Safe Speed Forums

Oh dear. Yet another unthinking knee-jerk reaction on here.....

Before any more of you rant on about the 'need some direct legislation here' perhaps someone would tell us just how many cyclists are killed and injured each year after dark and how many of them are a direct result of the cyclist not having lights and the other road user being legal (licensed and sober) and not at fault.

Riiiight.

So what if the driver hits a fallen tree, pedestrian, animal or other obstacle in the road that they didn't see in time because they were driving outside the limits of their headlight beam?

Who's fault is it then?

If you are drving at such a speed that you can't see what is on the road in front of you in the distance you can stop you ARE driving too fast for the conditions.

The same applies if you're driving around a corner, or in fog.

What a crock.



Most models of cycle lights these days are some of the brightest things on the road.

http://www.cateye.com/en/product_detail/267

Sorry if this has been asked before, but assuming that some cyclists don't use lights after dark, what's the reason?

I'm not trying to be provocative, I genuinely don't know.

1. Laziness, i.e. can't be bothered to sort some lights out?
2. Don't think they are required?
3. Cost?
4. ?

I've got some lights for mine, but I never use them as I never need to cycle in the dark.

Not an assumption, a fact, some cyclists do not have lights on their bike.

Its a good question, I might ask one next time I see one.

I think its probably just ignorance, i.e. they don't even think about it.

From the logic of this statement, a cyclist at night with no lights should remain stationary because the range of their headlights is zero.

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

That is correct; however that does not apply in the described case of a cyclist (or other road user) because, unlike for or corners, they not in the 'road' (the bit or tarmac that counts) until it is too late for the driver to react.

Need all drivers/cyclists/runners travel at no more than 5mph past driveways/doors/entrances, even past parked cars, just in case someone darts out? A line has to be drawn somewhere, yes?

Perhaps this is something a bit more than what has been thought of - something anyone who drives something with less visibility than a car sees regularly - the
"I CAN SEE YOU - SO THEREFORE YOU CAN SEE ME "Syndrome.

Let me explain - the "biker"( now regard cyclists as a bit more responsible ) with no lights can see cars/vans/HGV , but with dark clothing etc can the biker be seen(apart from his light coloured hood)??--he/she might as well stand in the blind area behind a van/HGV - and disappear

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Note the single word in jomukuk's statement which I've highlighted. It matters not one bit whether every single cycle light available to buy is brighter than a bright thing, what matters is how bright the lights are that are currently being used on the roads. And I concur with jomukuk, most of the bike lights I see actually being used are nothing like as bright as the likes of the cateye you highlight.

_________________
Chris

Er, yes, correct, aaannd?

They'd still get whacked by Zamora who's flying a long at such a speed by the time he sees the cyclist it would be too late.

A cyclist can be irresponsible and travel too fast for the conditions as well, I see it happen.

Yes, I agree, we can't all drive around at 0-5 mph. but today I reckon 80% of drivers at night are crossing the line regulary.

In a way I agree with the safe speed concept, its just that I think the safe speed to drive at in the situations we're discussing is much much lower than most posters on here would come up with, and indeed most people responsible for piloting vehicles (of any type).

And what's more I think if you described where you thought the line was it would be much different from where it actually is.

I can now only hope you understand the difference between corners/fog and a moving cyclist.


Where approximately is this line which 80% of drivers cross? You gave a numerical figure so you must have some sort of numerical reference (be it relative or a ratio).


So where actually is it? Where do you draw the line? Do you cycle past driveways/entrances/parked cars/unlit junctions at your 30mph?

It isn't even just a question of how fast to drive at night. In broad daylight with visibility out to the horizon, and with you having already chosen a speed which was quite appropriate for the road ahead, you could still end up hitting a cyclist/pedestrian/tree branch/etc if they happened to make the wrong move at the wrong time even though you could see them quite clearly at all times. Sometimes the motorist really isn't to blame...

_________________
Chris

When I'm on my bike?

When I'm on my bike I am aware that simply falling off can be a fatal, or very severe event, so I don't take chances on purpose.

When I'm on my bike I'm acutely aware of my need to react to unforseen circumstances and moderate my speed accordingly, its the equvilant of driving with a spike in your steering wheel IMO.

I believe that my cycling helps my driving a lot, I'd go so far as to say spending 35 hours on a cycle should be offered to people caught speeding in place of three points on their licence.

Yes, I agree, but we're talking about (despite attempts to derail this part of the discussion to save face) drivers rear ending cyclists in the dark, when frankly, even if the cyclist has no lights then said driver was travelling outside the bounds of their vision.

OK, let’s say you are successful in ‘derailing’ the described circumstance – the cyclist you now describe, as well as having no lights or high visibility jacket or any non-dark clothing, or being bathed in streetlight, would also have removed the retro-reflective strips from the rear as well as both the pedals.

Would a motorist/cyclist be expected to continuously mitigate against impossible to see hazards?

Well I did reply to you:

Drivers can see fog and corners because they’re static in the field of view so reflecting the light from the headlamps (they can’t see past but that’s not the point). Obviously, people can’t see hazards that aren’t in the field of view.


To what?
I ask again: what is your drawn line you referred to in your earlier post?

Just travel at a speed where they could avoid hitting an unlit object that "jumps out in front of them" (i.e. is seen too late) at night.

That'd be 0mph then...

_________________
Chris