Do urban cyclists *actually* need lights?

[nuttycyclist]

Discussion topic:

Obviously at present the law requires lights, and I wouldn't ride without them; I've even gone out in my lunch hour to buy some in the past when I've been caught out by dark nights and working late.


Last night, out driving, I saw many cyclists without lights.  The key here is SAW.    I also saw many pedestrians in dark clothing, so obviously drove accordingly as they may have been drunks heading home from t'pub, or even just iPod zombies about to cross the road without looking.

Many of these unlit cyclists had very good rear reflectors, and even pedal reflectors.  Despite their black clothing they were really visible.  One lady had such a good rear "light" I was planning on stopping ahead of her to ask about it, when I went over a speed hump and as my headlights dropped away from her realised that she had no lights.

Other cyclists did have lights.  Either with poor batteries so only a glimmer of red, or they were completely obscured by low hanging coats.  Strangely, many of these lit cyclists didn't have reflectors.  They were still visible though, thanks to streetlighting, just less obvious than the other "unlit" cyclists.


So...   In an entirely urban setting, do cyclists really need lights?  Should less focus be placed on unlit riders (and more placed on unsafe riders).

I think I might like this approach...   in town I hate having to lose a few minutes stripping all lights from my bike when I lock it up, or the continual battery checks.    I might consider, if it was legal, having the hack bike fitted with just decent reflectors so as to be seen.   (The main bike, which is used on unlit roads, would of course remain with the fitted dynohub  )

[vorsprung]

Suppose a cyclist approaches a junction on an unlit road.  It is joining a lit road but the junction is in shadow.  I would have thought that this is fairly likely to occur somewhere in a town.  Especially on cycling facilities.  With a light, if other road users actually look, they will see a cyclist.  Without a light the cyclist is invisible.

I'm sure there are plenty of other edge cases where a light is necessary in this way.

The other thing is the minor illumination provided by even the most minimalistic front light is occasionally necessary for safe navigation of dark areas.  There are some areas like this even in towns

Apart from that I would have to agree that reflectives are often more effective than visibility lights

[citoyen]

Hmmm, I know what you mean - it's rather ironic when motorists complain about seeing cyclists riding without lights, and then there are those cases of smidsys running down cyclists even when they're well lit…

But lights are just too well established a part of safety culture - you wouldn't stand a chance of getting the law changed on that one. Besides, I fear the net result would just be ammunition for insurance companies to reduce any claim you might make against them if you are hit by a motorist. It's already hard enough to fight claims of contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet and they aren't even legally required.

For me personally, parts of my commute are on dark country lanes so my lights stay on my bike all year round.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

If you want to be really finicky, even motorists don't *need* lights where there is decent street lighting in towns. If you want to be really finicky the other way, even pedestrians *benefit* from a torch when there's a power cut.

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

[Biggsy]

Inconsistency is the problem.  The road user doesn't take as much care to look for other road users while most of them use lights as he/she would if none of them did.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Then maybe we should abandon all lighting. Luminous collars have been put on cattle and cats, but who will catch the foxes and badgers?

  <dark glasses for night

[Karla]

Despite being an urban cyclist, my route goes across a dark unlit path, and then down a badly lit path that has a street full of streetlights shining down from the end, which dazzle me unless I'm throwing a fair bit of my own light the other way.  I could always ride backwards and look between my legs at the light shining out of my arse, but I haven't quite perfected the art of riding backwards yet so I'll stick to using bike lights.  Not every urban road is bathed in orange sodium glow, you know. 

As for Nutty's point about buying lights at lunchtime when he's forgotten to bring his main lights in, the trick is to keep a cheap old set of lights in the desk drawer for just these occasions.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Nutty, you know how you didn't notice not seeing cyclists who didn't have lights?

Guess what?

That's because you couldn't see them.

Urban cyclists need lights. Preferably not black/ninja clothing either - I don't bother counting the people I nearly run into, step out in front of, etc, because they don't have lights and are clad in dark clothing.

[Basil]

When I was mowed down by a motorist T boning me from a side road, one witness statement described me as looking "like a fairground coming up the road". 
So it doesn't really matter how good your lights are.

[citoyen]

Just remembered the chap I saw last night who had a piddly little rear light that you could barely see except from close up, but then he had bright blue flashing light strips woven into his spokes. Not sure whose benefit they were for, but there would be no danger of him not being seen from the side.

Nutty, you know how you didn't notice not seeing cyclists who didn't have lights?

Guess what?

That's because you couldn't see them.

Yes, that's all very well, but his point was not that he doesn't see them but that he does see them, even without lights.

d.

[andygates]

Short-haul urban night riding doesn't need lights. 

There are states in America with reflector laws, and they ain't all dead, which seems pretty good evidence to back up the anecdotage here.

Anything longer than those little Copenhagenista rides, though, and you'll find yourself dipping into the dark unlit places or taking silly detours.  And once you leave the urbs, you leave the light-saturated spaces, and seeing what you're riding into is a good thing.

[zoxed]

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

I think historically front lights were used so that the rider/driver could see where they were going and it was the rider/driver responsibility to see obstacles in front, whether they are cars, bikes, people, pot holes or cats.
But the car drivers got too fast and lazy and the government suggested mandating rear lights for bikes and cars so that the cars could drive faster. IIRC the CTC fought this law hard, but in the end lost.
The result has been good for the motorists speeds, but bad for all other road users :-(

[Euan Uzami]

Should less focus be placed on unlit riders (and more placed on unsafe riders).

If your beef is with the amount of unlit riders being stopped by the police, then maybe it's just that they are drawing a synonym between 'unlit' and 'unsafe'. Unlit implies not obeying the law, regardless of how necessary it is to safety, so the inference is that they are the sort of rider that jumps red lights, rides on the pavement, etc. Hence fair game for having collar felt.
In the same way that the police just sit there with their ANPR cameras to stop cars without insurance in order to get them for other things.
Whether more focus should be placed on cars than any bikes full stop, is another question...

[citoyen]

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

But he did see them! That's entirely his point.

There's really no excuse for not seeing someone in the kind of environment that nutty is talking about - not seeing peds and cyclists, whether lit or not, only suggests that you're not paying adequate attention.

I actually wonder if there's a case for saying that vehicle lighting in urban environments is counter-productive - the roads are so well lit that lighting the vehicles as well is potentially distracting and confusing. Just a thought.

d.

[Kim]

Good reflectors are easily as effective as good lights about 90% of the time.  But I reckon the other 10% are more hazardous situations.  That doesn't mean reflectors aren't a good thing, though.

An awful lot of 'lit' cyclists have lights so feeble that they might as well be unlit.  Cheap rear blinkies with almost-flat batteries aimed primarily at the ground or the sky, or obscured by luggage/clothing are extremely common.

Pedestrians aren't expected to be lit, and often wear dark colours without any retroreflectives.

That they aren't getting run over as soon as they step outside suggests that the overwhelming majority of drivers have working headlights and are looking where they're going.

I'd suggest that bike lights are an awfully good idea for the edge-cases where visibility is an issue, much moreso if you're cycling as a vehicle rather than a pedestrian on wheels.  I'd also suggest that while drivers may be intuitively scanning the pavement/gutter for stealth pedestrians, they're not going to expect a bike ninja at speed in primary position on a roundabout, for example, and that vehicular cyclists would do well to have vehicular lighting.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that powerful front lights make drivers more cautious when pulling out in front of me at junctions, especially on the recumbent.


I have lights primarily to see where I'm going and to comply with the law.  I reckon my decent rear lights (and reflectives, both legal and gratuitous bling) are pointless the vast majority of the time, but are worth the cost/effort over the legal minimum for the odd occasion where they do provide a safety advantage.  I don't believe that the failure of rear lights is going to end in instant splatty death, but may result in a fine and would be an embarrassing indication of failure to maintain my bike properly.



Factoid: AIUI, it's legal for cars to use sidelights only in streetlit built-up areas.

[Cudzoziemiec]

That's my understanding of the law, too. And what's more, that applies to all streetlit roads reagrdless of speed limit! I'm willing to bet the police would not share this view though.

[JJ]

Are brakes really necessary on bikes in flat areas?  You don't necessarily immediately die if you ride a brakeless bike in Cambridge.  I see them all the time, but I reckon you increase the risk.

Not having lights on your bike doesn't result in instant death, in urban areas or outside, but it does increase the risk.
Streetlighting is very variable, so are bike and other vehicle speeds, and a quicker bike, a faster car or a less well-lit street increase the chance of the bike not being seen until too late.

Personally I'd much rather the powers that be compel me to have lights and brakes, than compel me ride on cycle paths and wear a helmet.

PS Anyone care to join me in a rant about whether urban, suburban or rural areas actually *need* street lighting?

[Manotea]

The question that Nutty is really asking is, 'do urban cyclists wearing hiz-viz clothing and have bikes adorned with reflectives technically need lights to be seen'.

The answer is probably not. However they are not the problem.

The problem is stealth cyclists riding around in dark clothing on unlit bikes with no reflectives  who I regularly narrowly miss colliding with, both on my bike and in my car.

Given the choice between a legal requirement to carry lighting or wear hi-viz, I'll go with the former.

Edit: cross post with JJ

[Biggsy]

Up until last week, I would have said that an urban black-jacketed night-rider with no lights has never actually caused me a problem.  A few days ago, owever, I only just saw an unlit cyclist in time as I was crossing a road as a pedestrian.  I didn't have to jump out of my skin, but it was getting marginal, and made me think.

There were so many cars about that I was in "look for lights" mode, subconciously.

Blame me for not looking carefully enough, if you like, but that's what millions of pedestrians are like, too.

Ok, as a cyclist, I'm wary of pedestrians unless it looks like they have seen me, but still I'd rather increase my chances of being seen when it's easily convenient for me.

[Domestique]

Imo decent reflectors etc at the back is enough, but a light at the front end is a deffo.
Thinking about this I am not sure how I survived the 80's and early 90's when you think of the lights and reflectives available then.
My rear light on one of my bikes was a red light from an old navy life jacket, from Army&Navy shop

[mattc]

Factoid: AIUI, it's legal for cars to use sidelights only in streetlit built-up areas.

EDIT:But the Highway Code only recently stopped recommending sidelights under streetlights. So we managed for many decades with that setup. I misread Kim's post!


Sidelights* are PLENTY enough for a car to be seen.

In the real world I see plenty of drivers on sidelights in well-lit areas. Note "see" - not swerve at the last second to avoid them, cos they were virtually invisible.

*Or whatever they were called when your car was made - I mean that 1st click on the lights control. Ok?

[Jaded]

Well, with running lights on all new cars, the lighting war is here to stay, sadly.

Having just spent a week in one of the few nearly wild places left in the UK it takes a while to readapt to our obsession with photons.

[andygates]

I use sidelights only when maneuvering, it's more polite than zorching your beams into every living room on the block.  But that's by the by.

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

But he did see them! That's entirely his point.

The ninja you can see is not the true ninja.

But the true ninja is an invention of the mind.  If you've never seen them, they're right up alongside Russell's Teapot and the Gay Agenda. 

[border-rider]

Up until last week, I would have said that an urban black-jacketed night-rider with no lights has never actually caused me a problem.

I've had 2 near-misses, once in the car when I only saw the bloke at the last minute from a reflection off his wheel rims (he was all in black on an unlit rural B road) and once when I was on the bike and turned R into a road on a dark, moonless night just as a stealth cyclist turned L into the same space. I almost T-boned him despite me running sufficient front lights to illuminate Pluto.

Ok, in both cases I missed, but both were close enough that I think I was running on luck and reflex.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Like Mr Bunbury, I live in York. We have the peril of the ninja cyclist on semi-lit cyclepaths. Near misses with dark-clad unlit PoBs is a daily occurrence. I don't have a light shining out of my arse - MrBunbury, have you considered using some fibre-optics to direct the light in a more useful direction? 

The worst situation, tho', is when there are plenty of lights and cars. dozens of dazzling light sources - you can't pick out a dark object from that, it just merges into the background. Flashing front and rear lights are the way to go.