Safe Speed Forums

why are road users (including cylists) obliged by law to have lights at night?

If, as a driver, I can see a cyclist or pedestrian, my judgement of speed will depend on the risk of the unexpected. Quite often I'll be down to a minuscule differential passing a bike or a pedesrian I suspect of being a darter. If I misread a darter for a good cyclist, I may wing it as it darts. I would certainly blame myself in such an instance.

Fair enough if the warning signs are there and the driver simply misreads them, but I'm thinking more about the instances where the cyclist/pedestrian/other driver quite simply doesn't give any notice of their intention, and the first you know about it is when they actually make their move.

_________________
Chris

Not knee-jerk at all.
As not-knee-jerk as the crash helmet legislation for m/cyclists was.
No, cannot tell you about how/where/why cyclists were killed, mainly because the stats are not easy to dig out. And also because the major organisations that collate and use these stats don't bother to find out if the cyclist/pedestrian were drunk/daft/dim/etc.
In fact, while there are stats about the number of peds who were "under the influence" when involved in an accident (quite a high figure...some 30% in the evenings) the stats on cyclists are not as easy to find. I leave it to the free-thinkers in BRAKE (etc) to use the accident stats that are convenient to them.
But, since head injuries rate very highly in the serious injury column (courtesy of my friendly A&E department....whose stats are easy to look through...unlike the DoT) I would have thought that even a cyclist could have worked out that wearing a crash helmet is likely to improve their chances of survival. Maybe not.
Let's return to the CRAP LIGHTS that ALMOST ALL of the cycles that USE lights at night have.....not yours, of course, but everyone elses. Now, this is as a result of my USING MY EYES when driving (unlike many cyclists, who consider that other drivers have extra-sensory perception and know WHERE the cyclist is going and WHEN without any obvious sign of signals) and noting that 3 flashing leds do not stand out well when compared to the oncoming cars with two 55 watt headlamps. In fact, driving through town last night I did not see a single cyclist with lights of any sort.....although this town has a fair population of cycle-users....and there were many people cycling.
I've been driving for over 40 years now, I have never hit anyone....even a cyclist...although there have been many occasions when I have wanted to....especially when they push my door mirrors flat to get past in the traffic queue.
As my driving instructor said: "You need eyes in your arse to see some of these f***ing idiots on bikes"

Wouldn't it be a good idea to discover if they would or not before ranting on that they should be compelled to wear helmets?

(It's not BTW)


I can't remember the last time I rode a bicycle at night. But don't let that get in the way of your attempt at a snide insult.

While that is exactly what I've already said. It is the idiotic overuse of headlights where there are street lights that is likely to be the cause of most of the collisions......

By comparison, I would say (purely from my own observation) that there are proportionally more unlit cycles than cars about.

1. It's an easy job to turn your car lights on and they come as standard.

2. As discussed at great length cars generally travel faster than bicycles, so the need is greater; the driver is lighting his or her way, whereas the cyclist is often adequately able to see the road ahead, and the lights are merely to warn others of their presence. So the driver's self interest motivation is higher than the cyclist's.



As for cars that have one or more non-functioning light, don't get me started

Unfortunately, the use of headlights in darkness or bad visibility is mandatory. IE: The law says you have to use them.

I did have a brief perusal of your LINK and while noting that it was a selective argument between proponent and opponent of cycle risk prevention (from an insurance point-of-view), I switched-off after noting the name Mayer Hillman (Expert:energy conservation; walking and cycling; road safety; climate change; health promotion; quality of life issues; environmental and resource sustainability; green economics; children's physical and social development; setting clocks forward).
I did note however, that if you go by the views of the Thompson, Thompson & Rivara. part ("The scientific evidence indicates that bicycle helmets protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial (upper and mid-face) injuries has been well established") it is obvious that helmets are of some use. They should be required by law. On road or off.

In a very brief google of the subject (not Mr Hillman) I found THIS publication/report....it is probable that it is of interest.

Don't be ridiculous.

On a straight dark country road at night its at least 40mph, possibly 50 -60 if you've got your beams going.

The 'law' does not. Perhaps you should have read your Highway Code?

Rule 113.

You MUST
* ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
* use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified

No, what he is saying is that you HAVE to drive AT ALL TIMES as if a suicidal cyclist/pedestrian was going to jump out from behind a parked tree. Anyway, I'm off to get a very large piece of 300X90 RSC attached to the front of my vehicle to fend off suicidal cyclist attacks.

Oh good, somebody else who wants to live in a police state where the government dictates what you must do for your own protection.

Have you seen the reports from Australia, where cycle helmets have been compulsory for some years now? The number of people cycling has dropped considerably and some doctors are saying that any minor benefit from helmets has been completely outweighed by people getting less exercise.

Have you also seen the reports which indicate that in some cases cycle helmets can actually make things worse in an accident, due to increasing torsional injuries?

Recommended by the sound of it, the cult of the suicidal jumping cyclist can only get stronger.

I always wondered why push bikes were getting lighter, it must be so that they are easier to jump out with.

I tried to get them to read a simple paper on the subject but jomukuk appears to have the attention span of a goldfish as he(?) had a 'brief perusal' and 'switched-off' without even bothering to read the compete published exchange on risk compensation & helmet wearing from John Adams archive.

Yes, and almost completely pointless if they are travelling at a speed that means they can't stop in time for things outside the range of their headlights, a Zamzara?

According to your logic the car should turn off its lights and just claim the cyclist was going too fast. Note how you have assumed at every stage that the car has lights on.

The concept of driving within the range of your headlights applies only to stationary objects or objects moving directly away from you. That is not the situation I was talking about. What about junctions, cyclists joining the road without looking, oncoming cyclists?

Oh please stop with your fallacious (strawman) obsession with police states.

Well, it was the situation I was talking about and I stated it, and its the normal situation, that 99% of times you encounter a cyclist on the road they will be cycling away from you at about 10 to 20 mph on the left hand side of the road.

Junctions, yes, slow down and look out for vehicles or cycles coming down them, and don't imagine that they will see you coming up the road, just like you should do during the day if you drive or ride defensively.

Ride a push bike for an hour and you'll soon learn that, as many road users seem to think that the give way line is about a metre in front of where it actually is and generally drive to that point before they even start looking left and right.

Oncoming cyclists?!?! Where abouts on the road are you driving exactly?

Perhaps Zamzara was doing at least 40 on an NSL at the time? So what's the problem?

I've been riding a push bike for about an hour a day for the last three months. I agree with you about give way lines. That's why I am campaigning to get people to focus on other issues, instead of the cliched 'speed' as the cause of everything. Drivers cutting corners when turning right is another frequent concern.



The Isle of Wight. Some roads are quite narrow and it's necessary to be able to actually see whether other vehicles are present in order to decide whether to proceed sometimes. This is the problem: not seeing other vehicles is caused by not seeing other vehicles, not speed.