CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Unlit students

(27 posts)

Tags:


  1. cc
    Member

    There seem to be loads of ninja student bikes this year.

    For my sins I live just off the QBC, and when I venture on to it of an evening, there's usually a totally unlit bicycle with a darkly clad rider coming down the hill from KB. It's difficult to see them until they're very close to me.

    I started noticing the prevalence of unlit bikes a few weeks before the clock change. I don't remember seeing nearly so many unlit bikes in previous years. It almost seems like it's becoming the majority/default thing to do.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. crowriver
    Member

    Maybe it's 'cool'. Until someone becomes a statistic...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. neddie
    Member

    If motorists learn to expect unlit cyclists, that can only be a good thing.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Would cyclists having to learn to expect unlit cars be described as a good thing? I think not somehow. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. PS
    Member

    I've got a suspicion that it reflects an increase in the popularity of cycling. It certainly seems to me that there are more non-stereotypical cyclists about my part of town (which is a good thing). It's like they're normal people, pedestrians if you will, on bikes. And, like pedestrians, they don't carry lights because the streetlights provide them with enough light to see by.

    Just to be clear, I'm not being facetious or approving of their unlit state. That's just how it seems to me.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. dougal
    Member

    I don't expect pedestrians to carry lights, and if I hit a pedestrian it's my fault for not being in control of my vehicle for the speed/visibility/other conditions.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. steveo
    Member

    Would cyclists having to learn to expect unlit cars be described as a good thing?

    In the city I'm not convinced it would be a bad thing if cars were unlit or lit only by sidelights/daylight running lamps, there is no need for level of illumination even a modest car has let alone the arms race the German motors seem to be involved in. If you can't see well enough then you're probably going too fast.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. SRD
    Moderator

    @PS i think you're right - more like Oxford or Cambridge ?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. Klaxon
    Member

    There is no legal requirement for more than side lights in street lit areas. It's also unnecessary, and training our learner drivers to use dip has lead to this horrid race between headlight manufacturers and fluorescent jacket manufacturers to stay 'more visible'

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    In the city I'm not convinced it would be a bad thing if cars were unlit or lit only by sidelights/daylight running lamps, there is no need for level of illumination even a modest car has let alone the arms race the German motors seem to be involved in.

    Oh I so agree! Car headlights are getting really dazzling now. I think they should have sidelights only in streetlit areas. Give the rest of us a chance.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. Nelly
    Member

    "I think they should have sidelights only in streetlit areas"

    Sensible thought, but I imagine it will take hold sometime after drivers stick to the 20mph limits and the new school streets initiative.

    Not sure if that is cynical, defeatist, or realist view?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. unhurt
    Member

    There is no legal requirement for more than side lights in street lit areas.

    ...I did not know that - definitely not what my driving instructor taught me c. 2009*! Which is interesting.

    *I was a very late-learning driver.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    The Highway Code both gives:

    Rule 113
    You MUST

    ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
    use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
    use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).

    and takes away on this issue:

    Rule 115
    You should also

    use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
    keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users
    slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights.

    In short, unhurt, not using headlights at night under street lights isn't illegal, but could cause you to fail your test.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. Murun Buchstansangur
    Member

    Also this gem:

    Rule 116
    Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. steveo
    Member

    Must vs Should there. You must light up, you should make yourself as visible possible. Unfortunately making yourself visible now involves thermonuclear lighting to the detriment of those with out such capability.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. dougal
    Member

    113 and 115 would seem to contradict each other unless I'm misreading. One says you must use headlights except in built up areas and the other says use dipped lights in built up areas.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. steveo
    Member

    Must means its the law, should means its advisory.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. twq
    Member

    Had hazards on today.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. ih
    Member

    @dougal not contradictory; as @Steveo says, dipped headlights in built up (street lit) areas is advisory according to highway code. That's why I think all motorised vehicles should use dipped headlights. The increased level of dazzling could be due to increasing use of led lights which are poorly adjusted. Proper adjustment should be more rigorously tested for both new cars and at MoT tests. I get rather frustrated with over-bright rear lights, which are frequently more distracting than heads because you're following them.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. crowriver
    Member

    @twq: "But officer I am merely warning other drivers that I am 'temporarily obstructing traffic'. I'm not parking at all!"

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    Oh I think someone should print a batch of really sticky stickers quoting Rule 116, so others can use the stickers to 'advise' illegally parked vehicle owners/drivers using blinkies as to the error of their ways.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. steveo
    Member

    That's why I think all motorised vehicles should use dipped headlights.

    Why though, because it's been recommended by a document written when cars used dynamos and lamps were measured in tens of watts?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. Klaxon
    Member

    In terms of dazzle (as opposed to road illumination), even LED sidelights are far brighter than headlights of the era steveo refers.

    That includes the one on my bike, pointed at roughly low windscreen level..

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. ih
    Member

    @steveo Always a dilemmma when trying to be brief, to leave something unexplained. The advisory rule to use dipped headlights in lit areas is good advice. Cars using only sides are very much less visible when walking, cycling or driving, especially in twilight conditions. So that's why I think the rule should be followed.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. steveo
    Member

    True, but the flip side of that is that everything else is less visible once your eyes adjust to the inflated light levels due to high output headlamps.

    Making a car slightly less visible but allowing bicycles to be visible without running >300 lumen off road lamps seems fair.

    Making a car slightly less visible but allowing pedestrians to be visible when they're waiting the cross the road on the other side of your dipped beam also seems fair.

    You'd be shocked just how invisible a cyclist actually is in a flow of traffic when they're a few meters in front and to the left of a vehicle with bright lights whether or not, especially (?) if, the lights are correctly adjusted. Even quite antisocial lamps can just vanish, low level ones such as dynamo's or bromptons don't stand a chance since they're in the dipped beam.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. Min
    Member

    Absolutely. I can hardly see anything at night apart from a dazzling kaleidoscope of overly strong car headlights. When it rains, it is 1000 times worse as they are all reflected in every rain drop. And it is only going to get worse as the "arms race" (like it) continues.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. ih
    Member

    @steveo Your post, and the lighting issue in general, does raise many many questions that I certainly don't have completely satisfactory answers to. Whatever is suggested can always be countered by the opposite which also appears to have merits and demerits. I suspect car headlights have become much brighter; I don't know what to suggest other than adjust properly. Alternatively, rewrite the HC to say headlights MUST NOT be used in built up areas, but I don't think that will happen. I would rather (nearly) all cars do the same thing rather than some using heads and some sides. This problem of dazzle is yet another example of how the motorised industry only thinks of itself and pays scant attention the the safety and comfort of other groups.

    I agree that bikes can be dangerously invisible. For that reason I always use flashing lights on the road, which IMO are much more visible without being retina-searing bright. For same reason in the dark I always wear something hi-vis or reflective (but not a h****t).

    Of course we just need Dutch style infra to sort these issues!

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin