Stealth cyclists - Deliveroo dressed in black at night

[fd3]

But I vaguely recall a surprising lack of evidence for any safety benefit (at least in terms of collisions) from cycle lights.

I would suggest that the stats on this will be very low, so hard to measure.
You would need to know, e.g. number of collisions with cyclist due to car pulling out on them, then how many of those were unlit and how many were lit.  Error bars for traces of LIE.  To extrapolate from there you would need to consider unreported collisions and comparative proportions of cyclists who ride unlit and those who ride lit up. 

I would expect that lights will make no difference to the drivers who "look" but don't "see"; but they would make a difference for drivers who "look" but "can't see"(because you have no lights).  Again, how would you get the stats on that thoughbut.

[Cudzoziemiec]

You could start by looking at how many unlit cyclists are involved in multi-participant collisions at night, and then comparing it to the total of nighttime multi-participant collisions involving cyclists. Fault doesn't matter at this stage. It probably is quite a low number, assuming there even are statistics kept recording use or non-use of lights.

[drossall]

From what I recall, the stats available were that cyclists involved in such collisions were overwhelmingly using lights. If true, that only appears to allow two conclusions:

• Unlit cyclists on the road are even rarer than unlit cyclists involved in accidents, in order that the few unlit cyclists who do exist can still have more accidents than everyone else (which makes nonsense of the whole "cyclists don't use lights" thing)
• Using lights makes you disproportionately likely to be involved in an accident

Of course, I can't find the statistics now, because it was ages ago, so this ranks as hearsay evidence...

[Kim]

I'd go for the latter.  Likely because cyclists with proper kit tend to do more miles.

[drossall]

Does depend on how you count. But most people claiming that "most cyclists don't have lights" probably mean "most cyclists that I see", and of course cyclists doing high mileage are more likely to be included in "...that I see".

[Cudzoziemiec]

From what I recall, the stats available were that cyclists involved in such collisions were overwhelmingly using lights. If true, that only appears to allow two conclusions:

• Unlit cyclists on the road are even rarer than unlit cyclists involved in accidents, in order that the few unlit cyclists who do exist can still have more accidents than everyone else (which makes nonsense of the whole "cyclists don't use lights" thing)
• Using lights makes you disproportionately likely to be involved in an accident

Of course, I can't find the statistics now, because it was ages ago, so this ranks as hearsay evidence...

I presume you mean, for no. 1, that unlit cyclists involved in accidents are even rarer than unlit cyclists on the road?

As for no. 2, observationally it might be true not only for the reason Kim gives (though in the case of roos, it might not be correct – you can easily cover audax type mileages in that sort of work, just spread over a week not a day, and it will be disproportionately evening riding) but also because drivers tend to take more care around unlit cyclists.
"Watch out for that cyclist, he's got no lights"
"Yeah, I've seen him. Fucking idiot." > whole-road pass
vs
"There's another cyclist."
"That's okay, he's got proper lights." > 50cm pass.

It's about perceived predictability.

[Basil]

For me, using lights also fended off that excuse when you get knocked off.  Which I was. 
Witness statement to police.  "He looked like a fairground coming up the road".

Just need to get over the "He wasn't wearing a helmet, so I ran into him."

[Paul H]

I'd go for the latter.  Likely because cyclists with proper kit tend to do more miles.

I'm not sure that's true when considering the deliveroo riders in the thread title.  I average 6 miles per hour worked, 120miles/20 hours a week.  Many of the riders are working 10+ hours a day and 5-6 days a week, even with mid morning and mid afternoon lulls in the day (Less so now they're all doing groceries) many of them will be riding 250+ miles a week.

Couple of factors that would make any analysis difficult: People riding without lights are usually doing so where there's some other lighting, otherwise how would they see where they were going?  Maybe those without lights have less of an assumption that they've been seen, the same theory about risk compensation that gets applied to helmet wearers.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

I’ve always believed that target fixation is a significant problem.  A highly visible object becomes a highly visible objective.

We all know the best way to steer round a bend is to look in the direction you want to go..

[Kim]

I'd go for the latter.  Likely because cyclists with proper kit tend to do more miles.

I'm not sure that's true when considering the deliveroo riders in the thread title. [...]

Sure, but that study was some years ago, when Deliveroo riders would have been an even smaller minority of cyclists.

[drossall]

I presume you mean, for no. 1, that unlit cyclists involved in accidents are even rarer than unlit cyclists on the road?

Not really. I'm not commenting in any absolute sense on how common either might be. What I am saying is that statistics that show that unlit cyclists in accidents are relatively uncommon pose a problem for anyone who claims that unlit cyclists in general are very common.

Say the statistics show that 1 in 5 cyclists involved in an accident (at night) is unlit. If you claim that unlit cyclists are twice as likely to be involved in accidents, then only about 1 in 10 cyclists can be unlit. If you claim it's ten times more, then only 1 in 50 cyclists can be unlit. If you claim that 50% of all cyclists at night are unlit, and lack of lights makes you ten times more likely to be in an accident, then you'd expect something more than 90% of all the cyclists in accidents at night to be unlit. But my recollection is indeed of something like 1 in 5 casualties being unlit (in the statistics that I saw years ago). That simply doesn't allow us to maintain both ideas (that the proportion of unlit cyclists is high, and that the risks of not having lights are high), at the same time.

Note that, for this purpose, "cyclists" means "cyclists you see out and about", which effectively means that those doing more mileage are more likely to be counted.

...but also because drivers tend to take more care around unlit cyclists.

Precisely. One of the arguments advanced to explain the apparent discrepancy between the claims is that unlit cyclists, generally speaking, are seen, and annoy drivers so much that they grab attention. Otherwise "I saw a cyclist with no lights today..." makes no sense Whereas lit cyclists suffer from the much-discussed effect under which other road users see them, subconsciously assess them as not a threat, and move on to assessing the next risk.

Please, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing for riding without lights, not least because I don't have confidence that the above, unreferenced, statistics are sufficiently rigorous, or supported by other studies, to stake anything on them, let alone my life. I do, however, see them as supporting my general contention that perception is much more complex than the "dress up like a Christmas tree" visibility arms race argument allows.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Ah! You mean rarer as a proportion of the applicable group; I interpreted rarer to mean rarer in absolute terms ie fewer as a total number.

[The Family Cyclist]

Do you think it may be because unlit are also more likely to jump onto paths and be going slower then lit law abiding cyclists?

Probably the worst case of unlit was years back. Late at night, maybe 10pm and pitch black. Wife was driving me home from an operation and I was still under the effects of the general anaesthetic. Don't know what it was but something glinted off  completely unlit cyclist on an 60mph A road and I managed to make the wife aware in time for her to avoid

I probably should have stopped or taken some other action but could barely stay awake at that point

[drossall]

We're talking about multi-vehicle accidents. I'm not sure that slower cyclists are less likely to be hit? Nor am I so sure that claims about unlit cyclists are referring to those on the pavement. But all this remains quite speculative.

[Kim]

I can certainly imagine the unlit cyclists riding on the pavement in a pedestrian-on-wheels style make for plenty of BloodyCyclists sentiment amongst the BRITISH public, while as a whole managing to avoid ending up in STATS19-worthy incidents.  The same would appear to go for scooterboys.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

While we've reported on numerous instances of cyclists being asked to wear high-vis by various authorities in the past, clothing choice is sometimes shown to be futile when it comes to some drivers – and now, a pro cyclist representing Great Britain has told of how he suffered a broken back after being hit by a speeding driver, despite donning an outfit that could barely be any brighter.


“The 20-year old, who rides for the Trinity Racing team, was on his Specialized Tarmac SL7, which also snapped by the head tube. Fortunately, there were four training police officers across the road who helped him up and called an ambulance..”

My only fluorescent garment is rainwear. Normally I wear light colours and wear a white helmet. My cycle cam doubles as a front light.

Even when I am driving a car I don’t take it for granted I’ll be seen by the other idiot!  My current vehicle sounds an alarm if I get too close to stuff(hopefully, including a cyclist, it works when peds are too close) It can be irritating, and I could switch it off, but I think that would be foolish.

Learning the hard way shouldn’t be necessary and I hope the driver gets their comeuppance for their stupid carelessness.

[GdS]

Deliveroo / Uber Eats etc is the new normal. I often use McDs on my faraway DIY 200s and can't believe that there are often far more delivery orders than actual people wanting breakfast to eat in, can't they be arsed to buy / put a couple of slices of bacon / egg on the hob and butter some bread? their money not mine and it keeps people in a job.

they fly in and out of town every evening in fairly stealth mode where I live including down the pedestrianised no cycling bit (when all the shops are shut anyway), I don't think their ebikes are legal judging by the speed but not heard of any accidents so far.

[telstarbox]

For some anecdata, this winter I've been commuting at least once a week, 20km each way, about half of which is unlit rural roads and some of that is theoretically 60mph. Each day I'm overtaken by at least 50 vehicles and I might see 5 other cyclists en route.

I have a flashing red commuter light, white helmet and the back of my trainers is white ; but a grey backpack and no specifically vis gear.

No vehicle has failed to see me so far - they've either slowed down behind or overtaken.* I know the light is fairly bright but I think the movement of my head and feet would be equally conspicuous.

*Typically giving me lots of space but none to an oncoming vehicle, which seems to be the new close pass!

[Paul H]

Deliveroo / Uber Eats etc is the new normal. I often use McDs on my faraway DIY 200s and can't believe that there are often far more delivery orders than actual people wanting breakfast to eat in, can't they be arsed to buy / put a couple of slices of bacon / egg on the hob and butter some bread? their money not mine and it keeps people in a job.

Yes, i don't think everyone has grasped the scale.  Most cities and some larger towns are also likely to have one or more McD kitchen not open to the public and only supplying the delivery trade. 

[hubner]

Deliveroo / Uber Eats etc is the new normal. I often use McDs on my faraway DIY 200s and can't believe that there are often far more delivery orders than actual people wanting breakfast to eat in, can't they be arsed to buy / put a couple of slices of bacon / egg on the hob and butter some bread? their money not mine and it keeps people in a job.

they fly in and out of town every evening in fairly stealth mode where I live including down the pedestrianised no cycling bit (when all the shops are shut anyway), I don't think their ebikes are legal judging by the speed but not heard of any accidents so far.

I think very few of them, if any, are legal, because they're not pedalled which means the bikes are throttle control. And their speed as well.

As for lights, most don't have lights, the one or two who do have lights have ultra bight dazzling front lights seemingly pointed straight ahead and usually no rear.