We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!
Options
Comments
-
I ping my bell twice 20-30 metres away which gives peds plenty of time to see me. I then say thankyou as I pass. This works well.
If I was to say excuse me I would have to shout quite loud at that sort of distance. Otherwise I would have to wait until I was only 10 metres away (I can't project very well) and then they would jump out the way.0 -
A helmet is good if the cyclists head comes into contact with concrete. But that's only going to happen if the cyclist falls off their bike and lands on their head; experienced cyclists aren't likely to do this. The biggest risk to cyclists is a collision with motor vehicles, a helmet isn't going to help a cyclist much when 3 tonnes of steel hits them.
I personally think helmets have very little safety impact compared with the risks that cyclists face. It's much more important to wear high-vis, use working lights, ensure brakes are in working order, etc. A common cause of fatalities for cyclists is cutting down the inside of HGVs, again wearing a helmet won't protect the body of a cyclist underneath the wheels of a HGV.
Got to say, I don't get this comment really - essentially you're saying why wear a helmet if theres a chance it won't do much? Odd thing to think, surely the opposite should hold true, always wear a helmet on the offchance that it might just save your life!
If you're hit by a car when cycling, chances are your head is going to hit something, more than likely part of the car. I don't care how cat like your reflexes may be or how 'experienced' you are as a cyclist, you'll be glad of a helmet.
I've been glad of my helmet on a variety of occasions and I think any cyclist who ventures onto the roads without one is pretty much asking for trouble.0 -
Did you know more pedestrians are admitted to hospital with head injuries than cyclists? Should pedestrians wear helmets then?
The case for helmets rests then doesn't it!
Essentially if you want a better chance of surviving a collision with a car as a pedestrian or cyclist, then you should be wearing a helmet.
Oh, and back on topic, I always have lights on my bike in the dark - common sense.0 -
Did you know more pedestrians are admitted to hospital with head injuries than cyclists? Should pedestrians wear helmets then?The case for helmets rests then doesn't it!
Essentially if you want a better chance of surviving a collision with a car as a pedestrian or cyclist, then you should be wearing a helmet.
Your argument is "if more pedestrians suffer head injuries than cyclists, that proves that helmets save lives"?! I'm not sure that the conclusion follows from the proposition...0 -
I have no idea how this became so heated, the law states if you ride your bike at night, you need lights.
Helmets (although ideal), are not required by law for a bicycle or pedestrian. It is a matter of choice, you know the risks involved but are not forced to wear them.:A:dance:1+1+1=1:dance::A
"Marleyboy you are a legend!"
MarleyBoy "You are the Greatest"
Marleyboy You Are A Legend!
Marleyboy speaks sense
marleyboy (total legend)
Marleyboy - You are, indeed, a legend.0 -
sillywilly wrote: »This is a board about cyclists using lights at night time - where the hell is a reg plate meant to fit on a bike.
And whilst Insurance may seem a good idea to some simple people why do you think that isn't a rule?
The most basic insurance would be what - 3rd party, fire and theft.
Ahhh - the insurance companies think - theft! Hmm....
Think about it please
Most cyclists are already have insurance cover in the third party liability section of their home insurance. No need for them to purchase additional insurance. Also the damage done by a cyclist is usually (and yes I know there can be exceptions) much less costly than damaged caused by 3 tons of vehicle. Whereas car insurance is mandatory, yet still 1 in ten are uninsured.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/02/bike-insurance-covered
In here, even the Association of British Insurers (?) say cover is usually provided:
Malcolm Tarling of the ABI says: "If I was to pop out for a bike ride and crash into your car, causing damage to the vehicle, it's highly likely that the public liability part of my home contents insurance will cover me against any claim for accidental damage – but only if I'm a cycling enthusiast as opposed to a serious hobbyist."
Certainly when my boss rode his bike into the back of a hearse (it was empty fortunately!) his bog standard home insurance paid for the damage without any quibbles.
Worth bearing in mind for cyclists who need not waste money on insurance and vehicle owners who can claim against cyclists (and pedestrians, animal owners and so on).0 -
It may well be covered by home insurance - but not everyone has this either.
What is being suggested is that it should be a legal requirement (with proper sanctions if ignored)0 -
The problem with claiming that lights are 'only needed at night, and most trips take place during the day', is that, during the winter, night comes on rather early - just as the children come out of school, and certainly before the rush hour. Just as for cars, lights are actually needed in the dusk as well as in the dark, no matter what time of day it is.
Additionally, in a city such as Oxford, which I regularly visit, students are everywhere on their bikes, at all times of the day - including (particularly) night time. I have sometimes counted cycles going by in rush hour, in the dark, and at least one in every three has no lights.
Total nightmare. Total idiocy.
MissH0 -
MissHiggerty wrote: »The problem with claiming that lights are 'only needed at night, and most trips take place during the day', is that, during the winter, night comes on rather early
It is a legal requirement for a bike to have lights at "NIGHT", that is normally just after the sun has set, or the Light has turned to dark, no matter what season or time it is.:A:dance:1+1+1=1:dance::A
"Marleyboy you are a legend!"
MarleyBoy "You are the Greatest"
Marleyboy You Are A Legend!
Marleyboy speaks sense
marleyboy (total legend)
Marleyboy - You are, indeed, a legend.0 -
sillywilly wrote: »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!
I agree, it makes me irate too but so does a lot of behaviour on the road from motorists and cyclists alike. What do you think would be the best way to improve compliance?
Better enforcement?
More bikes sold with lights fitted?
My hybrid bike was delivered with hub-powered dynamo lights: bright and reliable plus no need to worry about batteries running out or lights being stolen.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards