However, I see accident statistics as worth trying to explain.

karlt wrote:I think there's something in the idea that unlit cyclists do fewer miles, but I'd also suggest that they're more also more likely to be riding on pavements.

But other statistics suggest that, even in daylight, riding on pavements is less safe than riding on roads. So we now have the unlit cyclists, tiny in number, riding in a more dangerous place, than the lit cyclists who have most of the accidents

drossall wrote:

karlt wrote:Confirmation bias. People who have already bought into the idea that lots of cyclists ride without lights notice the unlit ones and forget about all the lit up ones.

Absolutely, and I am sure that that is part of what is happening.

10% of cyclists being unlit, however, would be a relatively small proportion (although still too many). Also, if unlit cyclists are less safe, then they have more accidents each. Thus, the unlit cyclists having 10% of the accidents would have to be far fewer in number than 10% of the total.

What's more, the noticing of the unlit ones is the point - if you get noticed by not using lights, isn't that a reason why it would be safer not to do so? We're all aware of the issue where, even in daylight, a motorist appears to see a cyclist, but not remember that he is there for long enough to take any action about it.

Playing devil's advocate here. However, I see accident statistics as worth trying to explain.

Always.

But there's more than one kind of "noticed". I doubt that lit cyclists are "not noticed" as such; but they're noticed, avoided, then forgotten. The unlit ones are noticed, sworn about, and remembered. So at the end of the journey, the observer disproportionately remembers the unlit ones.

drossall wrote:

karlt wrote:I think there's something in the idea that unlit cyclists do fewer miles, but I'd also suggest that they're more also more likely to be riding on pavements.

But other statistics suggest that, even in daylight, riding on pavements is less safe than riding on roads. So we now have the unlit cyclists, tiny in number, riding in a more dangerous place, than the lit cyclists who have most of the accidents

True 'nuff, but is it still more dangerous after dark?

Thinking about what I see, the unlit cyclists I tend to spot have the following characteristics:

1. Generally young and on low speed, lit, suburban streets, and even then on the pavement, apart from when they cross roads.
2. Going slowly and doing short journeys (a good proportion are kids on BMXes, which don't seem capable of any speed - they often look like they're going fast, but I usually pass them by a significant speed margin without hammering it)
3. Main time for offending appears to be dusk rather than full darkness.

My conclusion from the statistics would be that going on faster roads on longer runs increases the chance of being hit, and lights don't ameliorate that as much as you might expect. This makes sense as motorists expect cyclists less on faster roads, and have less time to react after seeing one as they're going faster. It's also where they're more likely to "zone out". Put a 14 year old ninja BMXer on Bochum Parkway in the pitch dark and I expect he'd have a good chance of being hedgehoged. If this is so, then the best advice might be to try, as far as possible, to:

a) keep to lit roads
b) keep to slower back roads
c) use as bright lights as possible to be seen from the furthest away

Put it another way - there are a lot of confounding variables here which would take some significant unpicking.

Gilk wrote:........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 ]

The answer is to look at their shoes and then up at them.

Then simply choose a felon - I work in the NHS so I use Harold Shipman

"Were you aware that Harold Shipman wore the same style of shoes as you do - does that make you responsible for his actions?"

When you get a negative answer smile and ask why they think you have any responsibility for others on bikes.

Cunobelin wrote:

Gilk wrote:........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 ]

The answer is to look at their shoes and then up at them.

Then simply choose a felon - I work in the NHS so I use Harold Shipman

"Were you aware that Harold Shipman wore the same style of shoes as you do - does that make you responsible for his actions?"

When you get a negative answer smile and ask why they think you have any responsibility for others on bikes.

Thats not going to work with bus drivers,wairing the same shoes as Harold Shipman! they would be well chuffed.
As for noticing cycles with no lights,I think Karlt was right, you remember them,when you walk down the high street do you remember the hundreds of people,or the pist bloke shouting at a tree?

Its a shame to contradict myself in this but I did a mini survey on the way home today. I'm not suggesting this is either representative or statistically significant, but...

I drove back from central Bristol to Bath and passed 13 cyclists. 8 of them had no lights on, of whom 7 were also riding on the pavement. Another person had a very bright front light but no rear light (I'm guessing most collisions are with traffic on the same side of the road, so coming from behind?).

Silly and sad too.

Given the excellent light output that modern, even budget, LED lamps give out (particularly rear ones), I've been surprised to notice how many cyclists are out there with really poor lights (i.e batteries are nearly spent). There are a lot of rural roads around here and I must say most of the cyclists I see have lights on. However they (we) need to keep an eye on batteries, and perhaps replace them sooner than we think?

Fortunately my main rear light on both of my bikes is a B&M Toplight which has low battery warning.

hungrydave wrote:I'm guessing most collisions are with traffic on the same side of the road, so coming from behind?

Probably not. Most are at junctions in general - car crossing path of bike, most often. Not sure about at night.

Yes check all your lights. I will check ours this weekend.
I nearly rang over another ninja cyclist tonight at about six o clock.
His rear light was on but barely visible.
Fit a couple front and back in case one goes wrong.
Afraid I shouted use some lights at him.
Thats the third this week down our unlit lanes.
Perhaps I should follow them and paint them yellow.
I REALLY AM FED UP WITH THIS! One day I will hit
one.j

162 in a row - hello...

At last plod put the foot down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-15569478

I think they are extremely generous letting them off with the £30 fine if they get some lights.

Pity more police forces don't enforce the law.

Yes, yes, I know, what about the motorists who don't have proper lights, yes, yes, we all know about them.....

Cycle cat is right, have more than 1 set of lights, they are cheep and so are the batterys. My ride to work is a hour,in that time a light that looked good when terned on could end up to dim to be seen. As for 'my battery has gone flat', how many late shops do you pass on your way home?
The bike that is used for work/night has 3 on the back and 2 front, the 2 front are better than some moped lights I had in my youth.