Where to buy bike lights you can't steal?

liz545

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Allowing cyclists to regard lighting as an optional extra very often translates into allowing cyclists to ride in the dark with no lights at all (although this is less of a problem than it used to be, thanks to the (illegal?) use of LEDs).

For what it's worth, using lights after dark is not an optional extra, it's a legal requirement. Whether it's enforced by the police is another question, but I have seen occasional police spot-checks on cyclists with no lights in my bit of London. I've also pointed out to fellow cyclists that their lights are dead/that they need to use them, but it's a bit of a lost cause with some people.

LEDs and flashing lights are within the law. More info here.

The real joke, of course, is the half-hearted (not to say confused...) campaign by the powers-that-be to promote cycling as a universally safe, healthy and feasible alternative to using the car, whilst doing almost nothing to make their message come true.

Agreed - it seems like Transport for London's idea of promoting cycling largely boils down to poster campaigns; when they're designing roads and junctions they ignore the changes that would actually encourage cycling. It's not rocket science - there's plenty of evidence about what's needed to help people cycle more and rely on their cars less, but that's a matter for another post...

Marco_Panettone

kerby_crawler wrote: »

One of the reasons why cyclists are sometimes not taken very seriously by other road users is that they are exempt from so many of the expensive and inconvenient regulations which most road users have to live with. I daresay most Caterham sports car owners would be highly delighted to be able to avoid having to carry around a set of lights!

So contact your MP about changing the law. If road users are obeying the law they should be treated with respect, however they choose to travel.

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Allowing cyclists to regard lighting as an optional extra very often translates into allowing cyclists to ride in the dark with no lights at all (although this is less of a problem than it used to be, thanks to the (illegal?) use of LEDs).

Riding after dark without lights is illegal. Using LEDs is not.

kerby_crawler wrote: »

As a totally irrelevant anecdote, I can remember the days when a heater was an optional extra on a bottom of the range Ford! I can remember more than one trip up the A3 when I had to keep stopping to scrape the ice off the inside of my windscreen - the motor industry has continually improved the safety aspects of its products, but the cycling industry has not progressed from the golden era of the first half of the last century!

The real joke, of course, is the half-hearted (not to say confused...) campaign by the powers-that-be to promote cycling as a universally safe, healthy and feasible alternative to using the car, whilst doing almost nothing to make their message come true.

So lights for bikes aren't available? Or do you genuinely believe that cycling is unsafe?

I agree that more can be done to improve infrastructure for cyclists though, as long as it's done for cyclists, not motorists.

kerby_crawler

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

do you genuinely believe that cycling is unsafe?

I think that cycling is as safe as a cyclist chooses to make it - and one way to make it safer is to keep clear of motorists!

Cycling on the road is definitely not what it used to be - I came back to cycling two years ago after a decade's absence, and I think that the wide-spread introduction of (largely ineffective) cycle lanes etc has created a false sense of security (importance?) for many modern cyclists.

I used to be a school-based helper in the county council cycling proficiency scheme, but now when I see groups of ten-year-olds being shown how to negotiate roundabouts I struggle to understand the wisdom of continuing with the scheme.

V_Chic_Chick

kerby_crawler wrote: »

I think that cycling is as safe as a cyclist chooses to make it - and one way to make it safer is to keep clear of motorists!

Cycling on the road is definitely not what it used to be - I came back to cycling two years ago after a decade's absence, and I think that the wide-spread introduction of (largely ineffective) cycle lanes etc has created a false sense of security (importance?) for many modern cyclists.

I used to be a school-based helper in the county council cycling proficiency scheme, but now when I see groups of ten-year-olds being shown how to negotiate roundabouts I struggle to understand the wisdom of continuing with the scheme.

Why? Surely negotiating roundabouts is an important part of cycling, and anyway I'm pretty sure I was taught how to use a roundabout when I did cycling proficiency (a decade or so ago).

esuhl

kerby_crawler wrote: »

Allowing cyclists to regard lighting as an optional extra very often translates into allowing cyclists to ride in the dark with no lights at all (although this is less of a problem than it used to be, thanks to the (illegal?) use of LEDs).

Hmmm... Well... Allowing motorists to regard child seats as an optional extra very often translates into allowing drivers to transport children unsafely. So maybe every car should have an expensive range of adjustable seating for children of all ages built in...?

Besides... Why worry about cyclists who don't have lights? So long as you genuinely haven't been able to see them, you can pretty much hit them with impunity! I certainly don't worry about mountaineers who don't use safety-ropes or tightrope walker without a safety net!

kerby_crawler wrote: »

The real joke, of course, is the half-hearted (not to say confused...) campaign by the powers-that-be to promote cycling as a universally safe, healthy and feasible alternative to using the car, whilst doing almost nothing to make their message come true.

I agree with you there. Many of the expensive changes to road-design and addition of cycle lanes/paths are downright dangerous.

I've lost count of the number of segregated cycle paths that have blind openings that pedestrians step out of without even looking! To be fair to the pedestrians, cycle paths aren't always signposted and don't have kerbs separating them from the footpaths, so most pedestrians are quite unaware that they've stepped into the path of oncoming traffic until they get hit by a cyclist silently whizzing past at 30mph...

It's such a waste of money setting up such dangerous cycle paths when any sane cyclist would use the road... which has no doubt been narrowed to make way for the new cycle path... and ends up slowing down motor traffic which now has no chance of overtaking cyclists safely. :mad:

Cycle paths should either be mixed-use (for pedestrians and cyclists) with the expectation that fast adult cyclists would use the road instead... or dedicated cycle-paths (with a separate footpath) that are properly marked with no blind entrances so that cyclists can use them safely.

I suspect most cyclists ignore these expensive cycle paths and use the road out of sheer common-sense.

kerby_crawler

esuhl wrote: »

Why worry about cyclists who don't have lights? So long as you genuinely haven't been able to see them, you can pretty much hit them with impunity

A cyclist without lights will still be exempt from any requirement to be insured. So who will pay for the damage to your car?

kerby_crawler

V_Chic_Chick wrote: »

Why? Surely negotiating roundabouts is an important part of cycling, and anyway I'm pretty sure I was taught how to use a roundabout when I did cycling proficiency (a decade or so ago).

Some 'roundabouts' are simply not safely negotiable by ten-year-old cyclists!

Chomeur

Gunarysarge wrote: »

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=56584

Try these, I use them and they just attach with velcro straps provided.
Take them off and pop them in yer pocket, can even use them as a small torch.

They seem to be discontinued now. Anyone got a suggestion for a rear bike light that comes with a fitting that it won't slip out of if I go over a bump?

Thanks

Dave_the_Ginger_Cat

Chomeur wrote: »

They seem to be discontinued now. Anyone got a suggestion for a rear bike light that comes with a fitting that it won't slip out of if I go over a bump?

Thanks

I have http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_10001_catalogId_10151_categoryId_165636_productId_199547_langId_-1?cm_mmc=GooglePPC-_-Google%20Product%20Search-_-Bike%20Parts%20%26%20Accessories%2FBike%20Lights%20%26%20Reflectors%2FBike%20Lights-_-Cat%20Eye%20LD600%20Bike%20Light&source=ppc&adtype=%7Badtype%7D&%7Bcopy:_$ja%7D&%7Bifpla:_$$ja=tsid:37143%7D%7Bifdyn:_$$ja=tsid:35588%7D%7Bifpe:_$$ja=tsid:37143%7D
with a bracket fitted to my luggage rack. It is a solid and secure fitting and over a year on, it has never come off when I didn't want it to

Chomeur

Dave_the_Ginger_Cat wrote: »

I have http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_storeId_10001_catalogId_10151_categoryId_165636_productId_199547_langId_-1?cm_mmc=GooglePPC-_-Google%20Product%20Search-_-Bike%20Parts%20%26%20Accessories%2FBike%20Lights%20%26%20Reflectors%2FBike%20Lights-_-Cat%20Eye%20LD600%20Bike%20Light&source=ppc&adtype=%7Badtype%7D&%7Bcopy:_$ja%7D&%7Bifpla:_$$ja=tsid:37143%7D%7Bifdyn:_$$ja=tsid:35588%7D%7Bifpe:_$$ja=tsid:37143%7D
with a bracket fitted to my luggage rack. It is a solid and secure fitting and over a year on, it has never come off when I didn't want it to

Thanks, but I used to have one just like this and it came off! It's only happened to me four or five times but it's so annoying when it does - stopping, walking back, picking the light up from the middle of the traffic and, if it's broken, having to cycle back without a rear light and then the bother of buying a new one. I cycle in London and there are plenty of speed bumps to go over.