[Closed] £220 fine for no lights

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.