Can cyclists answer me why??

Marco_Panettone

I'll attempt an actual answer to the actual question.

Many people will cycle predominantly in daylight, and not need lights. For a good part of the year this can extend to 8pm. Now the clocks have changed some people (occasional cyclists, maybe?) will not have accommodated the lack of evening light.

Helmet use is a personal choice, whatever the light conditions. The level of light is unlikely to change this choice.

giraffe69

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.

When they don't use lights and there is an accident with a car or lorry there tends to be a presumption that it is the driver's fault even when the cyclist has no lights thus it isn't just their risk.

custardy

giraffe69 wrote: »

When they don't use lights and there is an accident with a car or lorry there tends to be a presumption that it is the driver's fault even when the cyclist has no lights thus it isn't just their risk.

really,what cases do you have to back that one up?

andy13

Car recovery is operated by private companies contracting to the police and the costs are passed on to the motorist. Recovery/Storage costs etc.

People cycling without lights should have their bike impounded and returned when they produce a set of lights. £3 including batteries from poundland.

Marco_Panettone

giraffe69 wrote: »

When they don't use lights and there is an accident with a car or lorry there tends to be a presumption that it is the driver's fault even when the cyclist has no lights thus it isn't just their risk.

Not true (as the last 2 weeks in London show). When there is ANY incident involving a cyclist it is generally implied that they were jumping a red light, dressed as a ninja, wearing headphones, going up the inside of a lorry, not using the cycle lane, murdering orphan kittens, etc.

custardy

andy13 wrote: »

Car recovery is operated by private companies contracting to the police and the costs are passed on to the motorist. Recovery/Storage costs etc.

People cycling without lights should have their bike impounded and returned when they produce a set of lights. £3 including batteries from poundland.

Do they impound drivers cars when they dont have their lights on?

WiggyDiggyPoo

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Not true (as the last 2 weeks in London show). When there is ANY incident involving a cyclist it is generally implied that they were jumping a red light, dressed as a ninja, wearing headphones, going up the inside of a lorry, not using the cycle lane, murdering orphan kittens, etc.

You mean like where the OP says this:

consumers_revenge wrote: »

I would ask them but they couldn't hear me over their iPods and I would be waiting at the red light!

My point is all of us should respect the road. Its dangerous out there! Just highlighting people should be doing their best to keep safe!

The OP may be trying to pretend that they started this thread to help but it is another thinly disguised cycle bashing thread, its as you say the old chestnut of presuming all cyclists are sailing through red lights whilst wearing headphones.

Making a negative comment or sweeping generalization about cycling that is wrong, is not cancelled out by then offering some generic words of wisdom about being careful or a contradictory comment to their previous posts.

consumers_revenge wrote: »

Oh and no generalization. The majority DO have lights on and vests etc.

You are generalizing by repeating the usual rhetoric, I'm not the only one to have noticed going by Marco's post above.

consumers_revenge

Actually mate we all share the road. I drive car,motorcycle,pushbike and feet. Only a pilchard drives without lights. And there's nothing as funny a 2 cyclists colliding when they both jump the lights.

If they don't fancy spending three miserly quid to give themselves a better chance of not going over a bonnet that's their choice.

My original question was valid and put to those who don't bother with lights. But if this thread nudges just one person to get lights and make it through Christmas unscathed then I'm happy.

kwmlondon

consumers_revenge wrote: »

Actually mate we all share the road. I drive car,motorcycle,pushbike and feet. Only a pilchard drives without lights. And there's nothing as funny a 2 cyclists colliding when they both jump the lights.

If they don't fancy spending three miserly quid to give themselves a better chance of not going over a bonnet that's their choice.

My original question was valid and put to those who don't bother with lights. But if this thread nudges just one person to get lights and make it through Christmas unscathed then I'm happy.

I know what you mean. I don't understand the decisions other people make when it comes to their own safety, but it is actually a legal requirement to have lights on, just like it's a legal requirement not to drive over the speed limit or while on a mobile phone - all these things rub my rhubarb but there's not much I can do about it...

mynameisclare

I think they don't actually realise how difficult they are to see from a car, I certainly didn't until I learnt to drive (not that I ever cycled at night without lights).