[Closed] £220 fine for no lights

Your own powerful headlights will have illuminated the cyclist perfectly adequately for you to avoid him regardless of what lights the cyclist was wearing. Accidents are tend to be caused by drivers getting distracted and not seeing whats right in front of them.

That is guff. I turned right at a t-junction once on a unlit road and a ninja cyclist, all in black with no lights splattered into the side of me. How am I to see him when I am at a junction with lights facing forward and he rides out of the dark at a 90 degree angle. If I had killed him that would have remained with me forever.

Well, for instance, some people haven't thought about things from others' point of view (see above), so their "common sense" is flawed for a start.

Well in terms of heading out into heavy traffic without lights this a perfect method of irradiating these flawed characteristics from the gene pool.......No?

Well in terms of heading out into heavy traffic without lights this a perfect method of irradiating these flawed characteristics from the gene pool.......No?

Ah, the "Darwinism über alles" ideology. Not sure if facetiousness or sociopathy.

So Darwin was a psychopathic, antisocial criminal?

Strange. It's almost as if I wrote something and then you completely failed to understand it in any way, shape or form.

I had to look up the dictionary definition for "sociopathy". I'm afraid I have a in built tendency to ignore all words that start with "socio" or "psycho"

I had to look up the dictionary definition for "sociopathy". I'm afraid I have a in built tendency to ignore all words that start with "socio" or "psycho"

You should talk to a psychologist about that

A what..?

So the other morning when I was walking the spaniel (who has a flashing collar on so he can be seen), a cyclist came passed, dressed in black and the only light on her bike was a red flashing one at the front?

What fine should this idiot get!

What fine should this idiot get!

None so long as they poopa-scooped

I'm well up for fining people, as the number of people I've seen without lights is frankly ridiculous. It's evolution waiting to happen

However, I'm not entirely compliant myself. I have a rear reflector on my commuter, but no front reflector and no pedal reflectors. I have 2 lights on front and rear, with more as backup, and I'm usually wearing something with reflectives (as well as reflective bits on bike like marathon plus tyres and spoke reflectors)

Front reflector isn't a legal requirement.

I was caught out on Monday, didnt get out of work till 6.15 and it was full on dusk. had rear light but very concious of no front...felt horrible.

full nuclear exposure loadout is now in operation

I had to look up the dictionary definition for "sociopathy". I'm afraid I have a in built tendency to ignore all words that start with "socio" or "psycho"

While you had the dictionary out, you could have looked up the difference between 'irradiating' and 'eradicating'. (Or paid more attention to what your predictive text feature is doing - as I need to do, myself :wink:)

You wonder if some people really want to live.

I nearly hit a guy on a roundabout last week. Motocross bike, no indicators and very shit light. (clearly not road legal - no reg plate either). I heard him so took a second/third look and realised there was a bike there and he was coming all the way around.

Not so the van driver next to me, who just pulled out right in from of him. He managed to swing around behind him and roared off, I assume for a clean pair of trousers.

(sorry - I am kind of assuming it was a bloke, I guess it oculd have been a female person)

an approval from me.

Basing your driving in poor visibility on looking out for lights ahead of you is a pretty daft thing to do. Likewise if sonny jim in the OP cycled into an unlit object because of his lack of lights it'd be his own stupid fault.

Crazy last night, literally half a dozen while driving home, zero lights, well and truly dark and beyond the point of being caught out with it getting dark a bit earlier.

Though most were in lit areas but one I nearly ran over out in the countryside, and was only that he had pedal reflectors that I even spotted him.

Though to be fair my bikes don't have pedal reflectors being a mountain bike, and I get on people's tits by not having hi-vis 😀 , but then again I have retina burning lights and I'm only on the road for brief periods.

Oh, and non had helmets (so if they got run over, clearly their fault 😉 )

Basing your driving in poor visibility on looking out for lights ahead of you is a pretty daft thing to do.

It is dark - car lights shine to the front only.

You can look at much as you want but if something is coming from your side then you only have a certain distance of visibility because it is dark.

Crazy last night, literally half a dozen while driving home, zero lights

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'm torn on this, I'm kinda tempted to agree. But on the other hand after a bit of thought I'm reminded that drivers should probably stop driving into spaces they can't see for themselves are free of obstruction (cars do after all have quite powerful lights) there's plenty of things that can be int he road that don't (and shouldn't) have a legal requirement for lights. And more cogitation leads me to think it's the motoring lobby and our car centric society that has hammered the former "I agree with the victim blaming" message into my psyche so I think I'll rebel against that.

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

You did see them then because you counted them; so they weren't rendered invisible

Come on. You must be able to understand that not having lights doesn't *always* render you invisible, it renders you *less* visible, which means that in some cases you may not be noticed.

Do some thinking before you spout off. Or better still stop trying to pursue arguments you must know are spurious just to win arguments.

I just find it interesting how in some cases what seems obvious isn't actually the case. Like lighting yourself up like a Christmas tree would seem to be much safer than not using lights at all....but the numbers suggest it makes you about 2% less likely to get squished.

I just find that quite interesting - its not going to make me not use lights at all because 2% is 2%.... and lights are cheap so why not. But it does make you wonder why people get so upset about none light users.

But it does make you wonder why people get so upset about none light users.

I think this has been expressed already - I don't want the inconvenience of scraping them off my bumper because they can't be bothered to follow the law. Let alone any psychological impact hitting them might have.

but the numbers suggest it makes you about 2% less likely to get squished.

Hmm. I'm sceptical of that.

But it does make you wonder why people get so upset about none light users.

Maybe you are 50% more likely to have a near miss. To scare the crap out of some driver and cause an emergency stop. If that were the case it'd be inconsiderate and careless, even if it weren't more directly dangerous.

Would it be ok to drive around in a car with no lights and expect everyone else to take up the slack?

If someone gets knocked off in the dark that's their problem not yours.

Rubbish. I for one would be pretty stressed out if I killed someone even if it wasn't my fault. Also, I might be another cyclist or a pedestrian, and I might come off worse.

You really aren't thinking any of this through very well. You're being very naieve indeed. You might even be worthy of an Edinburgh award for poor arguing.

I think this has been expressed already - I don't want the inconvenience of scraping them off my bumper because they can't be bothered to follow the law.

But, edging towards devil's advocacy, you can minimise the risk of that inconvenience that by not driving such that you can't stop within the space you can see to be clear. This then also works for people on foot, wayward children, parked or broken-down vehicles, deer, land mines and so on. The main car-bicycle collision mode where an unlit bicycle can't be accounted for is the T-junction example, where the impact speed is (a) determined by the person who stands to suffer the injury and (b) much less likely to prove fatal.

you can minimise the risk of that inconvenience that by not driving such that you can't stop within the space you can see to be clear.

That doesn't work, because you might think the space is clear then some dark clothed ninja biker appears and it's no longer clear.

You have to understand how the brain processes images.

So for those making the (quite reasonable) point about cyclists approaching from the side outside the beam of your headlights. How important do you consider rear lights on bicycles to be for road safety? Does a cyclist not having a rear light provide a driver with an excuse for running them over in any circumstances?

You have to understand how the brain processes images.

Let's do a test - everyone that is advocating that it is OK to ride around without lights should do so for the duration of this winter and then we can see if everyone is still around next summer, which would indicate that the strategy is sound.

Especially ones it isn't bothering to look for

Quite.

Not limited to cyclists though is it?

Good.
It's not excessive, it's just that other penalties, for things that are far more likely to affect others, are so trivial.

Crazy thread, imagine going on a motor bike or car forum and suggesting it should be ok to go around after dark without lights. You'd be a laughing stock. But here we are cyclists, amongst the most vulnerable road users saying just that ( well some anyway ). If you think it's a problem to use lights and that everyone else should just look out for you, do us a favour and just get of the road after dark, please !!

Have you put any thought at all into whether a driver should be able to see a cyclist whether or not they have a rear light before writing that rant, taxi?

Sorry aracer its only about rear light now I didn't realise. 🙄 But hey a dark road with parked cars some drizzle, oncoming traffic, if I'm on my bike I'll sure as hell have as bright a rear light as I can find, regardless of whether some nut job on the internet thinks every car driver in every circumstance should see me regardless. Just grow up a bit mate you and a couple of other are just coming across like idiots.

You have to understand how the brain processes images.

I did say minimise, not eliminate…

imagine going on a motor bike or car forum and suggesting it should be ok to go around after dark without lights

80 years ago it was. It only became socially frowned upon when cars became significantly faster, and people started driving faster than their headlights could keep up with, resulting in them crashing into a lot more stuff. "This is no good," they said, "how can we be expected not to crash into things when we can't see them?" and so bicycles acquired rear lights. We've continued with that theme ever since, and motor vehicles—with their continuing ability to outpace their own illumination—have become ever more dominant, which is why most people consider it laughable today.

(And no, I'm not arguing that people should ride around in the dark without lights, or that everyone should drive everywhere at under 40mph once darkness falls, but that's how we cane to be where we are today.)

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…