Can cyclists answer me why??

custardy

mynameisclare wrote: »

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).

Who are 'they'?

armyknife

mynameisclare wrote: »

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).

Did you have the same difficulty seeing hazards in the road, like speedhumps, potholes etc ?

Nebulous2

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.

A bit of a presumption there. Any evidence of cyclists without lights after dark where a motorist has been blamed for an accident?

consumers_revenge

armyknife wrote: »

Did you have the same difficulty seeing hazards in the road, like speedhumps, potholes etc ?

I doubt it as he has lights

Guesthouse

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

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.

And I believe that your vehicle (car/motorcycle) doesn't have to have lights if you exclusively use it during daylight hours. I could be hugely wrong but I've read of cars/bikes with faired/covered lights in the interests of aerodynamics and as long as they aren't on public roads after lighting up time the are OK and can have a restricted MoT for same.

Guesthouse

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?!

I won't excuse careless/reckless cyclists.

I've got a helmet and lights.

1: If I come off my bike (be it an icy patch on my commute or tree roots on a downhill forest track miles from civilisation), a helmet will MINIMISE head injuries but it will never totally reduce the risk. I have a friend who has long term neck pain but is at least alive after an off-road fall while wearing a helmet
As a Paramedic I can tell you that if you hit me in a car or HGV at pretty much any speed I'll have broken limbs and if I get thrown any distance or end up under your vehicle...well...have a guess.
So I'm minimising my risk - that is why I bother with a helmet.

2: On my road bike, I cycled round a damp, normally busy roundabout at 8pm (so it was like a graveyard) with a hi-viz waistcoat, reflective arm bands with red LED lights on them - raised to indicate my manoeuvre, front white light on bike, fixed white light on helmet, flashing white light on helmet, stared intently at the Silver '05 plate Peugeot 206 (to establish "eye" contact) that had to give way to traffic from the right (i.e. ME on my bike) and then braked hard as the well built, fair haired driver slowed in front of me and made a gesture which suggested I performed an act of oral stimulation.
Did my lights make me less likely to be knocked off? Of course, I'm biased...but they made me a target.

4: Same assortment of Hi-vis & illuminations, 8am daylight. Passing a junction on an inner city dual carriageway (40mph limit) during rush hour, I noted a dark coloured Vauxhall Signum with personalised plates waiting to cross carriageway. I was following a bus which was going to turn left and I would also turn left at the same junction. The Vauxhall driver pulled into the outside lane and proceeded ahead. At traffic lights, the bus proceeds to turn left (indicating) and I'm still following. Vauxhall driver (his passenger is his son, wearing the distinctive uniform of a local school) unable to wait a few milliseconds pulls left with no indicators. Luckily, the only sound is me swearing very loudly and profusely as I hastily lower my left arm (the one indicating to following motorists that I'm turning left) and grab handfuls of brake. I'm presuming his raised fist was some form of apology for almost flattening me and not a complaint that I'd thumped his rear window as he carved me up.

So...being well lit up saves me?

Have I answered your questions??

In case you think I'm biased. I kid you not, but an unhelmeted cyclist once tried to squeeze down a non-existent gap between our vehicle...that's an ambulance by the way....at a roundabout on a busy inner-city dual carriageway. He had to paddle his feet (not pedal his bike) and thumped on the side of our vehicle. Words were exchanged.

consumers_revenge

I am glad you had both as both are sensible. I've never said don't have BOTH AFAIK.

LimeLight

custardy wrote: »

how many car vs car article states the driver was/wasnt wearing a seatbelt
!

Usually if a passenger/driver is killed and he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, it will be mentioned.

This is because it's a legal requirement to wear one and as yet, it's not a legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet.

LimeLight

You can be the same colour as a canary and some drivers won't "see you".

Some people don't even look for cyclists.
I used to wear an old police-issue hi-vis, a helmet and I had lights and the amount of people who ignored me was silly.

discplayer

armyknife wrote: »

Did you have the same difficulty seeing hazards in the road, like speedhumps, potholes etc ?

In areas with street lights bicycle lights make little difference for this sort of thing - the front one's more about being seen than seeing. Much like the car's headlights, the bike's front lights work wonders in a country lane but make little difference to what I see in town.