"World class cycling city": Cyclists urge council to clear "appalling" bike lane filled with gravel and leaves; Has Chris Froome found a solution to the supertuck ban?; Pothole warnings; Meltdown over free lights for cyclists + more on the live blog

chrisonabike wrote:

My point was simply that I increasingly understand the complaint "your light's too bright!" which I used to hear from pedestrians. (And would reply "but it's not as bright as a car's...").  Because of the small area for a bright-long reaching beam they will be potentially more dazzling than vehicle lights.  My point was just "we're all losing here" (and it's possible for humans to avoid arms races sometimes).  Solutions are not easy obviously*.

I've recently started doing the school run through a mostly unlit park and, despite having theoretically 'good' German regulated lights with a shaped beam (a SON Edelux and, latterly, a battery powered one on an ebike), I've been getting some 'too bright' comments. I guess I must be angling them too high, negating the beam cut off.    

I've been guilty of forgetting to angle lights down having been out in the dark of the countryside.  Or just having had it pushed by something while parking.  Easily done.

I mean - they're still bike lights (e.g. very small very bright point in the centre) - and I've had a one or two "moths to flames" incidents where it seemed to me that someone - having noticed a "bright light" - while disapproving of it seemed to be unable to look away from it... And for the foreseeable future - at least until "mass cycling" in the UK - there will be a bit of "but cyclists!"

Alongside various battery lights, on dynamo I've Supernova E3 (front / rear) and a Busch & Muller Lumotec IQ-XS headlight.  I used to have a B&M toplight rear one which I rated as it managed to spread the light output over a wider area.

Yes to the target fixation phenomenon!

Absolutely, and wouldn't at ride at night without. And not against having sensible rules either. Just wondering, though, how much making us 'more like cars' makes us . . . more like cars in some people's minds. Hence 'road tax' etc. (Someone actually said to me yesterday that it was unfair that drivers pay VAT on petrol and cyclists don't! Too gobsmacked at the time to point out we do however VAT on coffee and cake . . .)

CyclingGardener wrote:

we do however VAT on coffee and cake . . .)

and on bikes, tyres, chains brake pads, sexy skin tight clothing and all the other important cycling accoutrements

tigersnapper wrote:

It's not an equivalence thing, it's simply breaking the law.  If we expect drivers to obey the HC and obey the laws we must hold cyclists (and all other road users) to the same standards.

"Its not about false equivalence, its just about acting like things which aren't equivalent are equivalent so we can create a false equivalence..."

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Here we go again with the false driver and cyclist equivalence. 

A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk.

A driver who's vehicle isn't safe is putting others at risk. 

They are not the same thing. 

But both are inconsiderate towards other road users. 

Everyone has a duty of care to keep themselves, and others safe. Riding with lights, and ensuring tyres and lights are in good order should be the minimum to expect. I personally go out with lights, nearly all the time - esp in winter, and always a rear light. 

Tell that to drivers usng daytime running lights at night. Blinding those in front, near-invisible from the rear.

Who came up with the idea of DRLs and on front lights only??? It's so ridiculous - just default a running car to sidelights and, if the driver is unable to determine at what level of darkness to go to dipped beams, fine, automate it.

Rant over...

I understand your thought on car light automation but the technology does exist in new cars. However it is not perfect and in daytime conditions where dipped beams and even fog lamps are required (mist, fog, heavy rain, snow etc) the system doesn't work. They run off ambient light sensors and because there is a hum of daylight (albeit scattered in a way that reduces visibility) they stick to daytime lights. There are campaigns to make people aware to manually switch on their dipped beams for those conditions.

I have always been lucky to own a car which either does not have a DRL system or with a DRL setting that has low front light power and always activates the rear lights.

"A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk."

And putting at risk the pedestrians they might run into, who might be doing something like using a pedestrian crossing correctly.

There is a true equivalence, as unlit cyclists and unlit motorists both do create a (non-negligible) risk to more vulnerable road users. The car will do more damage than the bike of course in the event that risk is realised, but the bike is harder to spot and (around my area) unlit bikes are hugely more prevalent than unlit cars.

Lights are cheap and reliable, and barring theft there's not really a good excuse for riding without them.

I've no problem with the approach the City police are taking, but conversely I'd have no complaints about them pulling over a sizeable chunk of the peleton at Bank and issuing some fines. 

Brauchsel wrote:

"A cyclist without lights is putting themselves at risk."

And putting at risk the pedestrians they might run into, who might be doing something like using a pedestrian crossing correctly.

There is a true equivalence, as unlit cyclists and unlit motorists both do create a (non-negligible) risk to more vulnerable road users. The car will do more damage than the bike of course in the event that risk is realised, but the bike is harder to spot and (around my area) unlit bikes are hugely more prevalent than unlit cars.

Lights are cheap and reliable, and barring theft there's not really a good excuse for riding without them.

I've no problem with the approach the City police are taking, but conversely I'd have no complaints about them pulling over a sizeable chunk of the peleton at Bank and issuing some fines. 

Not quite equivalence as when a cyclist and pedestrian collide, the cyclist can often come off worse.

I've never parked my car outside a shop and had the headlights stolen.

A car without working lights is not legally allowed on the road (there may be exceptions if you're on your way to get them fixed, I don't know). A bike without lights can be used perfectly legally during daylight. 

I'd be very happy for the police to follow this course with motorists.

"You were caught speeding so i'm just going to fix this speed restrictor for free"

If a vehicle has a valid MOT certificate the speedometer should read correct within the tolerances stated by DfT regulations. Operator fault, 100% should be punised in accordance with the law. The driver has burden of proof to prove both the discrepancy between actual speed and speedo reading, and that could also open up investigations into the Test centre if they might have fraudulently issued a certificate. Even if that was the case, the driver could still be held partly criminally liable if they knew the test centre issued the certificate fraudulently.

Quite often, they do offer advice, or ignore completely if a car has a single bulb not working, as opposed to issuing a fine straight away.

I have been pulled over once, on my way to buy a replacement bulb. I told them I noticed it that morning and that I was on my way to get a new bulb because the ones I had were the wrong type. They sent me on my way, I got my light fixed and no issues whatsoever.

It's not even a subsidy, it's helping them "be safer" given that it's the motoring lobby that insist that cyclists should have them because some drivers don't use their eyes properly.
It's not dangerous to ride a bike without lights, just like going out for a jog without lights, if you cannot see well enough, just slow down a bit.

This is such a critical point missed by so many drivers! If you are not able to stop in the time between seeing something the size of a human in the road and hitting it you are driving too fast for the conditions. There are sometimes things in the road that shouldn't be there, assuming the road to be clear and driving at speeds where you are unable to react to issues is ridiculously dangerous, blaming that dangerous driving on the thing you hit instead of your own actions is entitlement not often seen outside of a car. 

ChrisB200SX wrote:

It's not even a subsidy, it's helping them "be safer" given that it's the motoring lobby that insist that cyclists should have them because some drivers don't use their eyes properly.
It's not dangerous to ride a bike without lights, just like going out for a jog without lights, if you cannot see well enough, just slow down a bit.

This.

I lose count of the number of people who tell me that cyclists and pedestrians are invisible in the dark.

"No, they're not; you just have to look"

"What?! What about when they appear in front of you?"

"They don't just 'appear'; they were there all along. If you can't see them, you're not looking in the right places."

"What about when you come round the bend and they're just there in the road?"

"You should be travelling at a speed where you can stop in the distance you know to be clear; not driving at the speed limit and hoping nothing's beyond the reach of your headlights."

"What speed do you think I would have to slow down to to do that?!"

It's the earnestness with which motornormativity conditions the driving brain into thinking that everything must be subservient to their right to travel at speed.

You can ride expecting everyone to drive travelling at a speed where they can stop in the distance you know to be clear

Or you can ride expecting it to be more like in the drivers crash into buildings thread, or the drivers frequently killing injuring cyclists news articles.

It's your choice, even if riding without lights at night is against the law, its still your choice, but it might be the last choice you ever take.

You may be a cyclist, through your attitude you're still part of the problem.

yeah Im part of the problem, for pointing out the emperor has no new clothes.

we're constantly reminded how vulnerable cyclists are on the roads, and that alot of drivers dont follow the rules. so why encourage people to be at extra risk cycling without lights at night, simply expecting drivers to follow their rules, yet its breaking the rules not to ride without lights at night?

maybe if youd been witness to a collision between a 4x4 and a cyclist at night, and for all the world expected to be faced dealing with a fatal collision, and the first thing the driver says to you as the only other witness who stopped, I didnt see them they didnt have any lights.

youd have more of the using lights at night as a cyclist, is probably a good thing mindset.

fortunately that cyclist survived, albeit with life changing injuries, and as the only other witness I was able to quash the "they didnt have any lights" excuse, others may not be so fortunate if similar circumstances befell on them.

stonojnr wrote:

You can ride expecting everyone to drive travelling at a speed where they can stop in the distance you know to be clear Or you can ride expecting it to be more like in the drivers crash into buildings thread, or the drivers frequently killing injuring cyclists news articles. It's your choice, even if riding without lights at night is against the law, its still your choice, but it might be the last choice you ever take.

Or you can miss the point of the post altogether.

for what, bringing the cold harsh reality of life into this perfect world where all drivers travel at a speed they can stop in the distance they know to be clear ?

look around & observe more next time you ride in the real world.

I have been waiting at lights to move off and find a cyclist in black with no lights has made a right turn into my lane as I'm about to turn left. Only jsut picked them out at the last second as the glare from the over bright beams from behind them obscured my sight.

Over bright lights even in a car, can mean people ahead with no lights and dark clothes can be very hard to spot. There has to be some degree of responsibility on all road users.

I used to agree with this without reservation.  Now... partly.  Yes, it's on the drivers* but in human terms (if we're going to continue "mass motoring" e.g. not just elite drivers [ yes - this should be "standard careful legal driving" but that is not so common...] - so older drivers, distracted parents, people using glasses etc.) it is indeed difficult to see pedestrians and cyclists well when driving in the dark.

This affects cyclists most because they are normally on the road (pedestrians - intermittently) and normally moving parallel to motor vehicles (so little relative motion for human brains to detect).

Mostly for me it's just another example of "why we need much more carefully designed infra where we have large / fast motorised vehicles" **.

In terms of being seen for cyclists / pedestrians arguably reflective material - especially on moving parts of your body e.g. arms / legs - is the most effective / least cost to user to mitigate things here.

* The rules do indeed state (although not with a specific MUST) e.g. "Rule 126. Stopping distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."

...and it's definitely for our own benefit while driving at night to be able to see and stop before hitting e.g. a black-coloured parked car or an unlit tree that has fallen in the road or just that a country road sharply changes direction up ahead.

** Rant: space for cycling should be completely separate where those vehicles will be travelling at above e.g. 20mph - and of course separate from the footway!  Also how we design crossing points and junctions needs to be nationally standardised and merits careful attention to very specific details - also main road crossings for all etc.