Cyclists without lights

PasturesNew

Idiophreak wrote: »

I'm afraid using Halfords was your big mistake. For a starts, it seems like they sold you a bike with too large a frame, so you'll probably find cycling harder than needs be.

Then they couldn't offer you a light that fitted anywhere else? Pretty much all rear lights I've seen come with fittings both for the seatpost and for the seat stays. I'd suggest popping into any local bike shop and they'll sort you out with a light, no problems.

Where I was living at the time, that was the local bike shop... allbeit 20 miles away.

Bike's in pieces now.... not ridden it for a few years and need to put the wheel back on.

Idiophreak

PDC wrote: »

Most of the younger cyclists round here don't have or use lights. Given some of the roads round here also don't have street lighting its a crazy gamble they are taking. I don't know what the answer is but yes I wish all cyclists had lights and used them as its safer for them and for me.

It's difficult...Part of me wants to say "just take their bikes off them"...people would soon get the message that they need to have lights or they'll lose their bike...

Of course, there are a couple of issues...

Firstly police stations already have lost and stolen bikes coming out of their ears...

Secondly, it's hard to tar everyone with the same brush...A lot of people routinely and deliberately cycle in the dark without lights...but occasionally I've been caught short, when I've had a flat tyre on the bike, or just been further from home than I thought...and it's ended up being darker than I'd like it to be without lights. I guess, if I knew my bike would be taken in these circumstances, I'd take the things just in case...

oldagetraveller

I encountered a really "charming" cyclist a couple of winters ago. Driving along a local rural road, pitch black, a cyclist appeared in my headlights. No rear light. I slowed down and lowered my nearside window when alongside him - "I don't know if you are aware but you have no rearlight showing."
His response - "f**k off".
Say no more!

HeadAboveWater

Tilt wrote: »

The woman thought she had hit an animal and stopped on the next slip road to check the damage to her car. When she got home, she reported the incident to the police but had no idea that she had actually hit and killed a cyclist.

Anyone else curious as to what damage was done to the car? I imagine for starters a bike would've scratched the paintwork, which animal hide generally wouldn't do....

Aretnap

Idiophreak wrote: »

I'm also not sure of the legality of that...the law always used to ask for fixed lights on the bike, explicitly...But that caused a bunch of hassles about whether flashing lights were allowed and stuff, so not sure if the law's been revised.

Flashing lights have been legal since 2005, but I believe the law still requires lights to be attached directly to the bike. There's a useful summary here. That said, as the article notes the finer points of the lighting regulations are seldom enforced (even the major points don't seem to be enforced often enough) so in practice you would probably get away with a light attached to your clothing so long as it was reasonably bright and visible.

Naf

PasturesNew wrote: »

I can't go out after dark because the stupid bike I stupidly bought ..... is hard to find a stupid light that fits ....

...
So I can't take my bike out after dark until I find a light that can be fitted, find somewhere to buy it/have it fitted... and get round to it.

There's been some good suggestions already, but my bike has an excellent combination reflector/LED light. Its mounted onto the back of my rear rack (something I think you can fit to just about any bike) so keeps well away from being covered by a coat. It's a good size, and has about 5 LEDs in it.

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I'll hold my hands up, I have hit an animal and not reported it because I didn't realise I needed to....

I've not that long taken my theory and have once taken my practical test, and I wouldn't know that I should. I don't remember it being anywhere in my 'training'. So when do you get told these kinds of things?

Idiophreak wrote: »

I guess, if I knew my bike would be taken in these circumstances, I'd take the things just in case...

I never take them off. The rear light is fixed anyway, and the front one I just leave attached. They're waterproof, and the batteries last for ages anyway.
For years I didn't even own any lights: 10 year's ago they were so cumbersome and power hungry it was impractical without spending upwards of £100 on a rechargeable LED kit. Now they're much more economical both to buy and to run, it's a false economy not to have some.

Tilt

Idiophreak wrote: »

What if they'd broken down and were looking for a phone? What if they'd just turned the wrong way in the dark? What if they just decided to ignore the sign. I don't think someone walking along the side of a road is necessarily a "suicidal idiot" and I don't think they become invisible or lose the right to live, as a consequence.

Your assertion that the sign "answers my question", means that the driver would be blameless, irrespective of the circumstances.

I can think of many circumstances in which the driver could still be responsible for hitting the pedestrian, even with those signs in place.

Did I not say 'depending on the circumstances'?

In any event, you are bringing in an irrelevant hypothetical argument into the thread which is about highlighting (pardon the pun) the importance of cyclists having adequate light on their bikes.

Where I live at least, it seems that the MAJORITY of cyclists play Russian roulette with their lives on a regular basis. I don't know how many time this cyclist has done this journey before without light on this occasion he has unfortunately paid the ultimate price for the sake of a few quid.

The tragic story also involves a young motorist who will no doubt live with this for the rest of her life through no fault of her own.

System

Naf wrote: »

I've not that long taken my theory and have once taken my practical test, and I wouldn't know that I should. I don't remember it being anywhere in my 'training'. So when do you get told these kinds of things?

Simplest way to remember it is that if it is big enough to write your car off / do serious damage or a dog (would you notice if you hit a peke?) then report it.

Idiophreak

Tilt wrote: »

I'm guessing that this is the stretch of road where it happened. If it is, the sign on the left answers your question.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=A10,+London&hl=en&ll=51.809941,-0.051713&spn=0.018281,0.045447&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=9.096682,23.269043&oq=a10&hnear=A10,+London,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.809813,-0.051675&panoid=OXWWDcPPVu1unxbWQs2sHA&cbp=12,153.45,,1,-2.51

Tilt wrote: »

Did I not say 'depending on the circumstances'?

Err, no...You didn't?

Tilt

HeadAboveWater wrote: »

Anyone else curious as to what damage was done to the car? I imagine for starters a bike would've scratched the paintwork, which animal hide generally wouldn't do....

The damage to the car was extensive. The near side of the windscreen was caved in consistent with a person (or animal) being thrown against it at considerable force. There was also impact damage to the n/s front headlight and front corner. There did not appear to be any obvious signs of damage consistent with the car coming into contact with a metal object.

The driver freely admitted to acknowledging that she was involved in a collision with what she believed to be an animal as she did not see any lights or anything else to make her believe it was a person she had hit. On reaching home she showed the damage to her father and decided to report the incident to the police.

The police were already at the scene by this time and other officers went to the driver's house and Breathalyzed her (which was negative) and then arrested her on suspicions of causing death by dangerous driving but following an extensive investigation the police were satisfied that she was not to blame.