Lights on bikes? Stupid people
snooks
Posts: 1,521
Waiting for a friend off a bus the other night I had a while to look at riders and their bikes.
One thing struck me, people are really very, very stupid when it comes to lights at night!
Why? well hear goes:
Some don't have lights.
Some fit lights and don't switch them on.
Some fit lights and only switch the rear light one on.
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, and have the light attached to the handle bars and stuff in a basket in the front that blocks the front light
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, then wear a long coat the covers the rear light
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, then tie a jumper round their waist which blocks the rear light
I saw all the above examples in the space of 10 minutes...What's the point of fitting lights if no one can see them??
End of post pub rant
.
One thing struck me, people are really very, very stupid when it comes to lights at night!
Why? well hear goes:
Some don't have lights.
Some fit lights and don't switch them on.
Some fit lights and only switch the rear light one on.
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, and have the light attached to the handle bars and stuff in a basket in the front that blocks the front light
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, then wear a long coat the covers the rear light
Some fit lights to their bike switch them on, then tie a jumper round their waist which blocks the rear light
I saw all the above examples in the space of 10 minutes...What's the point of fitting lights if no one can see them??
End of post pub rant
.
0
Comments
-
And some have all the answers????0
-
Whenever I head into Edinburgh in the dark I'm amazed at the number of cyclists who either have no lights, or lights that are so dim that they can't be seen until very close.
Ok there might be cases where the lights have just packed in or the batteries have just gone flat, however it can't be all of them and it's sensible to have a back-up just in case (I'm paranoid when commuting so have at least one backup light at each end).0 -
natural selection it looks a bit steep to me.....0
-
Not quite as stupid as the people I quite regularly see with no lights, no helmet and riding on the pavement at night. Strangely enough I don't seem to see the same idiot twice,maybe as one gets killed another one takes his place.
Its worth saying that from what ive seen cycle riders are not saints, and I suspect that the proportion of dangerous cyclists to safe ones is higher than dangerous vehicle drivers to safe ones.0 -
I nearly took out an unlit goit on a cycle path the other night, unlit riding no hands while texting. Now I realise why they banned handguns.Neil
Help I'm Being Oppressed0 -
jezwold wrote:Not quite as stupid as the people I quite regularly see with no lights, no helmet and riding on the pavement at night. Strangely enough I don't seem to see the same idiot twice,maybe as one gets killed another one takes his place.
You've mentioned the H word, and expressed an opinion on whether cyclists should wear one! :0)
Now we're doomed!?!
To be honest, the majority I saw were well lit, and looked like they cycled often - sporty lycra types wearing cycling gear. The cyclists who weren't well lit were the curb huggers, who were also riding in the door zone.
It was also the unlit ones who made the least effort with hi viz/reflective gear. May be it is evolution at work0 -
Cycling back through Headingley in Leeds in the dark I say two mountain bike PCs. Front one had 2 lights, but very dim, rear lady PC had no front light and very dim rear light!
unbelievable example to set.
But I guess it was ok as they had hi-vis jackets on. :roll:Cannondale R800 - Dry
Kona Honky Tonk - Wet
'96 GT Outpost - Kids on back
Genesis Core 120 - Mud
Raleigh Pro Race - Shop0 -
So there were cyclists with no lights or lights taht were dim or 'hidden', some didn't have an helmet on, some with a combo of both. Were there any with the most important cycling accessory these days, an MP3 player in their ears?I've added a signature to prove it is still possible.0
-
Not having lights (at night) is both illegal and clearly a risk of not being seen. I can understand the concern about people riding without lights.
H*lmets, are (thankfully) not a legal requirement and their usefulness is highly controversial (and only relevant in an accident, not in avoiding it).Training, highway design and increasing cycle numbers are important to safety. Helmets are just a red herring.0 -
Maybe I'm a little more sensitive about lights because I'm a car driver and I also came very close to having a head on with an unlit cyclist last week.
Heres how it was:
Single road with cars parked on each side on a longis right hand corner...I'd checked to see if there was anything coming down between the cars by looking for reflections on the parked cars on the left, nothing, not the brightest of lit streets, but there were some nice shinny reflective cars there...I was doing around 10 mph. I didn't see them until they were ahead of me (on the apex of the corner) and into the beam of my headlights. Then it was only possible to see her face.
Silly girl was wearing a dark coat, dark trousers, dark wooly hat, had no lights, no hi viz, no reflectors or anything that stood out from the blackness of night. She looked a little surprised when I opened my window and said politely "lights? :0)"
I might have only been doing 10 mph, but if I'd have seen a light or some indication that there was another road user ahead I could have waited before going down the road.
When I'm cycling at night I don't have high viz (i.e.neon), but I do have a hat which may or may not protect my head in the event of and accident that has more than enough retro reflective tape on it, a rucksack with reflective bits on, retro reflective ankle straps, reflective beading on my top. not to mention some pretty bright flashing/fixed lights.. and I like to think that I'm visible to other road users.
It's such a simple way of being safe, that I can't believe there are so many stealth cyclists out there.
Oh and another good one I saw a few weeks ago were a couple on a tandem going along Chelsea embankment...no lights from behind....well actually there was a light, but it was on the passengers helmet, only problem was she was looking to the left over the Thames, and I only saw the light as I passed by!?!
.0 -
whome wrote:H*lmets, are (thankfully) not a legal requirement and their usefulness is highly controversial (and only relevant in an accident, not in avoiding it).
Yeah, I usually laugh when people point at "no-helmet" and use that to indicate an irresponsible cyclist. Lights, fair enough, but helmet? Don't be ridiculous.0 -
I don't understand why helmets are 'controversial' they may make you look like an utter prune but anything which makes it less likely that I will split my skull open should I crash has got to be a good thing in my opinion.0
-
jezwold wrote:I don't understand why helmets are 'controversial' they may make you look like an utter prune but anything which makes it less likely that I will split my skull open should I crash has got to be a good thing in my opinion.
24 Pages on Helmets. It's largely been done to death.
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... ht=helmets0 -
it means an extra reason for motorists to hate us
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
BentMikey wrote:whome wrote:H*lmets, are (thankfully) not a legal requirement and their usefulness is highly controversial (and only relevant in an accident, not in avoiding it).
Yeah, I usually laugh when people point at "no-helmet" and use that to indicate an irresponsible cyclist. Lights, fair enough, but helmet? Don't be ridiculous.
But............................
Helmets will save your life, much, much more important than riding sensibly and visibly!<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:BentMikey wrote:whome wrote:H*lmets, are (thankfully) not a legal requirement and their usefulness is highly controversial (and only relevant in an accident, not in avoiding it).
Yeah, I usually laugh when people point at "no-helmet" and use that to indicate an irresponsible cyclist. Lights, fair enough, but helmet? Don't be ridiculous.
But............................
Helmets will save your life, much, much more important than riding sensibly and visibly!
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but I'll respond anyway.
A helmet can help IF something happens - but being visible CAN stop the incident happening in the first place.
Personally I got the whole shabang.0 -
The controversial bit is whether the helmet will help if something happens.0
-
like a red flag to a bull!!shift+1=!
0 -
In a way, yes. I just hate to see people focusing purely on helmets for their safety. However you feel about helmets and whichever side of the debate you fall on, it's pretty incontrovertible that there are significantly more effective approaches to improving your chances out on the roads.
It would be just as logical to tell someone they were irresponsible for walking to the shops without wearing a helmet, as it is to comment on a cyclist not wearing a helmet.0 -
Meier Hillman made the relevant point that if we spent the same energy and money on training, accident awareness and good riding as we spent on promoting helmets the benefit would be far greater.
Helmets should be secondary to lighting, good riding and proper cycling technique - so yes I was being sarcastic, but unfortunately others are not....... For instance the British Helmet Initiative Trust fails to mention training or lights at all!
Even when Hi-Viz is shown as equipment on a well equipped cyclist - the link is to a disputed statistic.
The introduction of Helmets to this thread is a ridiculous diversion....<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Yes, back to lights. I have two front and two rear on each of my bikes, plus a spare set of emergency blinkies in the toolkit, if that makes clear how important I think lighting at night is.0
-
BentMikey wrote:Yes, back to lights. I have two front and two rear on each of my bikes, plus a spare set of emergency blinkies in the toolkit, if that makes clear how important I think lighting at night is.
Phew! That was close I though the H word was going to take over!?!
I don't have emergency lights...Wonder if a spare set of batteries would be as good? Ah but thinking about it, my front and rear set take two different sizes....rse!
Time to re-think that one
So how big are your emergency set Mikey?0 -
They are a set of those clever electron ones that have a semi-circular dent in the side, and an elastic loop so you can easily fit them around seatposts and handlebars. Hang on, I'll dig out a wiggle link:
The picture is right, anyway, though the description doesn't quite seem to match.0 -
the thing about lights is that most people assume they are so you can see where you are going. This brings the inevitable 'I can see fine....I don't need lights response'
What they are actually for (certainly in our tax paid verra well lit, town centres anyway) is so that other folks can see you. (I guess I am preaching to the converted here judging by the comments so far but hey. )
Actually car drivers are bad for this too. Especially at the funny dusky time we are having at the moment, where the light is just not great, but not dark.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Actually lights should serve both functions....
I want to be seen and be seen, so I have lights that both comply and break the law!
I use either a pair of Dinottes or a Dinotte rear and USE Exposure front, but all my bikes have a set of RVLR compliant lights which fulfil the legal requirement and allow me to use the much more efficient (but technically illegal on their own) real lights as "supplementary" lighting
My daily commute varies between a total of 40 minutes to 2.5 hours depending on site, however I know that I have a safe 8 hours on the Dinottes and 10 hours on the USE in ride mode. If the worst comes to the worst I can make most journeys with these on flashing mode.
Hence I know I will always be lit and when to charge batteries
THE RVLR compliant LEDS every Sunday and the Dinottes / USE on a Sunday and Wednesday.
Summary...
Dinotte Rear 12 watt halogen equivalent
Dinotte front 15 watt halogen equivalent
Use 10 / 25 / 60 watt equivalent<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
BentMikey wrote:
Cheers...do they do them in red as well?0 -
Yes, I got mine as a pair, one front, one rear.0
-
jezwold wrote:I don't understand why helmets are 'controversial' they may make you look like an utter prune but anything which makes it less likely that I will split my skull open should I crash has got to be a good thing in my opinion.
Helmets aren;t controversial, just people who tell us we should all be wearing one, when its clear that this is an issue that we can all make our own mind up about.0 -
I believe that there is a law that demands that every new bike must be supplied with a bell. But not lights. If true, it seems odd to me to demand one but not t'other.
Batteries in my old school front light are flat after 40 mins, but in these days of reliable rechargeables, who cares? Rear LEDs go on for ever even with 1.2v NiCds.
Ride the high side people."Consider the grebe..."0 -
Shout LIGHTS at offenders Forcfully but without maliace0
