Safe Speed Forums

True, but having no lights virtually guarantees that they won't see you.

judging by some peoples attitudes to all cyclists, having lights may even mean the driver can easier aim at you

Why? How many unlit cyclists have you driven into?

The question should be: how many unlit cyclists have drivers driven into? You can't make base a judgement on a sample size of 1, itself having an low probability of such an event, when the group size is in the millions.

Not at all. semitone is the one that thinks 'no lights virtually guarantees that they won't see you' so I'm asking about their own experiences.

Addressing several posts in one go:

Semitone could well live in an area without streetlighting, for example in rural area, where it could well be impossible to be seen in good time without using lighting, so cyclists in that area would be insane not to use lights.
Conversely, people like I who live in areas with a permanent bright yellow haze overhead are at greatly less risk of not being seen without lights, hence many cyclists get away without using them.

Are you suggesting we should only be worried about collisions and not be concerned also about near misses? Every one of the latter is a collision in waiting, and if the cyclist is doing their best to avoid detection in an area with poor/no streetlighting, then we might not even know that one occurred...

_________________
Chris

Smeggy is correct. I do indeed live in a rural area with no streetlights and I have had a couple of very near misses with unlit cyclists.

In one instance I was pulling out from a crossroads (unlit, very dark), saw nothing coming from either direction and started to move forwards. I had moved a couple of feet forwards as a cyclist suddenly appeared in my headlights making obscene gestures at me. If he had used a front light I would have been able to see him.

In another instance a cyclist pulled out from a T junction without stopping. Again he had no front light so I could not see him approaching and was very close by the time he appeared in the headlights.

Icandoit, what is so wrong with expecting cyclists to use lights at night? Are their lives really worth less to them than the price of a couple of Duracells?

Sounds a bit close to the seatbelt thing. Oh no!

Anyone who doesn't see me must have a bag on his head. I've got two lights at the front, one supa-bright LED and a supa-dupa filiment Lupine so I approach traffic looking like the opening to a 20th Century Fox film.

The back one has two banks of large very bright LEDs which have additional LEDs at the side. I usually wear a day glow jacket at night too so all in all, if they hit me it's more likely because I'm so bright that I've dazzled them either that or they're on the mobile phone

Like you say, they're so cheap these days there's really no excuse.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Nothing wrong at all.

I am pointing out to those that think that not being brightly lit is some sort of suicide plot that they can see unlit cyclists (and pedestrians) perfectly well in the dark if they bother to look. Although I have noticed that the use of headlights in towns can actually make this harder

How? My eyes need light to see. Maybe you have some sort of bionoic night vision system but most of us cannot see in the dark. Where I live it is very dark unless there is a bright moon. It is not possible to see an unlit cylist approaching from the side at all. How do you suggest I avoid them?

If I am approaching a cyclist with a rear light I can see him from hundreds of yards. If he has no light I cannot see him until the headlights illuminate him which is much closer.

It is rarely that dark at night (I live in the countryside too)

I disagree. It's quite easy to see them. Which you know as you have managed to avoid them.

So how about pedestrians? Some of whom may be inebriated and have forgotten to walk on the correct side of the road at night. Do you want them lit too?

If you are going to walk down an unlit road with no footpath then carrying a torch is a pretty sensible thing to do imo.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

They are not easy to see and the reason I have avoided them is because fortunately I don't very often have unlit cyclists approach from the side. At least I don't think I have unlit cyclists approach from the side - after all if I don't see them is it really because they are not there?

There is a very big difference between 'easy to see ' and 'possible to see'. To me easy means I could see them even with a quick glance. It is possible to see a lot more after 20 minutes in the dark when your eyes have adapted, but night vision is easliy destoryed by oncoming headlights.

The answer to this apparent paradox is that if the cyclist has no lights, you might well see them but it will likely be only just in time when you are very close (and sometimes it will be too late). If they had lights, they would be visible at a more reasonable distance.

It's also unfair to rely entirely on others to make the effort to look out for your safety. I could cycle down the motorway the wrong way and have everyone swerve to avoid me: just because they may manage it, doesn't mean it's ok to do that.

If you strike any unlit object at night, or have to brake or swerve suddenly then frankly, YOU ARE DRIVING TOO FAST FOR THE CONDITIONS.

If there is oncoming traffic, at night, and the cyclist is unlit and with dark clothing, you will see them when they appear through your windscreen.

Not necessarily. See my post above about pulling out at a crossroads. I could see that the road in front was clear. What I couldn't see was the unlit cyclist approaching from the side until he rode in front of me. How is that anything to do with me driving too fast for the conditions?

Well, in that case he would've struck you.

May I suggest though that had you looked properly you would have seen him.

Unless his view was blocked by, oh I don't know, traffic in front turning left, buildings/hedges/trees on the corner.
More importantly, how can something be noticeable when out of the viewing angle of the headlamps; surely it won't matter how hard one looks?