Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

sillywilly

I am a cyclist and it really makes me irate when I see other cyclists at night without any lights on. Especially if they have a really expensive bike - that just makes it worse. Oh you can spend £2000 on a bike but couldn't afford a tenner to make yourself seen!

Or when they have all the garb on - Hi Vis top, helmet - no lights though!

Or they just have a front light - that's going to help the cars from BEHIND seeing you!

The craziest one I have seen though is foreigners near me, I think it must be some scam to actually cause accidents is cycling into traffic on the right hand side of the road with a red, rear light attatched to the front of the bike!! Have seen at least 10 people doing that near where I live and they must all be foreign. I know that sounds xenophobic and I don't care cos it's the truth.

Anyway - rant over.

Dan_Gleebitz

And as a fellow cyclist. It really annoys me when I see people cycling without wearing a helmet. You can afford the bike so you can afford a helmet.
It creases me how you will see a family cycling, say two adults and two children.
Children wearing helmets, got to look after their skulls.
One or both adults not wearing helmets, have a fall crack their skulls open, then their in trouble. Possible long term medical problems, including financial loss.
Do the right thing. Wear helmets.
Dan

vikingaero

You can get a light for £1 in Poundland, which whilst not being the brightest in the world, will do the job. But if they are too stupid to ignore common sense then it's really a form of natural selection.

Desperado99

What annoys me is that bikes have to be sold with a bell (it's the law apparantly) but can be sold without lights.

NoSatisfaction

And a motorist that hit them because they were riding in the dark, dressed in black with no lights would probably be sued and prosecuted!!!:mad:

geri1965_2

Dan_Gleebitz wrote: »

And as a fellow cyclist. It really annoys me when I see people cycling without wearing a helmet. You can afford the bike so you can afford a helmet.

The difference is that it's illegal to ride a bike without lights, it is not illegal to ride without a helmet.

OP, I have noticed that the majority of cyclists without lights round my way are men - just wondering if this is common elsewhere.

shaun_from_Africa

What annoys me is that bikes have to be sold with a bell

Correct, but they don't have to be sold with the bell fitted!
Provided the retailer provides a bell, it is up to the buyer whether they fit it or not, and there is no legal obligation to do this yet. Labour were considering making it law, but I'm pretty sure they never got around to doing it.

olias

It's not just cyclists, I have lost track of the number of joggers I have seen at dusk in dark clothing with no high vis on. And this is along unlit fast country lanes. Horse riders too, round my way, riding at dusk in dark clothing with no high vis on. I just don't understand it.

Olias

Desperado99

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Correct, but they don't have to be sold with the bell fitted!
Provided the retailer provides a bell, it is up to the buyer whether they fit it or not, and there is no legal obligation to do this yet. Labour were considering making it law, but I'm pretty sure they never got around to doing it.

It's not that I mind having a bell, It's that it's surely not as important as lights!

shaun_from_Africa

Horse riders too, round my way, riding at dusk in dark clothing with no high vis on.

It's not even as if the horse owners would have to spend too much money on a rear light for the horse.
All they need is a reasonable sized torch and a dollop of vaseline :eek:

Lip_Stick

Bunting wrote: »

It's not that I mind having a bell, It's that it's surely not as important as lights!

Is that because a bell is important for pedestrian's safety and a light is important for your own? Hope not!

*Refrains from ranting about cyclists on pavements*