Cylists without lights - disproportionately annoys me!!

esuhl

Mids_Costcutter wrote: »

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.

Great solution for some people... but I'd hate to see legislation requiring dynamo lights on bikes. They'd be useless for my journeys through dense forest at night.

Katie-Kat-Kins

JuniorSherlock wrote: »

FYI, it is indeed illegal to ride a cycle at night without a rear and front light and as such, if they were to be hit they could not then sue the driver of the car. Therefore should they be risking their lives in order to get a bit of cash, they are failing spectacularly as all they would be entitled to is some free NHS treatment for their injuries.

I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish. Just because someone doesn't have lights on their bike they are not prevented from suing a driver after a road accident. In fact it doesn't prevent them from succeeding in recovering damages either. Depending upon the circumstances of the accident it may or may not provide result in a finding of contributory negligence.

The courts consider the cause of the accident, not whether either person is committing an offence, the presence of a criminal conviction is just persuasive to the court.

marleyboy

Katie-Kat-Kins wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is complete rubbish. Just because someone doesn't have lights on their bike they are not prevented from suing a driver after a road accident. In fact it doesn't prevent them from succeeding in recovering damages either. Depending upon the circumstances of the accident it may or may not provide result in a finding of contributory negligence.

The courts consider the cause of the accident, not whether either person is committing an offence, the presence of a criminal conviction is just persuasive to the court.

Not necessarily complete rubbish.

Whilst a cyclist may be able to sue a driver for damages, if the circumstances were that it was night time, and the cyclist was NOT riding in accordance with the law, will hugely reduce any entitlement to a claim.

Particularly if it can be shown that the driver could not see the cyclist due to the cyclist NOT having any lights. Such a case could easily backfire to the point where a driver could sue the cyclist for damages to their car.

marleyboy

esuhl wrote: »

Great solution for some people... but I'd hate to see legislation requiring dynamo lights on bikes. They'd be useless for my journeys through dense forest at night.

I have always despised Dynamo's, especially when riding uphill or against the wind. I am likely to use a dynamo as a third brake

Katie-Kat-Kins

marleyboy wrote: »

Not necessarily complete rubbish.

Whilst a cyclist may be able to sue a driver for damages, if the circumstances were that it was night time, and the cyclist was NOT riding in accordance with the law, will hugely reduce any entitlement to a claim.

Particularly if it can be shown that the driver could not see the cyclist due to the cyclist NOT having any lights. Such a case could easily backfire to the point where a driver could sue the cyclist for damages to their car.

What are your legal qualifications?

The key is causation, if the failure to use lights was not causative then there will not be an adverse effect on the claim.

There is nothing to stop the cyclist suing at all. The liklihood is that if he does he will be met by a counterclaim from the car driver pleading that the cyclists failure to display lights caused or contributed to the accident and seeking damages. The matter would either be settled by negotiation or may go to court, the court would make a determination of the proximate causes of the accident and apportion liability accordingly either holding one party fully liable or dividing liability on a percentage basis.

marleyboy

My legal qualifications on such a case only spreads out to a work colleague who suffered a broken arm and severe damages to his bike, due to a collision on his bicycle with a vehicle.

As he did not have any lights during this nightime collision, he lost any claims for damages based only on those grounds (his own solicitor warned him of this). The driver could have claimed for damages to his vehicle but the damage was negligible, as it was the driver was only too happy that his solicitor cleared him of any blame due to just one technicality - No Bike Lights.

Katie-Kat-Kins

Well your mates case, is just one case, the full facts of which we do not have before us. As your mate found there was nothing to stop him suing. The outcome depends upon a number of variables but not having lights on is not an automatic defence for the other party.

marleyboy

Its certainly not an automatic defence, but a defence that can (and often does) lead to a cyclists downfall in such a case.

As it was indeed just one case, I have no facts and figures to make a comparison, so am all prepared to accept it being a one off, should you provide me with some figures that shows it to be.

Harry_Flashman

marleyboy wrote: »

Such a case could easily backfire to the point where a driver could sue the cyclist for damages to their car.

I'd love to see one of these parasites stung like this

Mids_Costcutter

esuhl wrote: »

They'd be useless for my journeys through dense forest at night.

Are you a cycling Ray Mears? Are these journeys your most direct route home or just for fun?