The Chainlink

Last night I did a leisurely round trip between Rogers Park and Pilsen, to meet a friend for a beer and to put some miles on in the nice weather.  On the after-dark ride home (Halsted to Clybourne, Clybourne to Racine to Clark, Clark to Argyle, Argyle to Glenwood to Loyola) I saw ten or twelve cyclists riding without lights.  No front light, no back light, nothing.  About half of them were decked out in serious lycra-and-aerodynamic gear, the other half in more mundane fenders-and-chain-guard rides with racks and panniers.  All were dressed in dark colors and so, without lights, practically invisible.

So, my question: if you don't have lights on your bike, why not?  It seems so basic and common-sense, yet riders who obviously spend a lot of time and money on their bicycles don't have lights.  It just makes no sense to me.  Trying to figure it out.

Views: 1264

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That one's a mystery to me, too, especially since there are light options that are effective for visibility that are inexpensive, compact and add very little weight to the bike.

I know it is out of a lot of rider's budgets, but this is why I got an integrated lighting system and hub generators. I hated being out for the afternoon with plans to be home by dusk, then one thing leads to another and you're out after dark without lights.

I can see a one-time thing where someone stole your light and you don't have one.  This doesn't account for the fact that most riders out there do not have them.  More than half by any informal count I've taken.

Every bike shop in town has lights in stock every day for about $10 or less.  Those knog frog lights basically just slip right on with their own rubber-band retention system.    It takes literally 2 seconds to strap one or two of them on. 

How much is your life worth?

I think people just don't think or realize how invisible they are to car drivers.  They can see fine in the dark with the few street lights so why can't car drivers see them? 

Silly animals just don't get it. 

Lack of knowledge of the law maybe?

Without looking it up, do you know the requirements regarding bicycle lights?

Lack of knowledge of the laws of physics.  

They don't need cops to enforce them...

The odd thing is any bike coming from a bike store should have reflectors on them.  It seems like most of the bike ninjas tend to put in the time and effort to remove the reflectors but don't put in lights to replace them.  

The lycra/spandex crowd probably didn't want to mess up their awesome race bike with something as pedestrian as blinking lights. 

Front facing white light visible for 500 feet and a rear red reflector is what the law requires.

Personally I feel that the rear is as, if not more, important than the front because I think overtaking traffic is more of a danger to the cyclist because it is out of sight to the rider.

Legality aside lights can be a very hard sell even when you explain the law to people which boggles my mind.  I have seen people buy a hundred dollar plus helmet and then balk at spending twenty bucks on lights for their bike.  That fancy helmet does no good if your under the tires of a car who did not see you.

Which raises an interesting question; if you only had funds for a helmet or a set of lights but not both which would you purchase to keep yourself safe?

Duppie said:

Lack of knowledge of the law maybe?

Without looking it up, do you know the requirements regarding bicycle lights?

Lights are expensive.  After dark I see two types of people with no lights:

1. Students

2. Painters/Drywallers/other laborers

Both are usually on older bikes and a strict budget.  What's worrying is they're riding up Sheridan Road in the dark rather than using Winthrop and Kenmore.

The commuters and spandex types are lit up like Christmas trees.  And the spandex types still ride up Sheridan.  Sorry if I fixate on this but it's a real pet peeve for me both on the bike and in the car.

Expensive? There are plenty of decent front and rear LED light options available for less than $20.

bike lights are not expensive, perhaps some of the idiots that have the billion candle-watt lights that blind fellow riders may have expensive lights, they are cheap enough options for any budget.

This is my excuse, too. I've had more lights stolen than anything else, and I have 5; two small red leds on the back, two small white leds on the front, and a huge 120-lumen Fenix CREE that I always keep in my pocket. The quick release is nice when I take the lights off, but then I actually have to lock my bike and go around plucking these things off and sticking them all in a bag or a pocket, then when I come back, I have to pop them all back on, unlock and go. I'd love something I could more permanently attach to the frame, but without doing damage.

Clint H said:

I answer this not to excuse what I do, but to explain it. For me, it's simply a matter of forgetting. I have these quick-remove lights that I take with me when I lock my bike. I forgot to remove the front light once, and somebody stole it. This was toward the end of last winter, when I wasn't riding in the dark nearly as often, so I never remembered to replace it. Half the time, I leave the back light at home, so on those rare occasions when I need a light, I don't have it on me and have to ride as if I'm invisible. Now that it's getting dark earlier again, I need to take care of this.

In short, I don't have lights because I'm stupid.

Expensive?

$5/pair shipped is expensive?

The price of a couple of PBR's?   Your LBS has similar items for not much more sitting right out on the counter. 

You don't need a $50 super-bright USB-rechargeable eye-burning laser to BE SEEN.   All you need is a little flashing LED blinky.   This isn't rocket science. 

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service