Cyclist visibility

[firth]

Kamakasi stroboscopes.

Too much ignorance about the highway code or basic driving etiquette ie no rear observation, inadequate hand signals.

I think there is a point of self responsibility that you put yourself in  so you cant rely on everyone to accommodate your riding.

 

[tedfudge]

The original poster 

Was just trying to make a  valid and good point about cyclists riding in the dark without lights and i strongly agree as 90% of my driving is at night and I see it every night, cyclists no lights ( mainly delivery riders i had a cyclist just ride across me on the old kent road near the flyover did not look behind him to see if it was safe and no hand signal to give any warning of his intentions and cyclists going through red lights especially at main junctions ... all the things 

Lights . Helmets. Reflectors. Stopping at red lights.hand signals .. looking behind you to cross lanes or move over from any vehicles or obstacles at side of road is for the CYCLISTS safety more than anything.. 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

I assume you mean sunset and sunrise...?

The problem is that the lighting regulations have not kept up with lighting tech, there's a variety of British Standard regulations that lights are supposed to adhere to which are so out of date that pretty much nothing actually falls within it and the police neither know nor care about the details.

Indeed, yes my mistake 🤣

Weren't the regs reviewed and updated in 2017?

So although bicycle lights are a legal requirement, it is a technicality that few really know or care about. It certainly tallies with the suggestion that more people are cycling at night without them.

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Weren't the regs reviewed and updated in 2017?

So although bicycle lights are a legal requirement, it is a technicality that few really know or care about. It certainly tallies with the suggestion that more people are cycling at night without them.

They've been updated a few times, I'd have to look to see the latest incarnation.

It's not that "lights are a legal requirement but no-one cares". I think even the dumbest chav knows that they *should* have lights. Whether they care or not is another matter and (in true stereotypical fashion), if said chav is using said bike to go out and mug someone for their phone, the lights aren't really the issue!

It's that lights are a legal requirement (and frankly ANY light so long as it's white at the front, red at the rear would be a win) but that the actual legalities of lights in terms of what British Standard they're supposed to meet, quoted lumens or wattage or whatever is a complete minefield.

Personally, I don't know or care if my lights fulfil some British Standard from 20 years ago, I always have them on even in daylight.

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And do you wear bright clothes and reflective materials when walking after dark, as advised by the Highway Code? Why not?

Because I am not sharing the pavement with faster moving vehicles that can do me real harm if they didn't see me and hit me. I am taking a commonsense and pragmatic approach to joining the carriageway with bigger vehicles. Your argument seems to be based on...there are no rules to say I should so I won't...unless you're applying for a Darwen Award I doubt it is a smart approach to cycling.

[snowy]

Don't you ever cross a road when walking on the pavement, pragmatically? 

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

Personally, I don't know or care if my lights fulfil some British Standard from 20 years ago, I always have them on even in daylight.

You see. Another pragmatist....!

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, snowy said:

Don't you ever cross a road when walking on the pavement, pragmatically? 

I am really laughing so loudly at the ludicrousness of this discussion. It just shows how hilariously blinkered some people are.

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am really laughing so loudly at the ludicrousness of this discussion. It just shows how hilariously blinkered some people are.

Those suggesting that they can't see a bicycle with lights and reflectors, unless the rider is also dressed in specialist reflective clothing sound like they might be wearing blinkers, I agree.

Personally I do wear a reflective jacket, but that's my choice. It's easy to judge others, but I suspect many people use a bicycle without first donning special 'cycling ' clothes - They don't deserve to have someone who is not paying adequate attention, drive into them.

On 15/11/2025 at 17:27, Rockets said:

Because I am not sharing the pavement with faster moving vehicles that can do me real harm if they didn't see me and hit me.

About 5 and half thousand pedestrians get hit by cars each year in London. I'm assuming you're not blaming the pedestrians for the clothes they were wearing? 

Edited Sunday at 19:57 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Cycled home last night from Denmark Hill, most cyclists had lights, the one that I noticed that didn't was a delivery rider with an illegal e-bike.  Fairly common.  No shortage of electricity.  The elephant in the room.  Rather than just go on about it I wrote to Ellie asking government to make them all PAYE with bike and lights provided, and training.  She got back to me about improved workers' rights.

Nothing will change because of people venting on a community forum.  I had a go of influencing government.

Back to the subject, as I have said before, the starting point is to understand why riders are making poor decisions about illumination.  There will be many reasons (mine are leaving too late, forgetting the clocks change, out of charge/batter,  I carried cheap flashers in the past, but would find I'd left the battery on, or that they failed quite quickly).  Others can do the research.  Once you understand why, then you can look to ways to change behaviour.  Only a fool breaks the two second rule.   Whoops, that public information campaign has been air brushed out of history. Learn to swim young man, learn to swim.

 

 

 

[Sue]

What is the two second rule?

[malumbu]

Well I hope that you are not a driver.  Only a fool brakes the two second rule

One I can show: 

 

Also glow rides, this is about female walkers and cyclists' safety

 

Edited Sunday at 23:02 by malumbu

[Sue]

Well I am a driver, but I've never heard of a "two second rule"!

Possibly because I passed my test over half a century ago, before videos existed 🤣

But it's just common sense, surely?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I use the two second rule all the time on fast roads.

[Penguin68]

This is just a way of making clearer the stopping distance rules which have been in the Highway code for a long time. The 'two second rule' is just a CoI mnemonic. 

[malumbu]

The public information campaign was 50 years ago, with the clip being regularly  shown on the Beeb.

There was an earlier one about walking in the dark and wearing light clothing, carrying a rolled up newspaper and the like.

[Sue]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

The public information campaign was 50 years ago, with the clip being regularly  shown on the Beeb.

There was an earlier one about walking in the dark and wearing light clothing, carrying a rolled up newspaper and the like.

A rolled up newspaper?

In case you were attacked and needed to hit your attacker over the head? Good luck with that 🤣

I don't think 50 years ago I was watching the telly much.....  Can't remember if I even had one,  tbh 🤣

[exdulwicher]

8 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

This is just a way of making clearer the stopping distance rules which have been in the Highway code for a long time. The 'two second rule' is just a CoI mnemonic. 

Also applies to dropping food on the floor and picking it up again.

Or is that 5 seconds? 

[malumbu]

@exdulwicher  urban myth the five second rule.  I expect you knew

Sue does the "if you remember the 60s then you weren't around in the 60s" rule continue to the early 70s?

there are whole periods of time I can't remember much about telly as I would be going out many evenings, and if not recovering from a hangover.  Not proud but that is a different time and another thread.