[Closed] £220 fine for no lights

I don't recall anyone saying its a bad idea to use lights TAXI MAN... Do try and keep up. The point I was making (and I believe a few others) is that the benefits of lights are often overstated. It doesn't matter how much anecdotal "evidence" people churn up, the numbers don't lie....

"Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time."

From a Department for Transport study

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Ahh.. thought so. Statistical fail, I think.

If I'm reading this right it says that not using lights was a contributing factor in 2% of accidents. But it does not say how many of the total accidents were using lights, nor does it say how many accidents happened in the dark.

The statistic we need is how many riders with lights were involved in accidents vs total riders with lights; and how many riders without lights were involved in accidents vs total riders without lights. In both daytime and night time.

Am I right?

Am I right?

😆

But you don't actually know if I'm right, you're just guessing?

If I say your right will you get back in your box?

No.

But if you can't tell if I'm right or not then you don't understand stats enough to quote articles. So I might cordially invite you to get back inside your own box 🙂

If I'm reading this right it says that not using lights was a contributing factor in 2% of accidents. But it does not say how many of the total accidents were using lights, nor does it say how many accidents happened in the dark.

There must be some stats on this somewhere - I genuinely don't know the answer..but how far ahead does a car on dipped headlights throw its beam so the driver can see an obstruction clearly. Is the distance greater or lesser than the stopping distances at 40/50/60/70 in the highway code?

I don't recall anyone saying its a bad idea to use lights TAXI MAN

so your making a pointless argument just for the sake of arguing then. I suppose that's what some people use the internet for. Just carry on if your having fun 😀

Why do you want to know this?

In order to be able to make any even slightly meaningful inferences from the data.

Actually the Stats19 data does tell you those things. But it doesn't tell you how many people are riding around with or without lights, nor the total distances covered by each. And without that you still can't make any meaningful inferences (if there are 100 collisions in each set, what if there were 100 people in one set and 1,000 in the other? but then what if the 100 in the first set all rode 1,000 miles each and those in the second only rode 10?). And there's no data set that'll tell you those things.

And even then you'd have to account for population behaviours: let's take the (quite reasonable) hypothesis that people who ride without lights are less safety-conscious and more inclined to take risks. This makes them inherently more likely to be involved in a collision. Thus even if you know the per-mile collision rates for lit and unlit cyclists, you still have a population bias that you pretty much can't filter out.

And then you'd have to consider the population bias in terms of locations, and…

There must be some stats on this somewhere - I genuinely don't know the answer..but how far ahead does a car on dipped headlights throw its beam so the driver can see an obstruction clearly. Is the distance greater or lesser than the stopping distances at 40/50/60/70 in the highway code?

It varies depending on how good your lights and your brakes are, of course, but 50mph is a ballpark figure for your average car. (Sources exist, but I don't have them to hand.)

Why do you want to know this ?

What Bez said.

You might not be able to work out what difference lights make from those stats but the main cause of accidents is pretty clear: [i]With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases[/i]. Get these idiots off the road rather than blaming the victims then we can start looking at the finer points.

The question we are debating is 'are lights worth using?' not 'what's the greatest risk to cyclists?'

And given we don't know how much of a risk not using lights is, we don't know how much the non light users are to blame, do we?

It would be pretty ridiculous to argue that whilst there are careless drivers on the roads we don't need to use lights - which is the only conclusion from your post.

It would be pretty ridiculous to argue that whilst there are careless drivers on the roads we don't need to use lights - which is the only conclusion from your post.

As I previously stated, the main reason you need lights is careless drivers.

Disagree. It is a legal requirement to be lit, for obvious reasons. Drivers should be looking out for everything, that is true, but being unlit makes this very much more difficult.

Are you saying that if a driver is paying attention then lights should not be necessary? Cos that's bobbins IMO.

Blaming the victims and forcing them to protect themselves does help fix the problem but it's hardly a good solution.

It really does sound like you're arguing against the use of lights..?

Look - it's dark at night, even under streetlights, so why should lights not be mandatory? They are for cars, so why not for bikes? Really not following you here.

You have a duty to follow certain safety rules when driving, riding and walking. Otherwise you could dress completely in black and leap out from behind a lorry into the road and blame the driver that hits you..? The safety rules involve the highway code, watching where you are going and using lights at night.

It really does sound like you're arguing against the use of lights..?

I'm arguing against blaming the victim as the first place you go

Can a driver reasonably be expected to see a rider without lights in all instances?

I absolutely NEVER advocate taking anything at face value. In every accident all the facts need to be considered, both by the real courts and the internet ones. Consequently I would never assign blame to any cyclist in an accident for not using lights unless I knew all the circumstances. However I WOULD condemn a cyclist for not using lights *in general* because it's risky behaviour. Note the subtle difference between those two statements.

Sometimes the cyclist IS to blame, you know. As is the pedestrian.

The question we are debating is 'are lights worth using?' not 'what's the greatest risk to cyclists?'

And given we don't know how much of a risk not using lights is, we don't know how much the non light users are to blame, do we?

I guess this is just moly doing his thing - no disrespect meant

Its still 2%

No it's not.

[quote=taxi25 ]Just grow up a bit mate you and a couple of other are just coming across like idiots.

😆 yeah, it's definitely me coming across as an idiot...

[quote=molgrips ]Can a driver reasonably be expected to see a rider without lights in all instances?

Do keep up - I think us idiots have already agreed that it's not reasonable to expect a driver to see a cyclist without lights when the driver is waiting at a T junction and the cyclist is riding along the road the driver is looking to join (assuming no street lights). I'm sure there are other examples, but that's a good one.

I don't think anybody has come up with an example of where it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to see a cyclist without a rear light though.

1) when there are lots of other bright rear lights in front of the driver.

2) When the lighting is uneven from street lights or other sources

3) In bright sunlight with strong shade on parts of the road

4) When driving into a low sun

5) Fog

6) Heavy rain

For starters.

So you reckon it's reasonable for a driver driving into a low sun or in bright sunlight not to see a cyclist without a rear light? Would it be reasonable for the driver not to see them in those circumstances even if the cyclist did have a rear light?

Let's just drive into a space whether or not we can see what is in that space.

don't think anybody has come up with an example of where it would be unreasonable to expect a driver to see a cyclist without a rear light though.

Maybe flip the question;

Is there a situation where a rear light would make a cyclist less visible?

My aim when I ride on the road is to get from A to B without being killed, if a light helps in any way then I'm going to use one, no amount of moral high ground helps when you're squished under a car.

[quote=irelanst ]Is there a situation where a rear light would make a cyclist less visible?

Probably when riding into a low sun...

Define 'reasonable' ?

Let's just drive into a space whether or not we can see what is in that space.

Have you ever driven into a low sun?

Of course in all those situations a driver should take due care and pay attention, but a cyclist should make it as easy as possible to be seen, as should any driver by putting his own lights on.

I'm not blaming every unlit cyclist for every accident. Just to clear that up. I think some refer to the concepts I am advocating as 'common sense' but I don't like that phrase.

Probably when riding into a low sun...

I'm not convinced, unless the light is more powerful than the sun, then the rider will be a shadow, light or no light.

I'm not blaming every unlit cyclist for every accident. Just to clear that up. I think some refer to the concepts I am advocating as 'common sense' but I don't like that phrase.

Driving into low sun despite not being able to see is common sense? Am I reading this right? 😕

Jesus. If you're riding at night just put some bloody lights on. FFS.

So you're suggesting that drivers who run down cyclists because they couldn't see them when driving into a low sun are not at all at fault? Wow. Is it the cyclists who are at fault then?

I've said it before - the true offence here is 'failing to spot the police'

Who's the victim here?

The state for not putting his dumb ass down at birth...?

So you're suggesting that drivers who run down cyclists because they couldn't see them when driving into a low sun are not at all at fault?

Of course I'm bloody well not, read my posts, especially the bit where I said this:

I absolutely NEVER advocate taking anything at face value. In every accident all the facts need to be considered, both by the real courts and the internet ones.

The bit about the low sun was in direct response (and ONLY in response) to the bit where you said you couldn't think of a situation where a driver might not reasonably be expected to SEE a rider without a rear light. I made no allocation of blame in any hypothetical accident in such a situation.

So if in that situation the driver might not reasonably be expected to see the cyclist (your claim) then the driver might not reasonably be expected to avoid running them over. If the driver might not reasonably be expected to avoid running them over, then the driver isn't at fault.

Where is the flaw in logic there?

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the driver to see the cyclist (with or without a light) in any of your other scenarios BTW, just going for the low hanging fruit.

Its still 2%

Not necessarily. Where a collision occurs and the cyclist is unlit, this is likely to be recorded as a factor. But what you don't know is whether the same collision would have occurred with lights*. To get a better idea of that, you'd need to compare normalised collision rates across the with/without lights sets, adjusting for confounding factors.

-

* Example: driver is distracted by phone or similar, collides with cyclist, obviously says "I didn't see him"; cyclist doesn't have lights, so it's recorded as a contributory factor (and I suspect may well be in all cases where it appears), but it's not necessarily the cause of the failure to see him.

PS I don't think anyone's claiming that there are no incidents in which a lack of lights was a genuine contributory factor.

Where is the flaw in logic there?

There isn't one, really. You're extrapolating points that you think I'm making, even though I've explicitly told you that I'm not. And you're getting rather confrontational about it, being rather passive-aggressive.

Let me repeat. I am not saying who's at fault in a situation that has not even been described hypothetically in this thread. You asked for instances where a driver might not see a cyclist without a rear light even if they were looking, I gave some.

I did not say what the driver should or should not do if they find themselves in a situation where they can't see very well. If anything, I was pointing out why we still need rear lights even if the cars behind have their headlights on.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect the driver to see the cyclist (with or without a light) in any of your other scenarios BTW

Ok so this is a bit more interesting. Low sun is a danger to everyone, it's a difficult situation in which to drive. However lots of lights at night is a different thing altogether. If you have lots of red lights in your face, as you do when driving at night, then your eye cannot easily see things that are dark. It's not a question of inattention, it's a question of optics. However the driver should safely be able to assume that any road traffic will be lit up, since those are the rules. So he should be able to drive by the lights he can see. That doesn't mean abdicating due care and attention, he should not of course be reckless and drivers should always expect the unexpected, but due to the physics of the situation he might not be able to SEE the unlit cyclist.

Likewise thick fog. Have you ever seen a string of car lights coming towards you in fog and then when they arrive there's actually another one in front that you didn't see until they were quite close?

I don't think a driver can be expected to see everything in all lighting conditions when that object is unlit.

However - in any accident, ALL the facts should be assessed, and blame should not be automatically attributed due to the presence or absence of lights, helmets, high-viz and so on. I believe this is how the legal process is meant to work.

[quote=molgrips ]There isn't one, really. You're extrapolating points that you think I'm making, even though I've explicitly told you that I'm not.

To think that it's not unreasonable for the driver not to see the cyclist but that he would be at fault if he ran the cyclist over is a failure of logic, hence by giving your opinion on one you've also given your opinion on the other, whatever your disclaimer.

Or to put it another way, if you think a driver who runs down a cyclist is at fault even if they are diving into a low sun, then the logical progression from that is that it is unreasonable for a driver not to see a cyclist in those circumstances.

At the point I came into this thread I thought we'd already done "lights are a good idea", and moved onto discussing whether motorists should be expected to look where they're going whether or not cyclists are lit up.

Ok so this is a bit more interesting...

So slow down so that you can process the information and not run into something in front of you (which might be all sorts of other unlit things apart from cyclists). The thing is, the whole argument you're making here is very much based on the hegemony of the car.

If you get hit riding without lights, it's your fault.

But it's also the driver's fault.

No one should drive faster than the range of their lights allows for stopping. There's much bigger things than cyclists out there on the roads at night such as deer or cows, and they don't have lights. Or perhaps even a pedestrian.

The thing is, the whole argument you're making here is very much based on the hegemony of the car.

No, because I also include cyclists running into other cyclists.

Don't invent prejudices for me. Keep an open mind on the internet, rather than believing what you want to believe. I'm NOT pro car hegemony, and this whole debate is about practicalities of the current situation, not future transport policy.

So bloody stop it, it's a pain in the arse.

Do cyclists commonly run into other cyclists they don't see because of low sun?

What a sodding stupid question.

Can you PLEASE just state your point, and not be winding me up with all these questions. It would be a lot nicer and we'd all have a better thread.

No it's not at all, because you're suggesting this issue of moving into a space you can't see is clear isn't limited to motor vehicles.

My point, which I thought was fairly obvious, is that lots of drivers do drive into spaces they can't see are clear, are then surprised when they hit something in that space and they (and society) consider their inability to see whether the space they drive into is clear to be an excuse. I consider that to be rather wrong, and a symptom of car hegemony.

they (and society) consider their inability to see whether the space they drive into is clear to be an excuse

I don't see any evidence of this, and it is not my position as I've made clear twice now.

Really? Do I need to dredge up the links to court cases where drivers used that as their defence and were consequently found not guilty?

You have suggested a few times that you don't think it unreasonable for a driver not to see a cyclist in front of them for various reasons. Have I missed the bit where you then suggested that the driver stopped because they couldn't see what was in front of them?

You have suggested a few times that you don't think it unreasonable for a driver not to see a cyclist in front of them for various reasons

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to happen. That doesn't mean that the driver isn't at fault.

Really? Do I need to dredge up the links to court cases where drivers used that as their defence and were consequently found not guilty?

No need, I've already done it.

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/03/bez-erasure/

But what you don't know is whether the same collision would have occurred with lights*.

That said , having read your link and the work you have done, I am happy to bow to your expertise[ not sarcasm].
Sobering and frightening

[quote=molgrips ]I don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to happen. That doesn't mean that the driver isn't at fault.

I think you need to make your mind up rather than holding two logically incompatible viewpoints.

ndthornton - Member
You did see them then because you counted them; so they weren't rendered invisible.....and from your tone am I safe in assuming you managed not to run over any of them?

I stated that one of them was in the full dark in the countryside and only just saw them. To fill you in though, I seriously nearly ran him over. Came on to him round the corner so lights weren't on him directly and just caught a reflection of the pedal reflectors. I hit the breaks and as there were cars a little behind I slowed right down and stuck my hazards on. This guy was seriously risking his life especially given the speed people drive around these back roads.

I mean seriously, I'm not being Mr Anti-Cyclist Driver here. I'm a cyclist too, and do hit the road at times and I'm not insane enough to not use lights on unlit back roads. Even forgetting about making themselves seen, how the hell do you see where you're going? Eat carrots? ! 🙄

I think you need to make your mind up rather than holding two logically incompatible viewpoints.

I don't think they're logically incompatible. To put it another way - drivers will make mistakes.

If we set the bar that high then no one knows

Mm, which is precisely the problem, because that's the bar that's needed in order to be confident in any conclusions. We have a lot of "safety" interventions where the effects are unknown, or—worse—assumed to be beneficial because of either "common sense" or superficial assessment of data. But they catch on because people (quite understandably) like to clutch at whatever straws are available, and many people's faith in "common sense" is strong: most don't like to have their "common sense" challenged. And then there's things like behavioural influences, the morality of first vs third party casualties, population net effects and so on. Sadly, because it's so complex, the simplistic "bright things make you safe" message is something that people can easily grab hold of: it's common sense, after all, which is shorthand for "something I can refuse to think about without feeling guilty".

[quote=molgrips ]To put it another way - drivers will make mistakes.

Driving into a space you can't see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn't be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?

aracer - Member
Do cyclists commonly run into other cyclists they don't see because of low sun?

once had a guy in the shop who had cycled into the back of a whole family who were on their bikes.
in broad daylight.
on a dual carraigeway.
not low sun either, it was around 2pm
apparently he had 'just looked down at the cranks for a second'

I managed to cycle into the back of a Volkswagen (yes it was uncomfortable) once. Again, looked at the road (actually my helmet peak obscured my view) and next thing I knew there was a flash of silver and I was spreading myself across the boot. In broad daylight.

On flashing lights, I was approaching a cyclist with one tonight and had a very hard time judging his distance (and subsequently his speed) and position in the road relative to me. Whilst they are very good for getting attention I'm not sure I like the way they confuse things. Of course had he been using a steady state light as well and the flasher wasn't so bright that it was actually blinding (probably brighter than a brake or fog light) it would have been far easier to deal with.

Another fun one this morning. The bypass was broken so I drove past Dreghorn Barracks. Guy in full camouflage kit on bike with no lights flashes across in front of me (crossing the road from pavement to the entrance).

Again, he is lucky I am a careful driver and was only doing 30 ! I know these guys get in much bigger trouble than any of us computer mechanics for being late, but that was a brave move.

Driving into a space you can't see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn't be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?

I think you are confused. The term 'mistake' does not remove culpability.

Flashing lights.. ooh don't get me started. Slow flashing lights are a damn nuisance to everyone - drivers, cyclists and everyone.

For an extreme example cycle up from Hyde Park Corner into Hyde Park at rush hour. The street lighting is much less and there are dozens of cyclists coming towards you and going with you, almost all of whom have very bright flashing lights front and rear. You cannot see a bloody thing, just a view of loads of flashing lights.

Lezyne need to pull their fingers out. They make these lovely lights that are in loads of bike shops, and then they only give them this slow blink mode which is a disaster for visibility. I have Cateye and Bontrager lights which have a flicker mode, this is far better and uses no more power.

The question we are debating is 'are lights worth using?'

not 'what's the greatest risk to cyclists?'

This guy was seriously risking his life especially given the speed people drive around these back roads.

There's lots of shit drivers out there not looking where they are going so it's probably a good idea to use lights (it's also a legal requirement 🙂 ) but blaming the victim when some ****tard not watching where he is going ploughs into the back of them is not on, accusing someone without lights of darwinism or suicidal tendencies is not on. As has already been mentioned there's other unlit things that are occasionally on the road so tunnel vision only looking out for lights ahead is a stupid way to drive.

Bez - Member
Et voilà: http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-the-wedge/

Oh and we also get shit about our choice of light,
flashing "nooooo it's too disorientating so I hit you",
powerful "aaaaah my eyes, didn't want to slow down so drove into you while dazzled",
steady low power "not powerful enough and pointing in slightly the wrong direction so I had to run you over, sorry about that*"

I think you are confused. The term 'mistake' does not remove culpability.

*just my little joke, no one apologises

The guy in the original story was clearly an idiot, and deserves the fine.

Having said that, it's interesting going through this thread replacing “cyclist” with “pedestrian“… when driving you need to be looking out for non-lit dressed in black people, and be in control of your car, and, dare I say it, be slower and more careful on these darker evenings.

aracer - Member
So you're suggesting that drivers who run down cyclists because they couldn't see them when driving into a low sun are not at all at fault? Wow. Is it the cyclists who are at fault then?

well the stupid young b**ch who killed a friend of mine by pulling from a side road even though she COULD NOT see because of low sun walked away from court without so much as a fine 👿

She actually admitted in court that she could not see due to the setting sun but she pulled out anyway because "she assumed it was clear".

The Judge ruled that it was an accident and she could not reasonably has seen him due to the time of year, the suns position, etc.
Bearing in mind he had a helmet cam on and the footage showed her with her windows open, dark glasses on and not covering her face. She also didn't wait any length of time at the junction either. The footage showed her pulling up to the STOP line, quickly looking and then pulling out - so her story of not being able to see was a total crock.
She still walked though.

So yes aracer - it is reasonable to "assume" that a driver killing someone because they couldn't see is not at fault....

[quote=molgrips ]

Driving into a space you can't see is a mistake? Presumably people shouldn't be punished for things which are just mistakes rather than negligence?

I think it's you who is confused - in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases. Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?

Are you two still at it? 🙂

Think they got a room last night......

Well, it all got a bit silly didn't it.

Clearly it's a good idea to have lights fitted and it good working order and turned on at night when cycling

The law is clear on this

If you choose not to fit / use lights and ride at night on public roads/places, then you are somewhat daft in my opinion.

I think it's you who is confused - in criminal terms it does remove culpability in almost all cases

What?

Ignorance has never been a defence.

Or maybe you could point me to details of the case where a motorist made a mistake and was prosecuted?

Me, I made a mistake in thinking a 40 was a 30.

You got prosecuted for doing 10mph under the speed limit? ISTR it's happened, but it's not exactly common 😉

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/136356-two-drivers-cleared-causing-death-careless-driving-after-hitting-cyclist-low-sun ]A telling story about low sun[/url], cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.

Everyone acquitted coz, you know, assuming the road is clear isn't careless/dangerous...
Awesome!

(I was looking for "I made a mistake" drivers being acquitted but got derailed when I read that)

Ignorance has never been a defence.

I assumed it was more a reference to mens rea than to ignorance. But even then AFAICT there's no real difference between mistakes and negligence (other than, one might speculate, the likelihood of a jury sympathising with the defendant), which makes half the thread a moot discussion of semantics: see the comment regarding R v Lawrence at the bottom of the first page of [url= http://motoroffence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-law-behind-careless-driving.pdf ]this document[/url].

A telling story about low sun, cyclist hit (and later died) by 3 separate drivers then a driver who got out to help the cyclist was also hit.

Yeah, done that one too, [url= https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/****-this/ ]in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode[/url] 😐

Yeah, done that one too, in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode

[quote=molgrips ]Me, I made a mistake in thinking a 40 was a 30.

Assuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.

[quote=D0NK ]Forum even swear filters URLs

I hadn't realised it did that, though it shouldn't really be that surprising.

Fixed: [url= http://tinyurl.com/m3365qp ]in (now rarely-seen) full rant mode[/url]

Assuming you mean the other way round, then you mean that you were negligent in failing to read the speed limit signs.

Yep.

As Bez said there's no real difference. Neglicence can lead to mistakes, but mistakes can be made for other reasons. That's why we are prosecuted for driving without DUE care and attention, not driving whilst not taking every possible scenario into account at all times.

But this is rather pointless. You've said that blame cannot automatically be apportioned to the non-light using cyclist, I've agreed.

I however believe that certain things do help others to make fewer mistakes. Lights at night is a pretty straightforward one, which is why it's mandatory for all vehicles. The article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.

[quote=Bez ]which makes half the thread a moot discussion of semantics

What's new?

Though there is a fundamental point here - it appears that hitting somebody whilst driving into a space you can't see is a mistake. Because nobody ever considers the negligence involved in driving into a space you can't see - there is a very conscious decision being made by drivers to do that, a decision which is fundamentally reckless about the safety of other road users.

[quote=molgrips ]Neglicence can lead to mistakes, but mistakes can be made for other reasons. That's why we are prosecuted for driving without DUE care and attention, not driving whilst not taking every possible scenario into account at all times.

There is a fundamental difference though. Because mistakes without negligence (or incompetence, inexperience or deliberate intent) won't be prosecuted (mistakes with negligence don't get prosecuted often enough when the negligence isn't acknowledged). Bez's legal link up there doesn't contradict that.

Is not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not ?

Indeed. And negligence is defined as not doing the things that one SHOULD be doing. Which is what the lawyers argue over.

Drivers are expected to be only so good, it is recognised that not everyone should be expected to be perfect. You seem to have a problem with where the line is drawn.

Which is fair enough, and I think that could've been explained better in a single post rather than a long drawn out bickerthon.

[quote=molgrips ]Drivers are expected to be only so good, it is recognised that not everyone should be expected to be perfect. You seem to have a problem with where the line is drawn.

I have a problem with some forms of negligence not even being acknowledged. Fair point on the bickerthon though, to everybody's relief I'll stop here.

The article in the OP is about a cyclist breaking the rules, not about who was at fault in an accident.

<edit> not wanting to reignite the bickerthon but I've been away from the thread for a while 🙂

Is not seeing a cyclist because they are in a saccade a mistake or not?

Heh. I must get round to finishing the next column 🙂