Could no rear lights be a 999-calling affair?

[iakobski]

Also I do not think any cyclist fined or prosecuted for not using them has any cause for complaint as they are a legal requirement, and so as with RLJing it brings cycling into disrepute when this law is flouted in view of the car driving majority.

I see many, many more cars with missing lights, one front or rear light out completely or a front just on sidelight mode, than I see cyclists without lights. Why doesn't this bring driving into disrepute?

/crapstatistic]

[ScumOfTheRoad]

My wife noted a fellow commuter with the problem and the following night was rewarded not only with the lights, but a cup of coffee!

Mrs Cuno using a red light to meet someone for coffee. I would be asking some pointed questions here.

[Jaded]

I saw a deer one night that wasn't lit or wearing HiVis.

Edited because a rogue quote appeared 

[Euan Uzami]

... It is after all a car driver's responsibility to see and avoid pedestrians, whatever they are wearing, so what is so different about a cyclist in the same place moving about the same speed?

  From my experience when I'm a pedestrian I'm not likely to be on left hand side of the road. If for a time I do have to, then I step aside when I hear a car coming up behind. A cyclist is on the same side of the road as the traffic, and requires the traffic to avoid him.

[Euan Uzami]

... it's their funeral.

...well, it was his choice to behave like that.

I disagree. I can't imagine it being very pleasant being the innocent driver who has knocked off a cyclist because due to his own reckelssness chose to cycle invisibly at night without lights.

[niggle]

It's a bit like a breakdown especially with a female cyclist

The way you do it is as important as the message.

Assessment is the first thing - if there are simply no lights, its a BSO and th rider is wearing a Hoody then you may as well not bother

If however the bike looks well maintained and there is a light fitted or an empty clip in place then chances are it is a battery or loss problem and it is worthwhile commenting

Secondly is the message, politely stating that their light seems to have gone out or seems to have fallen off is less challenging than "Oi where's your fecking light!"

Finally - what is your solution if there is a problem..... as with asking "do you have everything you need?" at a breakdown, what happens if they are having a problem, can you support or help?

I must admit my wife and I carry a cheap pair of LEDs (as an emergency backup) which I picked up for a couple of quid. I have lent these to other riders and always got them back the following evening!

My wife noted a fellow commuter with the problem and the following night was rewarded not only with the lights, but a cup of coffee!

One evening back in November I cycled past a female cyclist on some kind of MTB. I pointed out to her that the big rear mudguard thing she had was completely obscuring her perfectly decent seatpost mounted rear light when seen from behind. She replied 'Yeah I know' 

[Euan Uzami]

I see many, many more cars with missing lights, one front or rear light out completely or a front just on sidelight mode, than I see cyclists without lights.

As a percentage of cars, or absolute number?

i.e. is your observation only 'cos the total number of cars is more?

Why doesn't this bring driving into disrepute?

/crapstatistic]

it does. Why ever would you think it doesn't

[Euan Uzami]

The OP didn't say there was any chance of him running the cyclist over. He was going the opposite way and looked behind.

The cyclist was very likely to have pedal reflectors - people who use clipless tend to have lights - and quite likely to have a red reflector. He might also have had reflective piping on dark clothing. None of these would have shown up in a rear view, but would make the cyclist perfectly visible to a motorist driving up behind him.

Stupid, yes, but not suicidal.

pure speculation.

[Wendy]

You saw him, so it's likely drivers would too.

[Adrian]

I was once given to understand that for quite some time the CTC campaigned against the requirement for a cyclist to have a rear light because this would diminish the requirement for the motorist to drive within the distance they can see. If true it is a huge tragedy that they did.

[clarion]

That is true.

[iakobski]

The OP didn't say there was any chance of him running the cyclist over. He was going the opposite way and looked behind.

The cyclist was very likely to have pedal reflectors - people who use clipless tend to have lights - and quite likely to have a red reflector. He might also have had reflective piping on dark clothing. None of these would have shown up in a rear view, but would make the cyclist perfectly visible to a motorist driving up behind him.

Stupid, yes, but not suicidal.

pure speculation.

Um, yes.... You didn't see the words "very likely", "quite likely" and "might" then?

My point is, on a balance of probability, the cyclist was more likely to have reflectors than not have reflectors. The OP didn't know how visible the cyclist was to a driver approaching from behind but assumed he would not have been visible.

[iakobski]

As a percentage of cars, or absolute number?

i.e. is your observation only 'cos the total number of cars is more?

/crapstatistic]

 

[Bledlow]

... it's their funeral.

...well, it was his choice to behave like that.

I disagree. I can't imagine it being very pleasant being the innocent driver who has knocked off a cyclist because due to his own reckelssness chose to cycle invisibly at night without lights.

Six & half a dozen. If he's driving in such a way that he hits solid objects in the road merely because they're not lit then he's not innocent.

[Euan Uzami]

I was once given to understand that for quite some time the CTC campaigned against the requirement for a cyclist to have a rear light because this would diminish the requirement for the motorist to drive within the distance they can see. If true it is a huge tragedy that they did.

That campaign would have absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
The sensible people that display a working, effective rear light would still do it even if it wasn't mandatory, therefore it would still only be a small minority of idiots that didn't. Thus it wouldn't alter driver behaviour.

Six & half a dozen. If he's driving in such a way that he hits solid objects in the road merely because they're not lit then he's not innocent.

Doubt it.

[Adrian]

I was once given to understand that for quite some time the CTC campaigned against the requirement for a cyclist to have a rear light because this would diminish the requirement for the motorist to drive within the distance they can see. If true it is a huge tragedy that they did.

That campaign would have absolutely no benefit whatsoever.
The sensible people that display a working, effective rear light would still do it even if it wasn't mandatory, therefore it would still only be a small minority of idiots that didn't. Thus it wouldn't alter driver behaviour.

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think the situation until WWII was that bikes were allowed to have either a red rear light or a red rear reflector on a white patch. With the introduction of the blackout they were allowed/required/expected to have both.

[Euan Uzami]

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

Are you going to carry on suggesting that you believe that if an unlit cyclist on an unlit road in the fog gets knocked off then it's all the driver's fault, or are you going to come out point blank and state it?

[Euan Uzami]

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

Regardless of when it was in the old days, when there were fewer cars, or now, when there are more - sensible cyclists would have a rear light.
The spirit behind the proposal would only have the desired effect if they sent armies of unlit cyclists out purely to get drivers used to it.

[Adrian]

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

Are you going to carry on suggesting that you believe that if an unlit cyclist on an unlit road in the fog gets knocked off then it's all the driver's fault, or are you going to come out point blank and state it?

Have we been discussing unlit objects in fog? Apologies I must have had a lapse in attention.

If you drive over a foggy bit of upland with hefted sheep and hit one, who's fault is it?

[Euan Uzami]

I think the situation until WWII was that bikes were allowed to have either a red rear light or a red rear reflector on a white patch. With the introduction of the blackout they were allowed/required/expected to have both.

Curious. Do you mean until the introduction of it, or until the cease of it?
Were bikes allowed to have lights in the blackout?

[Adrian]

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

Regardless of when it was in the old days, when there were fewer cars, or now, when there are more - sensible cyclists would have a rear light.
The spirit behind the proposal would only have the desired effect if they sent armies of unlit cyclists out purely to get drivers used to it.

It is not a proposal. Nobody is suggesting that we do this now.

You have however got the essential point "get drivers used to it"

[Euan Uzami]

It is not a proposal. Nobody is suggesting that we do this now.

You have however got the essential point "get drivers used to it"

A campaign*, in the past. Rather than a proposal, in the present. Accepted.

Still a pretty misguided one, however, however well meant.


*your term.

[Euan Uzami]

You are missing the point. We are not considering introducing this arrangement now.
This was all a long time ago when there were very few cars on the road and a lot of cyclists.

The opportunity was lost to keep the responsibility for drivers' actions firmly with them rather than the creeping shift that we have had ever since.

Are you going to carry on suggesting that you believe that if an unlit cyclist on an unlit road in the fog gets knocked off then it's all the driver's fault, or are you going to come out point blank and state it?

Have we been discussing unlit objects in fog? Apologies I must have had a lapse in attention.

If you drive over a foggy bit of upland with hefted sheep and hit one, who's fault is it?

Still only suggesting. What's YOUR opinion?

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think the situation until WWII was that bikes were allowed to have either a red rear light or a red rear reflector on a white patch. With the introduction of the blackout they were allowed/required/expected to have both.

Curious. Do you mean until the introduction of it, or until the cease of it?
Were bikes allowed to have lights in the blackout?

AIUI they were required to have rear lights during the blackout because of the reduced forward vision. Presumably the lights had to conform to some standard so they weren't too visible from the air, but it seems the number of blackout crashes was such that it was considered more important to get people home safely. I would imagine a bike rear light was in any case less visible from the air than a car headlight.