Safe Speed Forums

Crossing the road from the car park this morning just after 07.00 a cyclist comes into view no lights recalling this thread I call out friendly like non threatening "your lights are out mate". His response just to ride on. So the answer is even these idots do not know why cyclists don't have lights

If you are driving at such a speed that your headlights only illuminate an object when its too late to avoid hitting it then you are travelling too fast.

Or do you disagree with this?

Already answered. Stationary vs moving.

And like I said, 99 times out 100 you encounter a cyclist they will be moving away from you at about 15 mph along the left hand side of the road.

Instead you conflate this with the very rare case of cyclists jumping out in front of you to avoid answering the question.

That's consistent with what I'm saying. A 1% chance of a crash is an unacceptable risk. In practice it's probably much lower than that, as I have never been in any kind of accident.

I can't believe in this thread that people are really arguing that a road user should not take all reasonable steps to ensure that they are easily visible to others and instead rely on others seeing them.

It doesn't matter what third parties may or may not be doing. The only thing that matters is making yourself as visible as possible in order to avoid one another.

Being convinced you were in the right not to use lights while you lie in the hospital bed is not much consolation.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Who is arguing this?

Sounds like you could be if you drive like this: -

When I was just a lad in Blackpool, I was stopped for not having lights. I told him that my dynamo must have developed a fault (true actually) and he said "OK, you can cycle home so long as you don't go too fast".

_________________
Brian

I've had two accidents whilst cycling (110 miles a week for 20 years). Neither was lights related. (I had bright lights and a reflective sash - although both happened in daylight.) One was when a woman turned right straight across my path. "As far as I was concerned the road was clear." The other was when somebody opened his car door just as I was going past. "Sorry mate." If I'd had a flashing red light on my head, both of these would still have happened.

Not sure how you define 1%, but probably far less than that in my case. But then I assumed that everybody was out to get me - very occasionally correct - and cycled with eyes in the back of my head (and latterly with a rear view mirror as well). Sadly the repeated looking behind me (the wrong way) took its toll on my neck vertebrae (marked disc space reduction) and also my right hip (which had to be replaced a couple of years ago).

_________________
Brian

Fine, I might have put it too strongly. I didn't realise when I joined this thread I was on the witness stand.

If the cyclist has no lights, it MIGHT create a situation, with some of the drivers out there, where there is an increased danger. Better? Is there actually a point to this?

We realy mus start shoutin "organ doner"

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Yes, to get you to concede that if a driver strikes a cyclist with no lights on at night because they see them too late then the driver was driving too fast for the conditions.

In Paul's presentation at Aviemore he gives the equation:

Risk (of collision) = Speed * Surprise / Space

In the case of the unlit cyclist, the surprise element swamps the speed factor and hugely increases risk. In reality, the vast majority of drivers will not be going "too fast for the conditions" as they are driving with the expectation of normal reasonable behaviour from other road users. As mentioned in other posts here, you cannot drive at all times making allowance for the absolute worse thing that might ever happen.

As for the point of this thread:



If this is what you desire then you will be disappointed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Sorry no. You’ve based your argument on nothing more than a loose interpretation of the HC.
We’ve explained to you how your stance is not valid, which you didn’t acknowledge.

As it stands the point cannot be conceded.

I'm not talking about anyone jumping out. I have come very close to hitting a cyclist while riding my own bike down a country lane. I could have walked into him they way he was dressed! He may as well have been in camouflage.

When I was a member of a running club we used to wear arm bands and reflective tops. Why? Because it's wrong of me to assume every other road user should expect to encounter a Ninja man on the road.

Remember the old advert from about 30 years ago "be seen and be safe" where they suggested carrying a newspaper or making yourself visible in some way? It's about responsibility.

_________________
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.

Or "kebab doner"

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Ummmm, no. I'd say the cyclist is 100% at fault.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So we have to drive all the time as if a cyclist with no lights on is going to appear in front ?
Allow me to point this out to you, most cycle lights used now are not bright. YOU try seeing them when there is oncoming traffic at night. Most cyclists don't wear hi-vis gear, and the majority don't have any lights.
We need some direct legislation here. ALL cyclists should be required to wear head protection and reflective clothing of some sort. They say helmets worked for m/cyclists, so lets get the cyclists into them. And a bit more enforcement [well, any really] of the cycle lamp legislation.

A somewhat bizarre conclusion - the cyclist is in fact breaking the law, but because a motorist is involved it must be driving too fast for the conditions. What were we saying about the SEF field?