[Closed] Cyclists. Do you have a death wish ! (Roadie content)

Oh do the law doesn't say a cyclist has to wear high viz clothing or use lights in fog or mist so that absolves them from any responsibility, that is utterly stupid and you must be a cretin to go out on your bike without taking proper precautions.

The issue doesn't seem to be confined just to cyclists, I lost count of the number of motorists driving in the fog without lights, and theirs are permanently fitted, requiring only a flick of the switch.Something else i've noticed about dull grey conditions on dull grey roads is that most cars without lights are also a shade of dull grey that blends them in very nicely, anybody else noticed this?

I just realised on the A24 (Mickleham Bends) they all think they're recreating the Olympics.

Note to MAMILS on the A24: FOR WIGGO THE POLICE SHUT THE ROADS. FOR YOU, THEY DON'T.

Good point OP.. it's a crying shame that whenever a thread like this arises, raising valid points about road safety, you invariably get an army of militant roadies spouting crap about how they own the road and it's everyone else that needs to accommodate them..

Whilst I can kind of sympathise with their fanatical zeal, and appreciate the good intent, the fact remains that militant cyclists are not helping anyone or anything by living out their macho people's hero fantasies..

we're all really sorry that you didn't have the gumption to rebel in your teens, but please don't do it on our roads

Did anyone drive into the back of any of these people?
If not, do you think that just down to luck, or some other reason?

Maybe none of those without lights didn't get hit today.

They're hardly stacking the odds in their favour are they though.

We all have to obey the law, and the law mostly says (I'm paraphrasing here) don't drive in such a way that it puts everyone else in danger. It's a rare day on the roads that what cyclists do 'endangers' other road users Cyn Al is pretty much spot on, if it's foggy; then drive like your likely to run into something.

Blaming cyclists for not wearing hi viz stuff is the moral equivalent of handing out stab vests to drinkers in town centres on a Friday night.

I got caught out today, it was quite clear when I left with sun trying to break through, with the forecast for brightening conditions. By Mid ride its right murky, poor enough that I wouldn't have ridden if it was like it at the start. I switched the the last part to an off road route.

yunki - Member
Good point OP.. it's a crying shame that whenever a thread like this arises, raising valid points about road safety, you invariably get an army of [u]cyclists raising valid points about road safety[/u] [s]militant roadies spouting crap about how they own the road and it's everyone else that needs to accommodate them[/s].

al, I feel as if you're replying to something in the lines of "drivers should be allowed to drive as fast as they want in any conditions!". I just can't seem to find that post in here, because nobody is saying that. As an exposed road user it's a good idea to make yourself visible regardless of what those around you are doing.

There was no actual incident so there's no blame to apportion. The OP's point was that going out in the fog with no lights is cretinously stupid. I agree - but then I always use lights even in broad daylight, so I'm probably classed as a nutjob by STW standards.

Did anyone drive into the back of any of these people?
If not, do you think that just down to luck, or some other reason?

Luck. It's only a matter of time before some unfortunate family gets a visit from the police to say daddy's not coming home today. We are cycle-aware drivers (we're on their side FFS!) and if we're seeing a problem you can bet WVM (or SDD**) isn't seeing them at all.

That can happen anytime of course, but I drove the same roads today as OP and he was spot on. We need to do what we can to keep the odds in our favour.

* Sunday Driver Desmond

OP + 1.

Testers with bright lights (and usually black kit) - 1.

the law doesn't say a cyclist has to wear high viz clothing or use lights in fog or mist so that absolves them from any responsibility, that is utterly stupid

you must be a cretin to go out on your bike without taking proper precautions.

Another one driving round Surrey Hills today - and surprised at how many riders out on the road. A25 was packed with groups.
And visibility was appalling - a right pea souper of a fog along most of the A25. Not easy to see ahead at all.

I support the OP that it shows poor judgement to ride in such poor visibility without lights - the A25 is 50mph road so most of the traffic is going at speed. As a cyclist you're bloody vulnerable - give the drivers a chance to see you if you want to stay safe. No point being legally right and dead!
That said I eased up on the speed when I realised how many people were out riding in such poor visibility - seemed the sensible thing to do...

I don't think the cyclists riding without lights realised how hard they were to see. I would have thought it's commonsense tbh but we all know it's not that common!

Face it, if someone drives in the back of you they will almost certainly face no punishment, so the legality is bollocks anyway. It's been shown time and again that you can kill people in low sun by not seeing them, and that's ok, so the same will be true of fog.

The law does nothing to protect cyclists. Lights do.

Exactly ! This is not about anyone VS anyone else.. Just simple sense and logic. When we are driving we are aware of bikes, after all that is what we think about much of the time. It's just that there are a huge number of non bike thinking, non anticipating, road users out there, and we all need to give them all the help they can get.

And.... The lights thing is as important on those low sun, sunny days (remember them !) as well .

This is the first time I have ever been drawn into this type of debate, as more often than not they tend to descent into bun fight. Anyway……………………………

I believe the OP was being genuine and simply demonstrated a little humanity, which in turn was taken and used out of context. I ride loads, mostly with my children these days, but I’ve put my ‘time’ into road cycling with loads of long distance tri training miles and have been ‘privy’ to plenty of jaw-dropping ‘events’ and a cavalier attitude from every cycling genre over the years.

Cyclists (me too) need to accept and deal with the fact that there are heaps and heaps of vehicles on the roads and they will continue to ‘breed’ exponentially. Some riders, not all, but some might benefit from the addition of a few ‘reality drops’ in their pre-race bidons. For the majority (I’m assuming) this isn’t the Alps it’s either a busy A or B road, or a jam-packed ‘retreat’ such as the Peak or something. I have found the best approach to be the defensive-aggressive.

Defensive, for example would not be winding up an entire que of drivers by religiously sticking to an antiquated ride two abreast law ….yes, we have the right but it means nothing to the capitalist bully boy (or girl, Oh yes I’ve seen plenty of girl on bike action too) who’s going to ram us - would we all walk up to a bull and pull it’s nose hair out? Discretion is the key, I fancy?

Aggressive, as in fluro-bib/pac cover and/or mini-helmet lamp to compliment the bar lamp (great in a thick traffic, no pun intended , scenario). Occupying the correct position in the road, especially at/on roundabouts and engaging drivers visually i.e. not wearing dark lenes during rush-hour commuting: there’s loads one can do and still look great/match …..sorry, that’s my tri days coming to the fore.

For drivers to yield and give us the respect we crave, we must be squeaky-clean. Which means, not persisting in all those things (and there are many) that inflame our ‘relationship’.

Unfair, definitely, but they are the dominant and stronger ‘species’ out on the savannah.

Take it or leave it darlings. Oh, had a great ride with my lads today btw 😉

Keep on trucking! XX

I saw one guy out in (white framed) sunglasses today. And dressed in his Sky black kit. Bet he though he looked like Froome. FFS.

@OP and while we're at it what's with them riding down the A24 in Leatherhead direction instead of using the cycle path alongside. Bloody idiots! And how much fun can that be, on a busy dual carriageway with traffic buzzing past continuously.

I don't get it at all. Like you say, deathwish

This does make me laugh. The A24 is a seriously cycle unfriendly road at the Mickleham bends and the cycle path is probably the best in Surrey. I used the cycle path today and overtook a couple of "Wiggo wanabees" riding on the road. When they realised that the cycle path was just as quick they moved onto the cycle path. Very strange.

In the land of cycling - Belgium - you legally have to ride the cycle paths if they are there. Although the cycle paths are brillant over there.

It's true that if you are out cycling for a while and it starts getting dull/dark you can often not notice whereas stepping out of you house you might immediately notice it. I try to err on the side of caution and put some sort of light on before it is really "necessary". having said that, I also tend to favour brighter coloured clothing for road riding (Rapha/Sky take note).

Even on the brightest days, things like the sudden transition to/from tree cover and the effects of sun glancing off a not-perfectly-clean windscreen mean a rear light is a pretty useful thing to have.

Well it's a bit of a crap path in terms of surface, I don't doubt the road is a tad quicker, but i'd sooner ride the path than end up smeared across some driver's bonnet, which is what's gonna happen sadly. And the traffic is so heavy I don't see what fun the road would be anyway, a fairly miserable and frightening experience.

Re lights: I usually ride with front on rear on, regardless of conditions.

[quote=mattjg ]
Re lights: I usually ride with front on rear on, regardless of conditions.
There are good reasons for NOT riding with a front light on in bright conditions. They can make you a lot less visible.

(during WW2, anti-submarine aircraft in the Pacific were fitted with front-facing lights as camouflage, allowing them to get close enough to submarines to sink them with depth charges before the subs had a chance to submerge too deep)

OK - what reasons? Got a link for that? Ta.

The issue about riding with a bright light is that it can make a darker object (you) less visible against your background and makes it nigh on impossible to judge speed. This is less of an issue with motor vehicles as the observer has two light sources approaching and can judge speed by the rate at which these sources are apparently diverging. The UK Transport and Road Research Laboratory did lots of studies on this when assessing whether to make daytime headlamp use compulsory for motorcycles. I don't know if any of that research is available online.

For the WW2 stuff, this link is a starter..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehudi_lights

Thx for link.

Side issue: I do recall reading somewhere (can't substantiate it, sorry) that drivers find it harder to assess position and movement of a flashing light than a solid light.

It was fine where I live in Surrey, but it got foggy near the Hogsback. I was driving / walking, but if I was cycling I wouldn't have known it was necessary to bring lights. I bet a lot of cyclists out today got caught out.

What this thread is implying, roughly speaking, is that you should always have lights on your bike at all times. I happen to be ok (I always have a Knog or something on front and back as emergency backup) but that would be yet another impediment / expense for people to just get out on their bikes.

The issue doesn't seem to be confined just to cyclists, I lost count of the number of motorists driving in the fog without lights, and theirs are permanently fitted, requiring only a flick of the switch.Something else i've noticed about dull grey conditions on dull grey roads is that most cars without lights are also a shade of dull grey that blends them in very nicely, anybody else noticed this?

I just realised on the A24 (Mickleham Bends) they all think they're recreating the Olympics.

What do you mean by this?

that drivers find it harder to assess position and movement of a flashing light than a solid light.

I believe this absolutely.

that drivers find it harder to assess position and movement of a flashing light than a solid light.

I believe this absolutely.

But they saw you eh?

I just realised on the A24 (Mickleham Bends) they all think they're recreating the Olympics.

What do you mean by this?

Its a tedious "why don't they use the cycle path" troll thats been done 100's of times before.

As for lights, who knows, its the first ride of the year, maybe they just grabbed their bike after the xmas break and forgot? maybe it wasn't foggy when they left? maybe they usually ride in the daylight and don't think they are necessary?

Not a troll. Tedious, maybe, that's subjective.

I wish drivers didn't habitually drive too fast for their visibility of the road ahead. I'm tired of hearing "I came round a corner and had to slam on the brakes" type stuff from motorist. Everyone should be conditioned to expect an unlit skip to have been dropped in the road somewhere ahead. Perhaps using actual skips

Bez - Member
Even on the brightest days, things like the sudden transition to/from tree cover and the effects of sun glancing off a not-perfectly-clean windscreen mean a rear light is a pretty useful thing to have

I just realised on the A24 (Mickleham Bends) they all think they're recreating the Olympics.

What do you mean by this?

Good point OP.. it's a crying shame that whenever a thread like this arises, raising valid points about road safety, you invariably get an army of militant roadies spouting crap about how they own the road and it's everyone else that needs to accommodate them..

I think the majority of the comments are in response to the OP's aggressive tone rather than the points he's trying to make.

Motorist hat Flashing + Solid state light is my ideal. Heres why....

Flashing - identifies you as a bike thus means i can react accordingly in terms of road space and observations.

Solid - because I can more accurately judge speed and distance from a constant reference point especially when you consider that all flashing lights have different rhythms. You also dont get double losses where you might get the light off as the bike passes the rear window then its hidden by the cars b pillar during the on phase.

Riding in fog in line with traffic + no lights. Well you wouldnt find me doing it I love my family.too much to go.home dead on a (flawed) point of principle.

Flashing for day, steady for night. Additional sweeping strobe at night for good measure. Everything you've got in fog.

Interestingly the wife and I must have seen a dozen cars with no lights, and plenty driving as if it was a clear summers day. Most cyclists had lights other than a father out with a toddler - very irresponsible!

Still don't understand this thought, with a reasonably quick flashing light I have absolutely no problems judging the speed of a bike. If the flash is 1Hz and the bike is moving stupendously fast, then sure it might be harder, but otherwise no.

In fact, I think it's EASIER to judge, the fixed frequency of flash means you can very easily (if subconsiously) identify a bike slowing or accelerating by the relative position of the flashes.

Hell, if flashing lights are hard to judge speed on someone had better alert the emergency services.

garage-dweller - Member

Flashing + Solid state light is my ideal.

's what I do. Both have their advantages, why choose between them? (also, redundant lights is obviously a good idea)

It's not cool but hi-viz vests make a massive difference. I wear one for most night riding and my commuter pack's taped up too. Or at the very least, bright colours- why is it the lightless cyclists seem more likely to be dressed like ninjas too?

Legal requirements are fine and dandy but being legally correct doesn't unkill you.

Lights? High-viz jackets?

You forgot the St Christopher medal:

[img] [/img]

but that would be yet another impediment / expense for people to just get out on their bikes.

I'd have thought the cost of a bike far outweighed a fiver on some basic Aldi special LEDs 🙄

Totally agree with OP - I was out yesterday with both front and rear lights (though I did start in the dark) and was very glad of both even once the fog lifted slightly as it was a murky day. Not bothered what the law says it was common sense. When I was driving later I also had my lights on in my car as it was common sense. (Note the theme)

I am not a fan of cyclists that do not apply common sense and respect for all road users i.e.

- Red light jumping
- Riding abreast when a car comes - most of my riding is in the New Forest and we ride two a breast chatting, when a car comes we go single file. It is polite and courteous and 99% of drivers are courteous back, in no way affects our ride
- Lights on when it is dark, helmets etc

Not saying I am perfect but if all road users where a bit more courteous it would help. On the flip side I get ferking angry when cars nearly run me over!

Interestingly the wife and I must have seen a dozen cars with no lights, and plenty driving as if it was a clear summers day. Most cyclists had lights other than a father out with a toddler - very irresponsible!

Same here. I saw a lot more idiotic driving than cycling in yesterday's fog, as usual. But we don't go on and on [i]and on[/i] about that at great and massively patronising length, do we? Because it's normal and we expect it, even though driving like a **** is much more dangerous to other people than anything you can do on a bike. Shame.