teenagers no lights

If you're going to quote me, how about you actually quote what I said. I did not say there are more bikes without lights than cars without properly maintained lights. You took two separate sentences and melded them together to suit your narrative. What I said was

"There are plenty of motorists who fail to maintain or at times, turn on their lights." <= [See the full stop? That means end of statement/sentence.] I then went on to say....."There are however a greater number of cyclists without lights on their bike. I don't excuse motorists who don't use their lights properly, but who needs to be seen if it were one or the other?"

So, I pointed out that there are plenty of motorists who don't maintain or even turn on their lights. I have seen it often, as I assume you have too. I then pointed out that there are more cyclists without lights on their bike. The majority of cyclists on our roads do not have lights on their bikes. Anyone with eyes can see this to be true.

Are cyclists actually getting into accidents in the dark because of no lights though? For all the talk about it I don't think they are. It only seems to be pedestrians killed by motorists at night, another one last night in Tullamore.

Once again you throw out words as if I said them. I didn't say we should make anything the main focus. Whatever about priorities, I would hope that cyclists AND motorists do what they can do themselves to prevent serious injury or death on our roads. As a cyclist, this means being seen among other things relating to safety. As a motorist, lets face it, they can worry a bit less about their personal safety, as the car offers a reasonable level of protection, especially in a collision with a cyclist.

If you don't agree that using lights and reflective devices on bikes and on the cyclist in an effort to be seen by motorists falls within the realm of common sense, then I don't know what to say to you. I wouldn't be waiting for a published study before using lights, a vest and a helmet while cycling.

If we want teenagers to obey the law regarding bicycles, there needs to be a set of consequences for not following the law. I find it funny that you ridicule my comment for a lack of study or research....then you throw out a statement about teens mostly cycling around well lit urban environments. Where is the published study you gleamed this from?

I don't need to see teens from space, but it would be helpful and prudent of them if they used front and back lights at a minimum, because they're not always parked underneath these lamp posts, waiting for cars to pass by. Sometimes the best you can hope for is to see the light from their phone while they browse tik-tok and cycle carelessly across the road without looking.

I know where they are because of looking at the statistics of both cycling numbers and accidents. Similarly with the cause of accidents from that data aswell. It's been discussed and quoted for years on these forums

has there ever been a case recorded of a cyclist killed at night with no lights in Ireland?

If we're giving lessons in English,

however

/haʊˈɛvə/

adverbs

1. Used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.

So, the two sentences that I quoted are directly linked with the adverb above. The second sentence is set up in direct contrast to the first sentence

Perhaps you were unaware of the use of, or correct meaning of, the word "however".

Or perhaps you are still deflecting.

Very very very few, but people will jump up and down & continually deflect from bad driver behaviour.

Often used as an alternative word to emphasise Professor Cletus. As with many words, they have many meanings and uses. Full stops are pretty definite however. 😁

"What is the rule with however?

When you use however, furthermore, moreover or therefore as intensifiers or for emphasis, we usually put commas around both sides of them. We, however, do not agree with the verdict. You can, therefore, do whatever you like."

Source: writing-skills.com

which makes no sense at all as they're not harming anyone and they are a net benefit to society, keeping people fit etc., no congestion, fumes etc. etc.

i can never understand why they're so loathed.

But who is deflecting? No one is saying the main focus should be on cyclist or drivers, everyone has personal responsibility to be safe and seen at night time.

Just because cyclist are not dying or drivers are doing something wrong does not equate to cyclist breaking the law not being important.

The only deflection I see on this thread is cyclist giving out about motorist. Why can't people just accept that it is wrong to cycle without lights at night and that's OK to agree it's not right, no need to find a bigger wrong. We don't need to turn every thread into them vs. us, it's getting very tiring at this stage.

Some of us have looked at the stats and studies relating to cycling safety and know that even if you are lit up like Xmas tree. Someone who isn't looking isn't going to see you. Even if they do see you see their actions have far greater influence on safety than yours.

The issue with putting disproportionate emphasis on the least influential factor, is you take the attention away from the most influential factor.

Lights when cycling in the dark is an existing legal requirement.

When I'm talking about deflection, I'm specifically referring to an assertion made by ...Ghost...

When I questioned his assertion, he deflected in response, rather then directly answering the question.

Nobody else spoke about deflection, and definitely not in terms of the overall thread

I didn't talk about motorists either. I don't know what your point is anymore. Not sure you do either. Anyway, I can't see anything constructive coming for continued posts