Can cyclists answer me why??

consumers_revenge

What is a point in buying a helmet when they cant be bothered to buy lights?

If cyclists are lit up then they are less likely to be knocked of in the first place?

Bizzarre?!

Johnmcl7

There are a wide and diverse range of cyclists out there so you'd be best finding the cyclists you are having issues with and asking them that question rather than making such an incredibly crude generalisation on a public forum. It's unlikely that cyclists who choose not to use lights when they need them are going to be using the cycling section of a forum.

I am a cyclist who uses a helmet and lights, that doesn't give me an insight on why other individuals would not.

John

consumers_revenge

I could ask any of the 25 odd I counted on a 5 mile journey this morning....

Not a poke at sensible cyclists just cant see why someone would think a helmet was safer than lights.

And yes Im on 2 wheels too!

( Dont the police fine you for having no lights any more? )

The_Magnificent_Spoon

consumers_revenge wrote: »

I could ask any of the 25 odd I counted on a 5 mile journey this morning....

Not a poke at sensible cyclists just cant see why someone would think a helmet was safer than lights.

And yes Im on 2 wheels too!

( Dont the police fine you for having no lights any more? )

And I could ask any of the 417 odd motorcyclists I counted on a 7 mile journey this morning, why they were wearing leotards and had lemon meringue pies on their faces*

*completely unfounded throwaway comments are fun, aren't they.

Johnmcl7 has said all that needs to be said on this subject. The end.

consumers_revenge

And I think you have answered my question!

Rolandtheroadie

Would it not be easier if only the cyclists that choose helmet over light answered the OP?


Personally, I'd be more likely to use lights rather than a helmet. Lights should reduce the likelyhood of me needing a helmet, a helmet wont reduce my need for lights.

consumers_revenge

scotsman4th wrote: »

Would it not be easier if only the cyclists that choose helmet over light answered the OP?


Personally, I'd be more likely to use lights rather than a helmet. Lights should reduce the likelyhood of me needing a helmet, a helmet wont reduce my need for lights.

Thank you!

You've raised my exact point. I see lights as offence and hats as defence. Surely best to avoid getting hit in the first place?

Nebulous2

I use lights - two sets as a fallback one on flash and one on solid and a helmet.

I don't understand why people get so worked up about people who don't however. They are taking a choice in taking a risk, which is up to them.

In addition, even with dark clothing and dark bikes I find I can always see unlit cyclists in plenty time, regardless of whether I'm cycling, driving or walking. Maybe not quite as soon as I can see well-lit ones with fluorescent clothing but soon enough to ensure I give them a wide berth.

custardy

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I use lights - two sets as a fallback one on flash and one on solid and a helmet.

I don't understand why people get so worked up about people who don't however. They are taking a choice in taking a risk, which is up to them.

In addition, even with dark clothing and dark bikes I find I can always see unlit cyclists in plenty time, regardless of whether I'm cycling, driving or walking. Maybe not quite as soon as I can see well-lit ones with fluorescent clothing but soon enough to ensure I give them a wide berth.

I wear one too
However its the general attitude about them that gets me
cyclist hit by car/truck ,news article will invariably put in whether they had a helmet on.
how many car vs car article states the driver was/wasnt wearing a seatbelt

you have people in London geting hit by HGVs and the Police response it to stop cyclists not wearing helmets!

WiggyDiggyPoo

consumers_revenge wrote: »

What is a point in buying a helmet when they cant be bothered to buy lights?

If cyclists are lit up then they are less likely to be knocked of in the first place?

Bizzarre?!

Haven't the foggiest idea, I suggest next time you see some perhaps ask them?

I can answer you though that having lights is a legal requirement, and police can and will fine cyclists without them.

Some police forces have ran schemes successfully where the fine is waived if you present yourself at the station with newly fitted lights, or for children/young persons have actually just fitted lights there and then if they see you.

esuhl

consumers_revenge wrote: »

What is a point in buying a helmet when they cant be bothered to buy lights?

I don't think it's that people can't be bothered to buy lights. It's probably the cost that puts people off. But anyway, I suppose "the point" might be that the cyclist only rides off-road during the day time. Not much need for lights then.

consumers_revenge wrote: »

If cyclists are lit up then they are less likely to be knocked of in the first place?

Yes.

Assuming all other things being equal and they're cycling somewhere where being "knocked off" is a possibility.