Car and cycle collision

silverwhistle

boliston wrote: »

Amazing the number of people who 'constantly see' cyclists with no lights

I certainly see them more than I'd like, whether I'm driving, cycling myself or walking. The always seem to be young males, in that age range where they tend to do stupid things, of which cycling without lights is but one example.


What I find amazing is that often they have dark clothing and no reflectors. The good thing about such idiots is that it tends to be only themselves that they remove from the gene pool. What worries me is when they get cars!

almillar

Many reasons people might not have lights.
- they don't cycle at night (it's more dangerous indeed with or without lights)
- their lights might be stolen easy. to prevent them to be stolen, one should always remove and place them back anytime bike is left

Non-answer. You are legally required to have lights on from 30 mins after lighting up time (30 mins after street lights come on) or something like that. This is so that other road users can see you, as much as allowing you to see. The motorists cut the junction BECAUSE he didn't see you. You don't have proof of what speed he was doing, and regardless of whether he should have cut the corner or not, he wouldn't have done it if you could BE SEEN.

silverwhistle

almillar wrote: »

The motorists cut the junction BECAUSE he didn't see you. You don't have proof of what speed he was doing, and regardless of whether he should have cut the corner or not, he wouldn't have done it if you could BE SEEN.

I don't agree with this part of your answer. I've been nearly taken out at the end of my cul-de-sac in broad daylight by a motorist cutting the corner at an excessive speed.

AndyMc.....

silverwhistle wrote: »

I don't agree with this part of your answer. I've been nearly taken out at the end of my cul-de-sac in broad daylight by a motorist cutting the corner at an excessive speed.

So the driver did it on purpose?

Do you mean excessive speed IYO for the conditions?

Jackmydad

boliston wrote: »

Amazing the number of people who 'constantly see' cyclists with no lights

It is isn't it?
But a possible tragedy when one with no lights doesn't get seen.
Which brings me to:

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Schrodinger's cyclist. Impossible to see but visible enough to be criticised.

Or impossible to tell whether the cyclist is alive or dead, because the one who is unseen could possibly soon be dead.

Cyclists need to give themselves the best chance of being seen.
I generally see them OK, lit or unlit, I'm sure most others do too, (although there are times on narrow winding rural roads when they're not so easily seen)
But if a cyclist goes out without lights, then they're literally betting their life against the eyesight and awareness of other road users.

caprikid1

It really is difficult to say in full as to blame as you have not provided much detail.


I would say from what you have said you were cycling in the dark with no lights on and were knocked off.


Maybe I am a bit older and wiser but bright reflective clothing and multiple lights seems obvious to me and without them you are better walking.

Nasqueron

caprikid1 wrote: »

It really is difficult to say in full as to blame as you have not provided much detail.


I would say from what you have said you were cycling in the dark with no lights on and were knocked off.


Maybe I am a bit older and wiser but bright reflective clothing and multiple lights seems obvious to me and without them you are better walking.

Although as a road user cyclists have to obey the law and have lights to be on the road at night, the OP stated the cyclist had high viz on not dark clothing - a workman on the motorway will have high viz but no lights and can generally be seen. That should be sufficient to at least see the cyclist when the light hits them even if only to give them time to avoid.

There was a case on the TV ages ago with a guy cycling home from a gig, he was possibly drunk but was cycling in the dark with no lights and dark clothing on a main road and was hit and killed. The woman who hit him left the scene (not really sure why, her windscreen was properly smashed up) but did call the police after she got home and was ultimately not prosecuted as there was no way she could have seen him

custardy

Nasqueron wrote: »

Although as a road user cyclists have to obey the law and have lights to be on the road at night, the OP stated the cyclist had high viz on not dark clothing - a workman on the motorway will have high viz but no lights and can generally be seen. That should be sufficient to at least see the cyclist when the light hits them even if only to give them time to avoid.

There was a case on the TV ages ago with a guy cycling home from a gig, he was possibly drunk but was cycling in the dark with no lights and dark clothing on a main road and was hit and killed. The woman who hit him left the scene (not really sure why, her windscreen was properly smashed up) but did call the police after she got home and was ultimately not prosecuted as there was no way she could have seen him

Not having a penalty as a driver for killing a cyclist is (sadly)not unusual.

Car_54

custardy wrote: »

Not having a penalty as a driver for killing a cyclist is (sadly)not unusual.

In the few such cases that I've read about, it has been fairly obvious that the driver has done nothing wrong - typically the cyclist had placed himself in a vulnerable position unseen by the driver.



In the example quoted, the cyclist was on an unlit road with no lights or light clothing, and so could not be seen.



If the driver has done nothing wrong, there can be no penalty.

AndyMc.....

custardy wrote: »

Not having a penalty as a driver for killing a cyclist is (sadly)not unusual.

What penalty would you suggest for that given scenario?

At the very most she failed to stop.