> I love the irony in this statement (and you see
> this sort of thing every week on forums, newspaper
> letters columns etc about cyclists all in black,
> no lights etc that are seen).
> So they're seen then?!
> Same way that you see pedestrians and trees and
> dogs and cats and parked cars and rubbish bins and
> other unlit things like debris in the road.
> If I jump a traffic light while wearing dark
> clothing, every motorist for half a mile around
> will see me.
> If I have fluoro kit and bright flashy lights,
> I'll still get "sorry mate, I didn't see you..."
Got to say, nobody is more pro cyclist than me, in either theory or practice, but can't agree with you on that one. Yes, you will eventually see a cyclist in black on a dark night and poorly lit road, when s/he comes into the scope of the headlights; for me, observing as a passenger, that moment is often terrifyingly close to a fatality. Yes, as with light jumpers etc etc it is frequently used by motorists as a stick with which to beat us (not that I think Nigello was), but my concern is for the cyclist. Why in the name of arse would you not avail yourself of at least the bare minimum equipment to help car drivers see you? Riding at night is inherently risky, there are a million un-MOT'd and uninsured cars on the road, there are drunk drivers, drug drivers, drivers on 'phones, drivers with poor eyesight/night vision, speeding drivers...any cyclist who doesn't make themselves decently visible wants their head examined. If it takes the prospect of fines to make them see sense, I'm all for it (not that anything would be done, given the failure to tackle 'phone use, speeding etc).
Oh. I seem to feel quite passionately about this.