UKC

I have a hypothetical for the folk at UKClimbing. But I’ll give the back story first.

Today I was driving back from work in the dark. I’m on a busy back road, it’s a 60 mph road, lots of on coming traffic, and I’m doing 40mph because of poor visibility.

All of a sudden I see a cyclist, in the dark, no reflective anything’s what so ever and a single terrible light so dim I only saw it last minute.

Now I avoided him with no real hassle (but still required some quick thinking) and no harm done. When I get home I called the non-emergency police number just encase someone behind me knocks him off.

Now this gets me thinking, are there cases where cyclists have been knocked off and its been decided it was the cyclist fault? I think morally speaking, many people would find it difficult to argue that a driver hitting a cyclist with No lights or anything should be held accountable, but legally that may or may not be the case.

And finally, if tomorrow I see a cyclist at the same time, on the same road, also with no flexitive gear and a terrible light, I will call the non-emergency number again, do you think the police will send someone out the day after to warn the cyclist of there dangerous actions and administer a fine?

Because someone is probably going to ask, on this stretch of road I pass probably between none and 4 a day. All of which with pretty normal gear and pretty normal lights and all are perfectly easy to see in the dark.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

Even as a cyclist, I'd say the cyclist is at fault. The law requires all vehicles (and for the purposes of this part of the law that includes bicyles) to be adequately lit at night.

There was an incident filmed on one of those traffic police programmes where a rider was knocked off his bike and killed. Turned out he was drunk and had no lights. The motorist thought she'd hit a deer and didn't stop. I don't think any prosecution came about.

I think mandatory lights are more important than mandatory wearing of helmets.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Thanks for responding. I wonder if i can find the video you are talking about on youtube.

I also ride a 600CC motorbike, which is shiney gray color and i have a high visibility vest and the bag i use is white with reflextive stuff all over it.

I would never dream of riding a black bike with black gear in a badly lit area with only "side lights" (or what ever they are called on a motorbike).

After today i might purchase a car video camera.

In reply to a lakeland climber:


and a lot of the time, reflective hi-vis stuff shows up far more than lights...

In reply to Tim.W.Climber: I remember watching one of those traffic cops programs and a girl had hit an unlit cyclist on a dual carriageway and killed him. She was found to be at no fault at all.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:
Would the motorist be found at fault ? Don't be daft

Even if the lights were visible 200 yards away, they'd still try to blame the cyclist and the driver would walk free

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/local/driver-killed-a1-cyclist-1-5207...

However there are plenty of muppets out there without lights, and on unlit roads you're asking for trouble. I'd have no problem at all with the police handing out spot fines, but how about a more creative solution. £50 fine, or buy lights on the spot for £40.

In reply to tlm:

Quite a few lines of cycling clothing have hi-viz threads woven in to them. My point was really that you need to make your presence known.

My commuter bike has a dynamo driven front light with a small LED backup. On the rear I've a Cateye main unit as well as a LED backup. Both backups are USB chargeable so are pretty reliable in that role.

I started a thread about the attitudes of road users on the basis that society exonerates those who kill simply because they are behind the wheel. However that was based on the premise that other road users, in particular cyclists and pedestrians, behave in a reasoned and reasonable manner. Riding a bike at night wearing dark clothing and without lights is not in my view reasonable either for yourself or other road users.

ALC

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

I think cyclists should be made to dress up like Tron.

In reply to cuppatea:

Already been done - http://revolights.com

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Well, that IS the legal position, and long may it continue.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber: Cyclists are like badgers, you try to cull them but they run away.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Are you trolling, or do you genuinely think that's funny?

In reply to MHutch:

Dunno mate, but it seems that you like to watch cyclists pasted across the road just as much as the next man.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Good thinking!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That's a good idea. I think another good idea would be for all new bikes to be sold with decent lights already attached, by law.

I see the odd cyclist with no lights or a very dim tail light only and really do wonder if they realise how much they are putting their life at risk, particularly on unlit country roads with national speed limits. Some bike lights and reflectors are truly excellent and can be seen for a considerable distance and it makes it so much safer to share the road with the cyclist.

In reply to Trevers:

Apart from it not being so, of course.

Whilst I rather like the idea of the police bargaining with youngsters on the way home from school, cannot we apply neo-liberal principals and let the market, here the battle between motorists and cyclists, sort itself out.

In reply to cuppatea:

Count me in. And i dont have a bike.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I seem to recall that's been done before... maybe in Southampton a few years back?

Problem with most of those sorts of plans is that they seem to be one-off special occasions. Round here we get a regular influx of students who spend a lot of time tottering around on bikes with poor brakes and no lights... a fining spree every few years doesn't really make much of an impact given cyclist turnover.

In reply to teflonpete:


The problem is that truly decent lights would cost a significant fraction of the cost of many bikes. Even £50 on lights would be a 50% increase in the cost of some bikes. I could buy three new bikes from halfords for the cost of the lights on my commuter bike.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Very poor taste

In reply to vark:

True, decent lights are expensive, but then so is sending out an ambulance to pick a cyclist out of a motorist's radiator grill. Sorry to be so blunt, but it really is as simple as that. The other thing to look at is that higher production volumes would reduce the cost of individual items, so if more decent lights were fitted, they would be cheaper, so what costs £50 as a retro-fit now might only put £25 - £30 on the price of a new bike if they were standard fitment. We have compulsory indicators, brake lights, running lamps and headlamps fitted as standard on other road using vehicles but leave they most vulnerable users of wheeled road transport to make up their own minds whether they'll protect their safety with a searchlight or a candle.

In reply to teflonpete:
As pointed out the problem at least round my way isn't the people who have good bikes (they also tend to have decent lights)

Its students who have just picked up a second hand bike for £25 from gumtree. I think targeting campuses at the start of term would really help locally.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

What an odd comment.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

I cycle between manc and salford most days, and drive a lot around here too. It bends my head when I see someone riding in the dark, without lights, dressed in black. You just wonder where common sense comes into it....?

Presumably these guys will at some point have been in a car themselves, and will have seen someone else doing the same thing and thought to themselves "wow, they're really hard to see".

When I'm on the bike I've got LED lights, hi vis jacket with reflective bits, and something vivid and bright on my legs. I fully accept that I look like a tw*t, but at least if a motorist passes me and thinks "Wow, he looks like a tw*t", I'm happy to have been spotted.

What happened to all the "Get Yourself Seen" adverts that I remember from years ago?

In reply to teflonpete:

I disagree, decent lights aren't that expensive. I run two sets of Smart Lunar lights at the front and back and the combined cost was less than £50, admittedly I got a deal on Wiggle at the time for them. The rear lights are very bright and seem to get me noticed on the back roads I use to get home (single track, no streetlights). My front two seem pretty good too and provide enough illumination for me to see by as well be noticed by oncoming traffic.

If you want to get super bright lights for next to feck all then I'd recommend picking up a set of Cree lights off Ebay.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber: I look like a bloody Christmas tree (and despite that still got a blast on a horn from some bellend in a Corsa who apparently objected to me being on the A59 last night), and am all for super-bright lights. Hope District+ and a red light on my helmet, Hope R4 on the front and spare lights in my pocket.

What I don't do is wear fluorescent jackets/jerseys - the ones I have have various reflective bits on, but I suspect if you saw me walk out of the house and get on my bike you'd think I was inappropriately dressed (dark jacket, black shorts/leg warmers) but if you're behind me with your lights on I'd challenge anyone to say they can't see me.

No excuse not to get seen these days - goes for car drivers as well - remarkable the number of dark cars you see driving around in piss-poor visibility (or even in the dark) without any lights, or weedy little side-lights, on. I'd like to see the police stopping and fining more people for having defective lights on cars.

And whilst we're about it - driving with bloody fog-lights on when IT'S NOT FOGGY!!!!!!

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Whilst I rather like the idea of the police bargaining with youngsters on the way home from school

An easy option, would be for the school to ban bikes without lights, from entering their grounds.

In reply to MJ:

Oh even better, it gets madder and madder.

A teacher at the gate to make sure that all of the pupils are wearing their cap or hat and there are lights on their bikes.

And the sanction? Well you'd better take your bike back home, hadn't you. OK sir, see you in a couple of hours then.

In reply to MHutch:

You reckon?

www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566937&v=1#x7540476

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Wow, history trawl. You are one sad individual. As it happens, was more a comment on the risky nature of that turning, rather than any actual desire to see it happen, but I can see how it could be read that way.

Would you like to explain your 'culling' statement in the same terms?

In reply to ThunderCat:

One way to deal with this would be for police to impound bicycles being ridden with no lights in the dark.

But that said...in Germany, most bikes (below a price threshold, I think - the threshold being such that professional road bikes are exempted, but you don't often see these without lights) are required to be sold with fixed lights. This is normally a dynamo set. These have the disadvantage of turning off when you stop - but this could be updated using LEDs and a capacitor to prevent this (the Boris bikes use this kind of system so you just don't need to think about lights, they're just there when you ride). I think this is a really good idea, and it would filter through within 5-10 years to seriously reduce this problem.

On an aside, can users of the super-bright rechargeable battery pack lights please dim or dip them when approaching a pedestrian, car or other cyclist, and can their manufacturers include an easy to use dim/dip switch possibly on a cable for locating near the brake? I'm rather fed up of being blinded (when walking, cycling and driving) by having these shone in my face.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Do the police actually care though?

It's something I've had ingrained in me from an early age by my mum - that if you're out in the dark without lights after 'lighting up time' the police would be right on you, so I sort of do it by default now.

But as the years went by and I saw more and more lightless riders, I started to just assume it became less of a priority for the police.

In reply to Neil Williams:
My lights have 3 settings - normal, bright and retina scorch. I only use the two highest when off-road and either dim them or put my hand over the light if I meet someone on the trail.

Unfortunately if are walking and aren't well lit, I might be braking hard to avoid a collision and so be unable to get to the switch.

In reply to TomBaker:

Definitely true around here (Oxford). I always use lights in even semi-darkness, but the number of people (particularly around the quieter streets) who go without or with very poor lights (eg. those crap Knog things) is astounding, and I think the only reason more don't get knocked off is that the local motorists and bus drivers have got used to it. It's not all students but a lot of it is.

The Police tend to have a blitz of fining people in October (and I believe a similar thing is done in Cambridge) but most students don't realise they 'need' a bike until slightly later. The usual policy on the fines is that it's a ~£30 fixed penalty, but if you go and buy some lights and bring them to the local nick (fitted) within seven days, the fine is cancelled.

In reply to stewieatb:

Yeah, they run that here in Cambridge as well:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/104/article14.html

But similarly, it tends to be a blitz for one or two days, normally a bit after the clocks go back, and then back to ignoring it.

In reply to Neil Williams:

One way to deal with this would be for police to impound bicycles being ridden with no lights in the dark.

Just impound the front wheel. Easier for the Police, a nice reminder to the cyclist...

In reply to Tim.W.Climber: Contributory negligence. When compensation is awarded the court will reduce the compensation depending on how much blame can be apportioned to the rider. So if they had a light but the battery had failed the rider might get a reduced payout for failing to replace the battery, whereas if they had no light at all the payout would be reduced further, if he was wearing black and drunk then as said above - nada.

The impetus behind a drive on enforcement of lights would be based on accident statistics. Are people without lights being seriously injured or killed because they don't have them or is it just a lot of car drivers complaining that 'there will be an accident sooner or later'?

Most drivers are, or should be, looking out for pedestrians and cyclists in dark clothing already, lights just make them easier to spot earlier.

In reply to MJ:

Knowing the types of people involved, that would cause a massive increase in wheel theft.

Neil

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Good that you do. Most cyclists with such lights seem not to. But if you've got such a light, I'd be surprised if you didn't see a pedestrian in plenty of time, even if they were dressed fully in black. My front one goes very bright (but will only last an hour on the battery if on that setting, so I turn it to that setting when I need it only, e.g. when wanting to ride at reasonable speed on a poor quality country lane) and it is as good as a car headlight when it does.

Neil

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

When I was 15 my Dad killed an elderly cyclist who came straight out of a side road onto his bonnet; he had no lights or brakes and was hard of hearing and sight and had been warned by his family not to go out at night. He came through the windscreen and bled to death in my parents' laps, his neck gashed open by the wing mirror on the bonnet. The Police examined my Dad's car in minute detail and found it to be in perfect order - had they found any fault that affected safety they said he'd have been charged with manslaughter. The law may be different nowadays or be applied differently but I don't think the principle can have changed.

This is the reason why I am absolutely fastidious about maintaining my car in good order, especially keeping the windows clear, brakes, tyres and everything esle in perfect condition.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

The cyclist is a twit for not having proper lights and would bear some responsibility for that, but the legal position is that the driver is expected to drive within the limits of the amount of road that is illuminated by hislights. If you think about it this makes sense because although there is a requirement for cyclists to be appropriately lit up, there is no such requirement for pedestrians to be lit up. So in the personal injury claim that follows your hypothetical example, the cyclist will succeed in alleging negligence against the driver but there would probably be a reduction in damages for contributory negligence.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

Cyclists riding without lights at night are muppets. I nearly hit one who turned across me last year.

It left me feeling quite shaken as it was a very near miss.

I'd have felt awful if I'd killed him even though he only had himself to blame.

Cycling without lights in the dark is an offence and it would be good to see some prosecutions "pour encourage les autres"

In reply to Toby S:
Even £10 on top of the. cost of producing a £99 bike may well make it not viable.

In reply to vark:

Like minimum alcohol pricing, if there is no option it will become viable. It's probably not viable for one manufacturer to do it alone.

Neil

In reply to vark:

I wasn't talking about the cost to the manufacturer, I was talking about the cost to the cyclist.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Can someone tell me how this is supposed to work including how these minimum standard lights will be both adequate and theft-proof?

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:

Three bike rear light fails I've seen. Two unwitting, one halfwitted.

Unwitting Fail 1: Nice bright light on the seat post, nothing wrong with that. However, the long tail on the rider's coat covering it up rendered it rather less effective.

Unwitting Fail 2: Nice bright light on the back of the helmet. Again, nothing wrong with that. However, when you go onto your drops, all it does is illuminate the top of your rucksack.

Halfwit fail: Nice bright light on the diagonal tube that runs from under the seat down to the rear hub. Again, nothing wrong with that. So far so good, but the next step of putting on a full pannier to totally obscure the light scores nul points.

In reply to Tim.W.Climber:
Re ensusring bike were sold with lights - it's as daft as the laws on reflectors - I have a box of them at home.

I don't want a £10 front light on any of my bikes - I want something much brighter for where I'm going.

The Cambridge scheme linked above is the best way forward (I knew my idea came from somewhere), but it needs to be done regularly, not simply once a year.

In reply to Chris Harris:

Another one I see regularly is the light not being adjusted for the right angle, so it just shines on the tyre, rather than at an approaching motorist.... that and people with fading batteries

One night last year when cycling home I stopped another cyclist - she had a set of £300 lights on the front (Exposure), but no rear light at all riding down very dark unlit country lanes, being seen from the rear hadn't occured to her. After a friendly chat I followed her home (with her consent - I wasn't stalking her) with my lights doing the job as best it could for both of us... I've seen her a few times since, and she now has something suitably bright)

Not from the UK, but from the Netherlands. In my town, when it's autumn and it's getting darker sooner, the police used to check for bikes without light and hand over a set for free if they don't have lights. These days they hire students to hand out lights to those without, then after a few weeks, the police will actively check for lights and give fines.

I got lights on my commuter bike and on my roadbike. I think if you also have been driving a car, you know how hard cyclist can be seen without lights.

It could get worse, I call them suicide cyclists; the running red lights, while having both hands texting away on a phone, not even bothered to look at traffic and did not even know he almost got hit twice type of guy. Seriously i had to slam my brake for those types...

In reply to vark:

My most recent bike did come with lights instead of reflectors (it wasn't a cheap bike mind) but essentially they use these as it means they can just equip the same stuff where-ever they sell the bike.

However, these went straight in the bin as they where so unbelieveably shite (one blinking LED in the middle of a big reflector)

So whilst a good idea in theory, there would have to be a minimum standard of light to avoid it being pointless.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Agree, I think the BS should be updated to require a much brighter light.

Neil

In reply to Mike Highbury:

The easiest way would be to have a list of approved models and/or a minimum technical spec. Obviously, that doesn't allow for flat batteries, being obscured, etc. However, that also applies to motor vehicles.
As for theft proof, that's pretty much the cyclists responsibility.