What do you get when you cross a van with an unlit cyclist?

deadhead1971

My cousin just wrote his van off because of a cyclist who was riding in the dark with no lights.
Find out what he had to say about it -
http://www.scarletfire.co.uk/2012/11/look-what-happens-to-cyclists-with-no-lights/

Malc6552

That's food for thought, I will be adding an extra light for sure, sounds like the cyclist had a lucky escape

ilm_zero7

idiot cyclist - no lights in the dark (presumably) ... should be liable for causing or contributing to the accident - see far too many unlit or badly lit cyclists.... there seem to be too many who "have a light" ... yes you do, and if you were the only one in a coal mine it would show up well, but on a road with wet road glare and oncoming headlights too many are F'ing useless

there should be some regulation and minimum output levels - for both front and back lights

tiredofwhiners

Has anyone else actually read the article ? Hitting a cyclist did that to a van and the cyclist didn't even stop ?

Whats the rest of the unwritten story as that not even remotely credible?

If he swerved to avoid a cyclist and hit something else then fair enough, but to claim that he hit a cyclist (which the article does) who carried on without stopping and did that damage toa van suggest the cyclist was made of a large block of concrete., or had his bike inside a car at the time of the accident.

logie48

I'm never out after it gets dark. Reason being, I nearly hit a cyclist myself in my car a few years ago, even though he had lights. So i'll only cycle when it's light.

I always wear fluo yellow jerseys aswell. Got a few nice Castelli ones which do the trick. I think your jeopardizing your safety if you don't wear anythin bright. Always, always maximise visibility.

clickshots

"Has anyone else actually read the article ?"

Yes, it says:
"My van after a head on crash with a lorry yesterday. I nearly hit a cyclist yesterday."

Ride hard

You need to go to specsavers my friend. He said he hit an oncoming lorry after swerving to avoid said cyclist.

@ILM Zero7 You're right. I had a rant the other day regarding the same thing. Some cyclist I see may as well not bother using the one kcals of energy it takes to take their finger and switch on the light beacuse its either too dim, or obscured because of a coat or being stupidly postioned.

In terms of a law for minimum light output, it's a good idea, however, I think many will ignore it. Case in question - just look at the amount of drivers who still use mobiles at the wheel.

chrisaonabike

I hate to say it, but in the unlikely event I'd have the presence of mind to consciously make the choice, in the car if it came down to knocking an invisible-till-the-last-second cyclist off his bike, or having a head-on with a lorry coming the other way, the cyclist would just have to take his chances.

I've always been pretty careful, but since taking up cycling a couple of months ago, I'm 10x more aware of cyclists. And the number of cretins riding in the dark wearing dark clothes with no lights is just mind-boggling. No sympathy whatsoever, and I also object to the way they give the rest of us a bad name.

wheels50

na ...... edited.

tiredofwhiners

Ride hard wrote:

You need to go to specsavers my friend. He said he hit an oncoming lorry after swerving to avoid said cyclist.

In other words, the misleading headline is really that this is what happens when you swerve a vehicle head on into another vehicle. The involvement of a bike is irrelevant - it could have been a walker as happened to day on the A31 where the walker died, just as much as bike.

No excuses for cycling 'unlit' though.

Ride hard

tiredofwhiners wrote:

Ride hard wrote:

You need to go to specsavers my friend. He said he hit an oncoming lorry after swerving to avoid said cyclist.

In other words, the misleading headline is really that this is what happens when you swerve a vehicle head on into another vehicle. The involvement of a bike is irrelevant - it could have been a walker as happened to day on the A31 where the walker died, just as much as bike.

No excuses for cycling 'unlit' though.

I didn't make up the headline, and the part the cyclist played in this is relevant. It's cause and effect.

Granted, none of us witnessed the incident so we'll never know the full circumstances of what happened, but the fact is the cyclist had no lights (cause) at night making it harder for the van/bus/car/other cyclist/motorbike/pedestrian - or any other variable you won't to throw into the mix - to see them. The effect is - as in this case - people having the swerve/brake hard etc, which I'm sure you'll agree is dangerous for everyone involved. The cyclist is a liability to themselves and others.

Tell me how irrelevant the actions of an unlit cyclist are if you are cycling down the road minding your own business when the other cyclist with no lights coming in the opposite direction turns right into a turning and consequently causes you to take evasive action because you can't see them? In fact, it could be a vehicle that's forgotten to turn their lights on that does the same thing - it doesn't matter. The fact is you can't see them and put yourself at risk with your emergency manoeuvre to right their wrong. I don't know about you, but if that happened to me I would be pissed.

I don't know the incident you're talking about regarding the pedestrian that was killed, and although tragic, you can't compare that and this incident. Pedestrians have the pavement to make their journey on where they probably average about 2mph (very safe) and aren't in the road sharing their space with multiple fast moving, heavy vehicles (not that safe). So unless I've missed some new law that was recently passed, pedestrians don't need lights.

pdw

Pedestrians have the pavement to make their journey on

Have you ever set foot outside a city or town?

velvetytoast

My mate wrote his car off when a 'black dog' jumped out in front of it - the dog never had lights on and ran off aswell - excuses like this have been around for years

Ride hard

pdw wrote:

Pedestrians have the pavement to make their journey on

Have you ever set foot outside a city or town?

Well, if you can include regular trips on my steed through the country lanes of Kent, Surrey, West Sussex, Essex and South West Sweden in the category of setting 'foot outside a city or town', then I guess you can say I have.

thegibdog

Seems your cousin has some decent advice for cyclists, does he have any advice for drivers as a result of this?

MattC59

thegibdog wrote:

Seems your cousin has some decent advice for cyclists, does he have any advice for drivers as a result of this?

Yes; 'if you're riding a bike on the road, use lights'
:roll:

Pigtail

Ride hard wrote:

Granted, none of us witnessed the incident so we'll never know the full circumstances of what happened, but the fact is the cyclist had no lights.......

A bit of a contradiction there methinks. Would you care to reflect on that a bit?

Ride hard

Haaa.

As I say, I'm not claiming to know what happened, but if you're telling me you can see other road users (cyclists or overwise)who don't have lights in the dark, then either you're a Terminator, or you have some mystic powers.

deadhead1971

thegibdog wrote:

Seems your cousin has some decent advice for cyclists, does he have any advice for drivers as a result of this?

Is there an implication there that somehow a motorist is to blame for not seeing a cyclist who chose to ride on a busy road at night with no lights?
What do you suggest, infra-red military grade night vision goggles?

Pigtail

That's not what I meant.

You'll never know what happened- but you know there was a cyclist and you know he had no lights?

Ride hard

Well, yes.

Unless you have missed something, that's what this thread is about. I can only go by what the OP's cousin said ie the cyclist had no lights and the implications of that, just like if you say to me you live in Aberdeen, then I have to also roll with that assumption.

Pigtail

Sigh ... I think I've done too many disciplinary hearings.

You don't know what happened. You don't know that the cyclist didn't have lights. What you know is that the OPs cousin said there was a cyclist, and said that he didn't have lights.

Equally you don't know that I live in Aberdeen. You know that my wee box on my posts says I live in Aberdeen. If you roll with the asumption that everything you see on the internet is true then you're in for a bumpy ride.

thegibdog

deadhead1971 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

Seems your cousin has some decent advice for cyclists, does he have any advice for drivers as a result of this?

Is there an implication there that somehow a motorist is to blame for not seeing a cyclist who chose to ride on a busy road at night with no lights?
What do you suggest, infra-red military grade night vision goggles?

The only thing I was implying was that drivers can learn from this as well as cyclists. If I'd been involved in a head on collision I know I'd be thinking about what I could learn from it and it wouldn't involve night vision goggles!

deadhead1971

thegibdog wrote:

The only thing I was implying was that drivers can learn from this as well as cyclists. If I'd been involved in a head on collision I know I'd be thinking about what I could learn from it and it wouldn't involve night vision goggles!

Beyond the usual stuff like keeping below speed limits, keeping the vehicle in good condition - tyres, brakes, lights etc, what else can you reasonably do? There is an expectation that all road users should operate in a way that minimises risk, so how do you plan for the cyclist with no lights, other than drive everywhere at 20mph?
It's a tricky one!

Ride hard

Pigtail wrote:

Sigh ... I think I've done too many disciplinary hearings.

You don't know what happened. You don't know that the cyclist didn't have lights. What you know is that the OPs cousin said there was a cyclist, and said that he didn't have lights.

Equally you don't know that I live in Aberdeen. You know that my wee box on my posts says I live in Aberdeen. If you roll with the asumption that everything you see on the internet is true then you're in for a bumpy ride.

Ahhhhh. Now I see where you're coming from - you don't trust anyone, or anything.

Well here's a bit of advice Columbo.If all you can contribute to a debate is constant questions about things other than the original topic (which you still haven't done), and instead concentrate on calling people out ("Oooo, he says a 'bike' was involved, but was it a 'bike' or actually a new design for a US drone plane?" "Hmmhh, he said the 'cyclist' had no lights, but was it actually the driver at fault as he left his sleeping mask on that made everything appear dark?") then save yourself the energy because the debate can't develop, and gets boring.

And here's some even better advice. Christmas is just around the corner and I know a game you might like - its called Cludeo.

OP, I hope your cousin is OK btw!

unixnerd

A few years ago I was driving to Inverness on a dual carriageway section of the A9 near Daviot, sweeping left hand bend. It was pitch dark and I think it was raining. There was oncoming traffic so I didn't have my high beams on. By good fortune I was fairly to the right of my lane. First I saw of the unlit cyclist in dark clothing without even reflectors was when he was <20 feet in front of me, I was doing 65-70 and he'd have had no chance if I'd been further left. Really hacks me off when people don't take basic responsibility for their own safety, total lack of thought for others.

The A9 is dangerous in the daytime. But who in their right mind cycles it at night in ninja mode?

Pigtail

Ride hard wrote:

Ahhhhh. Now I see where you're coming from - you don't trust anyone, or anything.

Oh I trust lots of things, and lots of people. I was just amused by the contradiction of you diving in and saying you didn't know what happened, and then within the very same sentence asserting what did happen.

I'm not commenting on the original story because I don't know enough about it. We don't know what the road conditions were like, how fast he was going, where he was looking at the time. More importantly we don't have the lorry driver or the ninja's story. I feel for the guy losing his van and being in an accident, but don't feel qualified to comment as assuredly as you are.

I deplore ninja cyclists. I've had some close shaves with reflective clothing and two sets of lights front and back. I can't understand why people would deliberately increase those risks. I even have some sympathy with the poster who said given a choice between hitting a ninja and running into an oncoming lorry the ninja would have to take his chances.

What I don't like is the whole collective guilt thing that is put on all cyclists, because somebody somewhere once saw a ninja.

jonomc4

Well I for one am getting really sick of some cyclists. I was behind one last week he was following a taxi who had indicated left and was slowing down. The black taxi was being cautious, because he could see the bike in his mirrors, and he was manoeuvring slowly - but the cyclist took his slowing down as an opportunity to undertake - I have no understanding about what the cyclist was thinking of trying to undertake a car that was making a left turn indication - but it didn't stop him shaking his head and mouthing off at the taxi!

I mean really I know there are a lot of tosser drivers - but cyclists (being as vulnerable as we are) really need to learn the basics of how to use the road. I have never considered myself an ultra cautious cyclists but there are some things that are just plain dumb.

My honest opinion is, if the police see a bike with no lights it should be impounded until they come to the police station with a new set of lights and a £30 fine.

Bobbinogs

jonomc4 wrote:

My honest opinion is, if the police see a bike with no lights it should be impounded until they come to the police station with a new set of lights and a £30 fine.

...but as someone else posted, using mobiles when driving is illegal and yet I could probably count 10 drivers doing this in any 5 minute period. Same goes for exceeding the 30mph speed limit.

A guy I worked with wrote off a Merc after "swerving to avoid a fox". Although the fact that he was actually just driving far too fast and missed a corner (and that the fox was a complete fabrication) only came out after a few beers on a work's night out a couple of months later.

jonomc4

I agree with you 100% about mobiles etc. but you know the old adage - two wrongs don't make a right.
The point I am trying to make is that just because we are on a bike does not make us morally right. What I do know is the taxi driver in my example will probably next time not give as much consideration because of the poor cycling and gobsh1te attitude of that cyclist - that cyclist by his idiocy and w4nker attitude has put me and other cyclists at risk.

When I commute I know make an effort to try and behave well - not because of the risks - I am able to do that perfectly well but because I am concious that I am also an ambassador for other cyclist and how I behave affects how drivers I meet will treat other cyclists. Also if I see there is a risk I wont take it as I am also aware that I am sitting on 7kg of carbon and a driver is in a 2 tonne metal cage - I will loose.

BTW I think the 10 drivers in a 5 minute period is using the same calculator as the "majority of cyclist going through red lights". If a driver is caught by the police they get a fine (I think £90) and 3 points which has a serious knock on effect with their insurance costs - I see cycling without lights in the dark as being just as dangerous - I loose track of the number of cyclists I see without them though - rarely the commuters but normally some guy dressed in dark colours on a knackered bike.

Herbsman

why swerve when you can just brake? does your cousin's van have no brakes? that's worse than having no lights.