Chris516

The part about lights in this thread, reminded me of when I road 30mi., to Northern Virginia for a bike light giveaway, put on by the local BPAC(Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee) in that area. I saw a number of poorly lit(and poorly attired) cyclists, who didn't stop to get a free tail light. While there was still daylight, at the beginning. By the time the light giveaway ended, it was past sunset. Even some of the participants in the light giveaway, were poorly lit.

wsbob

Cycling education appears to be very seriously needed, but just try to get support for it in a form besides entirely voluntary participation. People riding that do not take serious, or even consider the existence of more than the most very basic hazards a person riding a bike on the road amongst motor vehicles are confronted by, are not uncommon. Amongst people that ride, even those that generally recognize the importance of and actually use the legally required front light and rear reflector, resentment expressed towards suggestions that there may be a need to have visibility gear beyond that bare minimum, is not uncommon.

People often do things that don't make sense, even where laws and regulations exist to try counter inclinations to some of the most nonsensical activities people would otherwise do on the road. People inclined to impulsively jump on their bike, resisting the idea of or not even thinking about whether they've prepared themselves to be seen by other people on the road, may be difficult to persuade to do otherwise.

vol

That's why 2+ years ago I posted on this forum and suggested that bikes be sold with integrated lights. I was being too strong to say there should be a law requiring it. It also doesn't have to be integrated. You are free to use your own lights in addition to or in place of them, but at least every new bike, and every poor cyclist, would automatically meet the requirement of having lights on the bike.

Maybe every new bike purchase should come with a headlight and a taillight for free?

Chris516

There is a problem with 'light integration'. While it takes away the ho-hum attitude some cyclists' have towards lighting, it transfers that same ho-hum attitude, to the bike companies. Potentially resulting in a cyclist relying on what amounts to being poorly lit. Instead of the cyclist taking responsibility for how well lit up they are.

TiBikeGuy

Cheap lights can be as little as $3. There is no excuse for not having lights.

Chris516

Especially not for settling for the cheap garbage lights, sold by lots of bike shops.

I-Like-To-Bike

I can see it now; the result of handing out anything less than search beams to the poor. The first few accidents, no matter what the cause or who is to blame, there will be the wailing and gnashing of teeth from bicycle lighting afficianodos about how the poor lambs were led to slaughter with unsuitable safety devices. These guys know that nothing less than mega lumens and glowing reflective capes are good enough for "safe" cycling.

mustang1

Im not saying this person wukd not get hit if he was using lights, but since lights have been brought up and that they should be free, may i continue and suggest not only should kights be free, but so should the batteries, the bikes themselves, and if possible, the oights should be able tobswitch on themselves too. and while we are at it, the bikes should be electric powered, ya know, just in case the rider not only cant swith on the lights, but also gets tired. Eityer that, ir free food. any other handouts?

did someone mention that nobone told the guy that usinbkigts was a good idea? Yup, just like putting on warm clothes when its cold, just in ase anyone doesnt get it.

yeah its notbgood he died, and the lights may not have saved him, and the rider should be riding in his own shoulder lane, so all sorts of questions. i just disagree with handing out free lights.

Chris516

I was illustrating both sides.

OTOH, cyclists' leaving their lighting up to the bike manufacturers who, in the interest of saving money on overhead, potentially installing sub-standard ineffective lighting. On the flipside, the individual cyclist not going the extra mile to make sure they catch a driver's eye i.e. attire, lighting, lane position, awareness of the traffic conditions.

vol

Were the misspellings deliberate (for what purpose?) or do you not know how to spell?

alhedges

It looks like he not only didn't have lights, but didn't have reflectors, which are required on (AFAIK) all bikes sold at retail.

gmt13

Yeah, I have seen over-the-top lighting schemes that, while visible, seem more of an attractive distraction (in the way that they could alter a motorists behavior) than safety to me. Those folks are on the fringe though. OTOH there is a real possibility that giving someone a cheap light causes them to overestimate their new visibility. This false sense of security puts them at real risk.

Every week I see at least one cyclist whose lights were probably a month past due for a battery change. They rarely welcome objective advice that their visibility is marginal - odd.

-G

Chris516

Texas state code says a cyclist needs reflectors on the rear of their bike, in lieu of lights.

https://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...51.htm#551.104

But the fact that the cyclist was not riding with the traffic, but against it. Makes that law a moot point in this case.

Chris516

Exactly, Don't rely on the bike companies(in the proposed idea earlier mentioned), or the bike shops to determine how much lighting a cyclist feels they need, to stand out in the traffic.
Yes, My thoughts, exactly. It is one of those 'unspoken words'.

dougmc

Ninjas, both the guys in black with shurikens and the cyclists, are human. Your point might be a little stronger if you were talking about the term "salmon" for those who ride against traffic, but I don't think the term "ninja" dehumanizes anybody. It's (very) mildly derogatory, yes, but so is "cyclist who was breaking the law by riding without lights".

I certainly don't think "ninja" is somehow less "humanizing" than "cyclist without lights at night", "cyclist", "victim", or "deceased". More humanizing would be to say "Joshua Ortega, age 16", yes, but we didn't know his age or name at first.

Burton

So I'm trying to make an educated guess about how this happened. As per the reports, the car driver is driving in a dimly lit 50mph zone do its a good bet she had her high beams on. The cyclist is driving against traffic and ends up looking directly onto unshielded headlights and the glare means he can't even see the road in front of him and drifts into the path of the oncoming car. 60mph is 88ft/sec so the woman has a window of less than 3 seconds to pick out an unlit cyclist in dark clothing in her path. Doubt I could do that myself or stop in time even if I did.

Doohickie

Then again, maybe there was crap in the breakdown lane and he was riding the fog line.

jyl

I watched a TV report on this accident. That road is pitch black, no street lights, no business lights. An unlit cyclist in dark clothing would be all but invisible. The report said the location of the body and car show the cyclist was in the "main traffic lane". From the video, he looks to have been in the middle of the roadway, not on either shoulder. I didn't see anything about whether he was riding with or against traffic.

Anyway, looks like a Darwin moment. I guess that is heartless, but hard to be surprised that this guy putting himself in this location got himself killed.

agent pombero

1500 lm minimum IMO for safety. 700 flashing and 700 steady.

dougmc

Well, yes, if a car coming up also had no lights.

A driver in a car with functional lights should have no trouble seeing a cyclist on the road in the middle of the lane if the cyclist is also going down the road, either towards or away from the car.

That said, where things get sketchy is if the cyclist is riding in the shoulder, or the fog lane, or especially if they're riding perpendicular to the road as they cross it. (So they ride into the headlight beams right in front of the car, giving the driver no time to react.)

Car lights put out a lot of light, so a driver should have no problems seeing a cyclist in the middle of the road, just like they have no problems seeing a deer in the middle of the road (though a cyclist+bicycle is a lot bigger and has more shiny bits than a deer, so is easier to see, even if the cyclist is dressed in all black on a black bicycle.) The problem happens when the deer does what deer do -- jump out from the mostly unlit bushes into the middle of the road with little warning.

As for the problems with the cyclist, there should not be any if the cyclist is simply going down the road and is encountered by an alert driver. But if the driver isn't paying attention, comes around a blind corner too quickly, or the cyclist suddenly jumps out in the road, trouble happens.

I'm not saying that cyclists don't need lights. But the argument that "they're invisible without them" is utter bunk -- if they're riding down the road like a car would, they're very visible. It's only if they're off the road that they become difficult to see. especially without lights.

Of course, "I didn't see him!" seems quite convincing to juries even when the cyclist is legally lit and riding predictably exactly where they belong. But if he doesn't have any lights (even if he does have reflectors, though in this case he apparently didn't)? No problem, even cyclists believe that it would seem.

I'm not saying that we should be prosecuting everybody who kills an unlit cyclist at night. But we shouldn't be quite so ready to absolve them of all blame and heap it all on the cyclist.

CB HI

Still, there are only two real excuses for the motorist hitting the cyclist:
1. the cyclist was riding salmon very fast, or
2. the cyclist was crossing the road without first looking

Otherwise there is never a good reason for a motorist to overdrive their lights and hit even a non-moving object in the road.

Last night, driving home from the movies on a moonless night and no street lights, I was still able to see a pedestrian wearing a black poncho in plenty of time to change lanes before being 100 yards away from her, and avoid all risk of hitting her. The slightest intoxication or distraction would likely have ended in a far different result.

Burton

Sorry - but thats a lot like saying that no matter when a motorist pulls a left hook in front of you - there's absolutely no reason a cyclist can't stop in time.

Don in Austin

How would he see debris in the road?

Don in Austin

Doohickie

Maybe he couldn't but got tired of running stuff over, so moved into the traffic lane.

CB HI

Not even close to saying they are the same thing.