teenagers no lights

They need to upgrade their free lights.

The ones given out in recent years have been an improvement, larger and brighter than before.

Why shouldn't the DCC get involved in distributing?

Who said it was the main cause? Not me. And let’s agree that common sense doesn’t require a published study. A cyclist with dark clothing and no lighting is far more likely to be hit by a passing car than one with lumens and reflectivity on their side (all other things being equal).

Because if it's not the main cause why make it the main focus. We should prioritize the stuff that will make the most difference.

It's not common sense. It's an assumption based on no study or research.

The question is how do you get teenagers to obey the law to have lights that they deliberately ignore. In the same way your ignoring the forum rules and mod instructions. How do we get either you or the teens to adhere to the rules.

Teens are mostly cycling around urban environments so well lit up with street lights they can be seen from space. You've mobile lights (cars) with some of the best lights we ever seen.

When asked for examples of this causing problems did someone give an example of someone hitting a light (lamp post)?

It's wrong because it's the wrong thing to focus on.

That's very true. If it was just young fellas, I'd understand. Lights can get stolen a fair bit, but basic lights can be carried in a coat pocket or aren't expensive or lock the bike in a better spot. Quite a lot of the food delivery bikes don't have lights. Cycling night ninjas.

They look better alright.

At this point though there's no telling people the issue isn't cyclists (mostly). It's just easier to give priory and segregation to cyclists with cycle lanes and removing car lanes. They are doing that even if the implementation are lackluster.

This is hilarious. "teenagers wearing black at night on their bikes with no lights, I see them all the time!"

As a taxi driver said to me about a e-scooter rider one night "look at him, you can't see him"

Good drivers with strong headlights and blind luck.

I was curious why things you'd think are dangerous don't seem to cause accidents. But when you think about it cars have powerful lights. Also in studies drivers give cyclists with no lights etc. more space than cyclists with lights etc. Which is counter intuitive until you think about it.

In urban and streetlight areas, cycling without lights probably doesn't add all that much to the general risks associated with cycling. It must add some risk though.

I've occasionally met commuting cyclists in the evening time on some pretty risk high speed national secondary roads. Including the two below

https://goo.gl/maps/oG8sJarbvWEkgVVx6

https://goo.gl/maps/X46pgjAayYXWXTuZ6

In the second one above the cyclist was on his way to Carr's hill at about 6pm on a Friday evening in winter. I was cycling the other way on my regular (at the time) weekend commute to west Waterford. I partially admired his ambivalence to my perception of risk😁

The n72 I linked would have circa 400 vehicles/hour at peak time, 6-7 per minute.

Not my idea of a safe or pleasant cycle with or without lights on a road without a hard shoulder.

The actual risk may in fact be higher on a lower traffic volume road as the outlier driver won't be inhibited by other vehicles and may in fact travel faster and not be warned by other drivers as typically happens when people flashing/indicating to warn.

If its a very quite (as in an empty road) its possible to cycle in the dark without that much risk. When I used to mtb at night in the forest I often turned off lights on slight downhill sections as deer tend to be super unpredictable when they see bright lights.