Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on June 30, 2020, 06:38:53 PM
-
Good idea?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53219331?fbclid=IwAR3cLecGsdDUoIJ2V6WjLGCKByoaB-3I8qy8bkgrjRkA9qp7fdCFiprpk7M
-
Bloody ridiculous. I sopped playing with scooters when I was about seven. Some people need to grow up. I saw a 30+ bloke jumping the gun, riding one on the road, yesterday. Twat.
-
Good idea?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53219331?fbclid=IwAR3cLecGsdDUoIJ2V6WjLGCKByoaB-3I8qy8bkgrjRkA9qp7fdCFiprpk7M
Better than allowing them to race along the pavements with absolutely no regard for the pedestrians also using them.
Over the past four or five months, there have been at least five accidents involving these near-lethal lazy bugger transportation devices on the stretch of pavement outside the shops across from Hounslow West Station.
-
A ridiculous idea, I think they will cause accidents.
-
A ridiculous idea, I think they will cause accidents.
Even LR is right occasionally.
-
A ridiculous idea, I think they will cause accidents.
In what way?
-
In what way?
Too slow, not visible enough, no lights.
-
Too slow, not visible enough, no lights.
Agreed
-
In what way?
Mis-judging the distance between two pedestrians and so sitting both on their arses on the pavement then rapidly disappearing in the distance without a backward glance.
Knocking over children who are walking with their backs to ten approaching scooter.
-
Mis-judging the distance between two pedestrians and so sitting both on their arses on the pavement then rapidly disappearing in the distance without a backward glance.
Knocking over children who are walking with their backs to ten approaching scooter.
So cars are a bad idea? Because you can do both of those in them.
-
So cars are a bad idea? Because you can do both of those in them.
We can always rely on NS for a daft analogy. Cars don't normally drive on the pavement.
Anyway, yes - cars are a bad idea.
-
We can always rely on NS for a daft analogy. Cars don't normally drive on the pavement.
I would have gone with pushbike myself, I think it's a better analogy.
Too slow - about comparable with a pushbike
Not visible enough - about comparable with a pushbike
No lights - most pushbikes don't come with lights.
Seems like a perfectly serviceable solution to the sort of traffic problems that plague inner city areas at the moment. Smaller, lighter, quieter transport which makes a more efficient use of fossil fuels... There are already rules for the use of small personal transport vehicles which could apply with only minor amendments.
O.
-
T
We can always rely on NS for a daft analogy. Cars don't normally drive on the pavement.
Anyway, yes - cars are a bad idea.
I take it you have somehow missed the title of the thread. It's about them being driven on the road.
So please explain the problem with the analogy?
-
T
I take it you have somehow missed the title of the thread. It's about them being driven on the road.
So please explain the problem with the analogy?
Certainly, dear boy, since you ask so politely. Owlswing was obviously talking about their use on pavements.
-
Certainly, dear boy, since you ask so politely. Owlswing was obviously talking about their use on pavements.
Which given the question is whether they are a good idea on roads is then irrelevant.
-
Which given the question is whether they are a good idea on roads is then irrelevant.
Your argument is with Owly, not me.
-
Your argument is with Owly, not me.
No, you said the analogy was bad when I was taking the question in the context of the thread. It wasn't so that part of the argument is with you.
-
Wodevva. ::)
-
Which given the question is whether they are a good idea on roads is then irrelevant.
Yes, I thought it was about e-scooters(rented ones) being driven on certain roads/cycle paths, not on the pavements. My take on it is that it is quite reasonable to do so, just as bicycles are allowed on certain roads also, but not on pavements. As I understand it, they won't be allowed to be driven on pavements anyway so I don't see the point of the argument.
-
bicycles are allowed on certain roads also, but not on pavements.
Bicycles are allowed on all roads except Motorways, and also on bridleways, off-road cycle paths, and canal towpaths (strictly speaking, you need a free licence to use towpaths, but no-one bothers). They are also allowed on cycle paths on pavements, and on shared-use pavements, but I never ride on pavements because bikes and pedestrians don't mix, and encouraging cyclists to use pavements is just surrendering to the infernal congestion engine.
-
Agreed
Just like bicycles?
-
So cars are a bad idea? Because you can do both of those in them.
Please see #2
I said that having them on the road was better than having them on the pavement! As they are at present!
-
Please see #2
I said that having them on the road was better than having them on the pavement! As they are at present!
Seb Toe asked why were they a bad idea in the context of the thread being allowed on roads, your arguments were irrelevant.
And they aren't legal on pavements.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53253194
The RNIB is very concerned about how these e-scooters could endanger blind and partially sight people.
-
Bicycles are allowed on all roads except Motorways, and also on bridleways, off-road cycle paths, and canal towpaths (strictly speaking, you need a free licence to use towpaths, but no-one bothers). They are also allowed on cycle paths on pavements, and on shared-use pavements, but I never ride on pavements because bikes and pedestrians don't mix, and encouraging cyclists to use pavements is just surrendering to the infernal congestion engine.
That's exactly why I said 'certain' roads, or else some bright spark would have probably tried to remind me that they aren't allowed on motorways. :)
I would far rather ride on shared-use pavements because it is far less dangerous for me than riding on the accompanying road. I am always careful to avoid pedestrians of course. Indeed, I rode on one(the pavement not the pedestrian :D) today.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53253194
The RNIB is very concerned about how these e-scooters could endanger blind and partially sight people.
I'm struggling as to why they are more difficult than electric or hybrid cars if the lack of noise is an issue.
-
It would be interesting to have the views of Susan Doris and Anchorman on the topic as the both have impaired vision.
-
It would be interesting to have the views of Susan Doris and Anchorman on the topic as the both have impaired vision.
Agree, though given they have not been legal up to now, it may be difficult for any real knowledge about the e-scooters to be had.
-
Agree, though given they have not been legal up to now, it may be difficult for any real knowledge about the e-scooters to be had.
What I don't understand is why it is ok to rent one, but not own one. :-\
-
Seb Toe asked why were they a bad idea in the context of the thread being allowed on roads, your arguments were irrelevant.
And they aren't legal on pavements.
I am already well aware of just how much you enjoy pointing out my failings and deficiencies in matters of argument and discussion but if you would care to read my full #2 you will see why your comment was unnecessary.
#2
Better (on the roads) than allowing them to race along the pavements with absolutely no regard for the pedestrians also using them.
Over the past four or five months, there have been at least five accidents involving these near-lethal lazy bugger transportation devices on the stretch of pavement outside the shops across from Hounslow West Station.
-
What I don't understand is why it is ok to rent one, but not own one. :-\
No, I am not really getting that either since presumably it means if I own one I can't use it, but can rent it put. But I can use one that I rent from someone else.
I suspect that it's an insurance question that there are available insurance products for individual owners but there are for corporate owners.
-
I am already well aware of just how much you enjoy pointing out my failings and deficiencies in matters of argument and discussion but if you would care to read my full #2 you will see why your comment was unnecessary.
#2
Which given they are not legal on pavements, and Seb Toe was talking about them in the context of use on road remains entirely irrelevant.
The idea that I have any enjoyment in pointing put your errors is just you making stuff up.
-
Which given they are not legal on pavements, and Seb Toe was talking about them in the context of use on road remains entirely irrelevant.
[/quote}
I would have thought that the word "Better" at the beginning of my post would indicate that I was well aware that the OP referred to permitting them on the roads and does not change the fact that although they are not legal on pavements it does nor change the fact that they ARE used on pavement apparently with impunity!
The idea that I have any enjoyment in pointing put your errors is just you making stuff up.
My being on the receiving end does not feel as if you are not speaking like a schoolmaster pointing out a basic error that even a moron would not make.
Maybe it is just because I am all too well aware of my being way below the intellectual standards of most posters on this Forum. Maybe it is because I left school at 15 to join the Army (the now disbanded Junior Leaders Regiment - Royal Armoured Corps before I get called a liar (not by you, but someone would have done) for saying I joined at that age - you can't do it any more) and is, therefore, all my own fault.
Hey ho!
-
Bloody ridiculous. I sopped playing with scooters when I was about seven. Some people need to grow up. I saw a 30+ bloke jumping the gun, riding one on the road, yesterday. Twat.
Electric scooters aren't toys, they are means of transport.
-
Too slow, not visible enough, no lights.
They are allowed up to 15mph which is about as fast as most people go on a bicycle. They are probably more visible than a bike because you stand upright on one. There's no reason why thy can't have lights any more than there's no reason why a bike can't have lights.
-
Mis-judging the distance between two pedestrians and so sitting both on their arses on the pavement then rapidly disappearing in the distance without a backward glance.
Knocking over children who are walking with their backs to ten approaching scooter.
So you're against bicycles too?
-
My being on the receiving end does not feel as if you are not speaking like a schoolmaster pointing out a basic error that even a moron would not make.
Maybe it is just because I am all too well aware of my being way below the intellectual standards of most posters on this Forum. Maybe it is because I left school at 15 to join the Army (the now disbanded Junior Leaders Regiment - Royal Armoured Corps before I get called a liar (not by you, but someone would have done) for saying I joined at that age - you can't do it any more) and is, therefore, all my own fault.
Hey ho!
I treat you in the same way I treat anyone on this board.
-
They are allowed up to 15mph which is about as fast as most people go on a bicycle. They are probably more visible than a bike because you stand upright on one. There's no reason why thy can't have lights any more than there's no reason why a bike can't have lights.
And you need to have passed a driving test to use one unlike a bike.
-
I'm struggling as to why they are more difficult than electric or hybrid cars if the lack of noise is an issue.
Or bicycles which are also pretty quiet unless the rider is having a heart attack through over-exertion.
-
And you need to have passed a driving test to use one unlike a bike.
The news item I saw said you need to have a provisional licence.
-
The news item I saw said you need to have a provisional licence.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
-
Or bicycles which are also pretty quiet unless the rider is having heart attack through over-exertion.
I may be very sad but that made me laugh.
-
So you're against bicycles too?
On pavements? Damn right I am, especially after dark! No lights, no bell, dressed entirely in black and usually on a mobile phone as well!
-
That's exactly why I said 'certain' roads, or else some bright spark would have probably tried to remind me that they aren't allowed on motorways. :)
I would far rather ride on shared-use pavements because it is far less dangerous for me than riding on the accompanying road. I am always careful to avoid pedestrians of course. Indeed, I rode on one(the pavement not the pedestrian :D) today.
Another, more selfish, reason for not riding on pavements is that you don't have right of way at side roads, unlike the road.
-
Another, more selfish, reason for not riding on pavements is that you don't have right of way at side roads, unlike the road.
Whenever I get to any road, I always stop on the bicycle and only cross when it is safe to do so. On any stretch of share-use pavement as long as my view is unrestricted there is no problem. I am much more at risk on a busy road, especially when there are parked cars to negotiate. So, I'll continue to use the pavements wherever and whenever legally allowable because I find them safer.
-
The law should require everyone riding an e-scooter or bicycle, to wear helmets, high-viz jackets and have appropriate lights fitted. A test should also be required before you can go out on the public highway on them.
-
The law should require everyone riding an e-scooter or bicycle, to wear helmets, high-viz jackets and have appropriate lights fitted. A test should also be required before you can go out on the public highway on them.
No, no, no, and no. Helmets are pretty much useless, and in any case cyclist head injuries are rare, high-viz jackets may be a good idea, ut there's not much of an evidential case for making them compulsory, Lights are required at night, but there's no reason to make the fitting of them compulsory if the bike is not used at night, and there's no evidence that tests would improve anything. You'll be telling us next that cyclists should pay road tax.
-
Helmets are NOT useless, they are better than wearing no head protection at all. All children have to wear them when training for their cycle proficiency test. As for high-viz jackets, it is crazy if a cyclist can't be seen at night or in bad visibility, they should also be mandatory.
-
Helmets are NOT useless, they are better than wearing no head protection at all. All children have to wear them when training for their cycle proficiency test. As for high-viz jackets, it is crazy if a cyclist can't be seen at night or in bad visibility, they should also be mandatory.
I'm sure that, like all intelligent people, you believe in evidence-based legislation, so how about providing some statistical evidence to back up your assertions?
-
No, no, no, and no. Helmets are pretty much useless, and in any case, cyclist head injuries are rare, high-viz jackets may be a good idea, but there's not much of an evidential case for making them compulsory, Lights are required at night, but there's no reason to make the fitting of them compulsory if the bike is not used at night, and there's no evidence that tests would improve anything. You'll be telling us next that cyclists should pay road tax.
This is a wind-up, right?
-
This is a wind-up, right?
No, it's a reply to Little "I don't like it so it should be banned" Roses.
-
I'm sure that, like all intelligent people, you believe in evidence-based legislation, so how about providing some statistical evidence to back up your assertions?
Maybe you should provide some statistical evidence to the contrary?
-
Maybe you should provide some statistical evidence to the contrary?
If I'm not mistaken he has in the past. I can't remember how valid it was though. At the time I remember thinking it was one of those counter intuitive situations that crop up in life.
-
Not long ago I nearly had a collision with a cyclist who was wearing dark clothing and no helmet or decent cycle light. The headlights of cars concealed him, I was not the only driver to blast my horn at the idiot.
-
Maybe you should provide some statistical evidence to the contrary?
https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/
http://www.psi.org.uk/pdf/2013/Cycle%20Helmets.pdf
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence
On the other side, to prove I'm not cherry-picking: http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/Risk%20Compensation%20and%20the%20cycle%20helmet%20debate.pdf
-
Not long ago I nearly had a collision with a cyclist who was wearing dark clothing and no helmet or decent cycle light. The headlights of cars concealed him, I was not the only driver to blast my horn at the idiot.
Lights at night are rightly obligatory. I would go along with recommending hi-viz jackets at night, but not compulsion. His lack of a helmet is irrelevant. Finally, this is anecdotal evidence, which proves nothing.
-
https://mayerhillman.com/1992/06/01/the-cycle-helmet-friend-or-foe/
http://www.psi.org.uk/pdf/2013/Cycle%20Helmets.pdf
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence
On the other side, to prove I'm not cherry-picking: http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/Risk%20Compensation%20and%20the%20cycle%20helmet%20debate.pdf
Two of your examples seem to have the same intro almost word for word and the third is by a group which states it is anti before any other comment.
On the point of results, I remember a comment by my tutor in College Economics class - there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Truly I find that statistics can be manipulated to say exactly what the author, or a supporter, wants them to say.
However, I would have to suggest, regardless of the studies you quote, that being hit on the head with a motor vehicle without a helmet is unlikely to be serious-injury-free.
-
I would have to suggest, regardless of the studies you quote, that being hit on the head with a motor vehicle without a helmet is unlikely to be serious-injury-free.
It's also extremely rare. It would only happen in a head-on collision, with the cyclist going over the handlebars. In most collisions between a car a a cyclist, both are able to take some avoiding action, and the result is a side-swipe, with the cyclist falling off sideways, and suffering injuries to the arm and leg. As I said earlier, anecdotes are no use as evidence, but nevertheless, here's mine: I've been cycling for about 60 years, and put in a fairly high annual mileage, but I have never suffered a head injury, even a minor one, while cycling on roads, not even in my one serious accident, in 2014. Head injuries are very rare in road cycling (off-road mountain-biking is another matter.)
-
Head injuries when people are not wearing helmets are not rare at all. Even if they were, surely it is better to be safe rather than sorry, I cannot work out Steve's objection to helmets.
-
Head injuries when people are not wearing helmets are not rare at all. Even if they were, surely it is better to be safe rather than sorry, I cannot work out Steve's objection to helmets.
The 'science' tends to work like this:
There is evidence that a helmet can reduce the level of injury arising from a relatively low-impact blow to the head, such as falling from bike onto the floor. Depending on the specifics of the helmet design and the impact angle, however, there is a small chance of an increase in the level of injury, which increases further if the impact is not on a flat surface (such as the road) but on something angled (such as the lip of a car bonnet, or the edge of a kerb). Overall, though, a helmet appears to be generally of benefit as protection in the event that a low-level impact occurs.
For higher strength impacts there is very little evidence that wearing a helmet makes any overall difference to injury severity or rates.
There is evidence to show that other road users give less space to cyclists wearing helmets, and cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take more risks as a result of the sense of protection they derive from having the helmet, and so the likelihood of a low-impact injury is increased.
Different individual research examples put slightly different rates for all of these findings, and as such the extent of the error bars on any judgement is such that there's no clear evidence of which is more or less safe.
For children, where drivers are more likely to give adequate space and the mass of the rider makes a lower impact collision more likely, it's a little clearer that wearing a helmet is overall of benefit, but it's far from crystal clear even in those instances.
O.
-
There is no accounting for stupidity.
If you are less careful because you have a helmet it is not the helmet's fault if you suffer a fractured skull!
-
Owlswing:- -that being hit on the head with a motor vehicle without a helmet is unlikely to be serious-injury-free.
I never knew motor vehicles wore helmets!
-
Fully aware that the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence, nonetheless here’s an anecdote for what it’s worth. About five years ago our three regular cycling buddies were sometimes wearing helmets and sometime not. On this occasion we were, and one of us was slightly behind when he must have clipped the wheel in front and shot over his handlebars, landing squarely on his head. He was dazed for a while, but ok after a bit. The point though was that his helmet saved him – it had dispersed the energy around his head rather than allowed the road a single point of contact, and in the process it had split virtually its whole length. We’re convinced that, but for his helmet, Mike would have had a cracked skull or worse.
Make of that what you will, but all three of us have routinely worn helmets ever since.
As for e-scooters, I thought one of the arguments for accelerated legislation to legalise them was that it would lessen the burden on public transport, which seems like a good idea to me.
-
Owlswing:- -that being hit on the head with a motor vehicle without a helmet is unlikely to be serious-injury-free.
I never knew motor vehicles wore helmets!
Ho Ho Ho - you should be on the stage - there's one leaving in twenty minutes!
-
As for e-scooters, I thought one of the arguments for accelerated legislation to legalise them was that it would lessen the burden on public transport, which seems like a good idea to me.
As long as they are restricted to the roads or cycle lanes - on an open pavement's with pedestrians they are bloody lethal. No consideration for anyone else, they are me first and fuck the rest of you if you can't get out of my way - tough! At least that is my experience in Hounslow.
-
On pavements? Damn right I am, especially after dark! No lights, no bell, dressed entirely in black and usually on a mobile phone as well!
You are ranting against something that isn’t at issue. The new rules will not make it legal to ride an eScooter or even a bicycle on the pavement.
-
Ho Ho Ho - you should be on the stage - there's one leaving in twenty minutes!
Drat, I missed it ;).
-
You are ranting against something that isn’t at issue. The new rules will not make it legal to ride an eScooter or even a bicycle on the pavement.
I suppose a concern is (for me at least) that it doesn't stop some cyclists riding on pavements without any repercussions as far as I can see. (And before Steve gets all defensive I know it's a minority but it does happen)
So why would escooters be any different?
I appreciate that is a matter of enforcement but for a lot of people particularly the elderly and blind it is very a real consideration.
-
I suppose a concern is (for me at least) that it doesn't stop some cyclists riding on pavements without any repercussions as far as I can see. (And before Steve gets all defensive I know it's a minority but it does happen)
So why would escooters be any different?
I appreciate that is a matter of enforcement but for a lot of people particularly the elderly and blind it is very a real consideration.
And the young - even holding Mum or Dad's they can still take a clip from a scooter rider.
-
I suppose a concern is (for me at least) that it doesn't stop some cyclists riding on pavements without any repercussions as far as I can see. (And before Steve gets all defensive I know it's a minority but it does happen)
So why would escooters be any different?
I appreciate that is a matter of enforcement but for a lot of people particularly the elderly and blind it is very a real consideration.
We are back at that argument applying to cars.
-
And the young - even holding Mum or Dad's they can still take a clip from a scooter rider.
Or a car being illegally run on the pavement.
-
We are back at that argument applying to cars.
Not really.
Cars don't regularly use the pavement outside our property (for regularly you can insert "never in my experience" if you so wish).
Bicycles do.
What I am trying to convey is that cars very rarely use pavements intentionally. Bicycles do all the time. But maybe that's just Nottingham and Worthing but I doubt it.
-
Not really.
Cars don't regularly use the pavement outside our property (for regularly you can insert "never in my experience" if you so wish).
Bicycles do.
What I am trying to convey is that cars very rarely use pavements intentionally. Bicycles do all the time. But maybe that's just Nottingham and Worthing but I doubt it.
But no eScooter is allowed to do so. So by allowing them on the road and saying why would they be any different grom bikes, then why would they be any different from cars?
-
Head injuries when people are not wearing helmets are not rare at all. Even if they were, surely it is better to be safe rather than sorry, I cannot work out Steve's objection to helmets.
I don't object to helmets: if people want to wear them, I've got no objection. I object to their being made compulsory.
I take it you have some reliable statistics to back up your assertion that cycling head injuries are not rare. Please share them with us.
-
Not really.
Cars don't regularly use the pavement outside our property (for regularly you can insert "never in my experience" if you so wish).
Bicycles do.
What I am trying to convey is that cars very rarely use pavements intentionally. Bicycles do all the time. But maybe that's just Nottingham and Worthing but I doubt it.
Hayes, Hounslow, Uxbridge, Middlesex, Ealing in West London, Slough, Bath, to name just a few places where it is a common occurrence to see bikes at speed on the pavements- it might be easier, in the long run, to try and name a place where cyclists do not use the pavements!
-
But no eScooter is allowed to do so. So by allowing them on the road and saying why would they be any different grom bikes, then why would they be any different from cars?
Bikes are not allowed on ordinary pavements - it does not stop their riders doing so, up until a few days ago these eScooters were entirely illegal, but they were used openly and apparently without any action being taken against them.
The legalisation seems to be cop-out in order to remove any complaints that the riders were not being prosecuted for using them!
I really cannot see what your beef is - unless, of course, you use one of the damn things!
-
But no eScooter is allowed to do so. So by allowing them on the road and saying why would they be any different grom bikes, then why would they be any different from cars?
Because the intent of some bicycle riders is clearly different from the intent of the majority of car drivers.
As I said earlier it is a matter of enforcement, which currently is not a high priority for the authorities involved.
You can say no eScooter is allowed to do so as much as you like. But they are much more likely to use pavements than cars and could be more of a threat to pedestrians. Now I don't know whether they would be or not but I think it more likely given the ability of the UK population to disregard laws that they see as not applicable to them and the relative ease of getting an escooter onto a pavement as opposed to say a Ford Focus.
-
I don't object to helmets: if people want to wear them, I've got no objection. I object to their being made compulsory.
I take it you have some reliable statistics to back up your assertion that cycling head injuries are not rare. Please share them with us.
https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/
This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself? Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.
-
https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/
This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself? Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.
If you fall off your bike and bash your head, but how often does that happen? There is also the (admittedly questioned) phenomenon of risk compensation, whereby people who think they are safer because of some specific measure, sch as a helmet, take more risks, and thus have more accidents.
-
https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/
This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself? Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.
For the record I'm a regular cyclist and always wear a helmet.
However it is much more complicated that than.
Not only is there the phenomenon of risk compensation on the part of the cyclist - potentially cycling in a more risky manner because they are wearing a helmet. There is also research indicating that drivers act in a more dangerous manner (e.g. passing much closer when overtaking) when a cyclist is wearing a helmet compared to a cyclist without a helmet.
I'm not sure how these behaviours and risks balance out but it is simplistic to simply suggest that wearing a helmet must confer greater safety - it may reduce the risk of head injury in an accident, but may also actually increase the risk of an accident in the first place through more risk behaviour by the cyclist (well you might argue that their own stupid fault) but critically by other road users, whose behaviour a cyclist cannot do anything about.
-
For the record I'm a regular cyclist and always wear a helmet.
However it is much more complicated that than.
Not only is there the phenomenon of risk compensation on the part of the cyclist - potentially cycling in a more risky manner because they are wearing a helmet. There is also research indicating that drivers act in a more dangerous manner (e.g. passing much closer when overtaking) when a cyclist is wearing a helmet compared to a cyclist without a helmet.
I'm not sure how these behaviours and risks balance out but it is simplistic to simply suggest that wearing a helmet must confer greater safety - it may reduce the risk of head injury in an accident, but may also actually increase the risk of an accident in the first place through more risk behaviour by the cyclist (well you might argue that their own stupid fault) but critically by other road users, whose behaviour a cyclist cannot do anything about.
I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.
-
I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.
I am of the opinion that most of your opinions, ignoring as they do facts, figures and probabilities, are worthless.
-
As in much ado about nothing perhaps?
-
Lr & Steve I know you two love each other.
In the absence of hotel rooms currently, may I suggest you find a bush in a park and go behind that to conduct your relationship.
-
Dogberry would find a vacant lot at night time in Messina. He's generally a self satisfied character though.
-
;D ;D ;D
-
Few people would make a decision on whether to wear a helmet or not based on a careful review of the available studies and statistics. Some men just won't wear helmets, masks or ... condoms if they can possibly avoid it!
I wear a cycling helmet when cycling as, after I eventually get killed, the wife and offspring won't then have to put up with endless "why wasn't he wearing a helmet" comments :)
- On the scooter thing: People ride bikes illegally on footpaths (ie. non shared) because they think it is safer than riding on the road (though it is not), and no-one is enforcing the law. The same will go for scooters. Car drivers know they will be traced and fined/get points. Anyway, it would be too much work to keep getting on and off footpaths and avoid lamposts, bins, etc without scratching your expensive status symbol.
PS. in fact there are plenty of shared footpaths and cycling lanes in place that are more dangerous for cyclists than riding properly on the road.
-
Udayana,
As regards your last sentence above, I am sure they exist but I would just say that I haven't come across them, and I cycle every day. Perhaps it's just that in my area they have been carefully designated with safety in mind. All the close shaves that I've had have been on cycling on roads, with, for instance, vehicles either coming too close to me, not seeing me (in broad daylight)or turning across me giving me little time to brake. Incidentally I make sure my brakes are always in tip top condition.
-
I have heard that argument before and I am of the opinion that people who think like that are crazy.
I doesn't matter whether they are crazy and I don't think this is conscious action, more a subconscious behaviour that if a cyclist is wearing a helmet they are somehow less vulnerable and can be passed much closer than if not.
Regardless of whether they are crazy or not, if cars tend to pass more closely cyclist wearing a helmet it increases the likelihood of an accident being caused by that driver.
-
I doesn't matter whether they are crazy and I don't think this is conscious action, more a subconscious behaviour that if a cyclist is wearing a helmet they are somehow less vulnerable and can be passed much closer than if not.
Regardless of whether they are crazy or not, if cars tend to pass more closely cyclist wearing a helmet it increases the likelihood of an accident being caused by that driver.
I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.
-
I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.
If it was a subconscious reaction, how do you know?
-
I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.
Firstly, you may do so without realising it, and secondly, you are generalising from a single instance.
-
I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.
You might not (although if it is unconscious behaviour the only way you would know if by someone measuring how close you pass) but research suggests that in general drivers pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing helmets.
-
You might not (although if it is unconscious behaviour the only way you would know if by someone measuring how close you pass) but research suggests that in general drivers pass cyclists wearing helmets more closely than those not wearing helmets.
What research?
-
I suppose a concern is (for me at least) that it doesn't stop some cyclists riding on pavements without any repercussions as far as I can see.
But that's not relevant to a law making eScooters legal.
So why would escooters be any different?
I appreciate that is a matter of enforcement
Bingo!
-
And the young - even holding Mum or Dad's they can still take a clip from a scooter rider.
Or a cyclist or a car driver or a skateboarder or somebody just out for a run.
-
Bikes are not allowed on ordinary pavements - it does not stop their riders doing so, up until a few days ago these eScooters were entirely illegal, but they were used openly and apparently without any action being taken against them.
OK, so nothing has changed according to your argument. Quit whining.
The legalisation seems to be cop-out in order to remove any complaints that the riders were not being prosecuted for using them!
eScooters represent a clean convenient form of urban transport. Why would you ban them?
I really cannot see what your beef is - unless, of course, you use one of the damn things!
Would you ban the use of bicycles too?
-
https://www.consumerreports.org/head-injuries/most-cyclists-who-suffer-head-injuries-arent-wearing-helmets/
This is just one of many articles I have found on the Net which suggest you are more likely to have a head injury if you don't wear a helmet. Surely at this time of crisis an the NHS is overstretched, it is sensible to wear one to protect yourself? Besides which, logic suggests that if you fall off your bike and bash your head you are more likely to sustain a worse injury to it if you are not wearing head protection.
You have to be really careful with studies like that because the sample is biased. It's only looking at people who had a serious enough head injury to be admitted to hospital and not at people whose head injuries were so serious they didn't make it to hospital. It's also not looking at other injuries.
So let's say you look at 100 hospital admissions and you see 22 cases where the cyclist was wearing a helmet and 78 cases where the cyclist was not. You also note that 29% of all cyclists wear helmets, which is a higher proportion than the number admitted to hospital, so you conclude that wearing a cycle helmet is safer than not.
What if you then go to the mortuary and find another 50 helmet wearing riders whose necks had been instantly snapped in the accident because they had been wearing a helmet. Then you go to the other hospital ward and discover another 50 helmet wearing cyclists with broken backs because they had taken a risk that led to an accident, but they wouldn't have taken that risk in the first place if they hadn't been wearing a helmet.
It's called survivorship bias, and it works both ways. There's a famous example from WW1: after the British introduced steel helmets for the soldiers in the trenches, the field hospitals saw an increase in head injuries. This seems counter intuitive, but the reason is simple: the extra head injuries were from soldiers who would have been dead had they not been wearing a helmet.
You need a lot more information than was presented in your study before you can start drawing conclusions about the efficacy of helmets.
-
I wouldn't pass more closely to a cyclist wearing a helmet, than one not wearing one.
If you were the only driver on the road, that would mean something. However, you are not, and it has, apparently, been found that people, as a rule, give more room to casual cyclists and ones that look like they don't know what they are doing than for cyclists who are dressed properly and with a helmet and who look like they are experienced.
-
What research?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm
-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm
Interesting to see a man put his life on the line in the cause of science
Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.
-
...
As regards your last sentence above, I am sure they exist but I would just say that I haven't come across them, and I cycle every day. Perhaps it's just that in my area they have been carefully designated with safety in mind. All the close shaves that I've had have been on cycling on roads, with, for instance, vehicles either coming too close to me, not seeing me (in broad daylight)or turning across me giving me little time to brake. Incidentally I make sure my brakes are always in tip top condition.
It depends on the consideration given at the design stage and maintenance of the paths, so inevitably varies by district. I'd agree that mostly they are as safe or safer than normal roads.
With both shared pathways and lanes you need to especially careful at side road junctions: on shared paths you must stop or give way, in a lane you have right of way but motorists often don't consider that and pull out or turn in front of you. Motorists turning into or reversing out of driveways is also a problem - they don't seem to expect cyclists at all - though this happens on roads too.
My particular bugbears are: lanes poorly maintained - so full of rubbish or with untrimmed hedges/trees blocking the view or path and lanes/paths that stop leaving you on the wrong side of the road with no sensible way of getting back to the left side.
-
If you were the only driver on the road, that would mean something. However, you are not, and it has, apparently, been found that people, as a rule, give more room to casual cyclists and ones that look like they don't know what they are doing than for cyclists who are dressed properly and with a helmet and who look like they are experienced.
Maybe there is a market for helmets designed to make one look like a wobbly old granny - with a layer of gray wool on top? :)
-
It depends on the consideration given at the design stage and maintenance of the paths, so inevitably varies by district. I'd agree that mostly they are as safe or safer than normal roads.
With both shared pathways and lanes you need to especially careful at side road junctions: on shared paths you must stop or give way, in a lane you have right of way but motorists often don't consider that and pull out or turn in front of you. Motorists turning into or reversing out of driveways is also a problem - they don't seem to expect cyclists at all - though this happens on roads too.
My particular bugbears are: lanes poorly maintained - so full of rubbish or with untrimmed hedges/trees blocking the view or path and lanes/paths that stop leaving you on the wrong side of the road with no sensible way of getting back to the left side.
I've previously said that I always stop at any road junction when I'm on a cycle. I do accept that lanes can be poorly maintained. In my area though I know of only one that has a poor surface. I also agree that either on the road or on a shared pavement one has always got to be aware of careless motorists pulling out from drives.
As an aside, an interesting incident happened to me a couple of weeks ago. I was cycling along a shared pavement when I saw in front of me that a man was pruning his privet hedge. The residue was strewn all over the pavement but as it wasn't too bad I decided to simply drive carefully until I was clear. He clearly saw me, but decided that he wasn't going to get out of the way, standing squarely in the middle of the pavement. My only other alternatives were to ride on the grass verge, which was full of wet long grass close to the road or to get off and walk around him. I decided to continue riding on the pavement, with my hands ready on the brakes. He moved at the last minute but made his point by saying loudly, 'Hadn't I heard of social distancing?' at which point I stopped, turned to him and told him loudly that unfortunately it was he who didn't seem to understand that I was riding legally on a public pavement, and that perhaps it was he who needed to be aware of social distancing by not obstructing the pavement. He glowered, and then disappeared down the path to his house silently. I then carried on, hoping that when I returned using the same path, he would be there again. Unfortunately he had gone, and the path was clear again.
-
What can the UK learn from Europe.............. https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/04/what-can-the-uk-learn-from-europe-about-the-pitfalls-of-electric-scooters
-
I wouldn't feel safe riding an e-scooter.
-
I wouldn't feel safe riding an e-scooter.
I wouldn't feel safe with you riding an e-scooter
-
I have been driving a car since I was 12 in 1962, and on the road since I was 17. Crossing all my fingers and toes, I have never had an accident.
-
I have been driving a car since I was 12 in 1962, and on the road since I was 17. Crossing all my fingers and toes, I have never had an accident.
I think NS was pulling your leg just a little bit.
-
I think NS was pulling your leg just a little bit.
REALLY? LOL!
-
LR will be glad to know that I've bought a hi-viz top, which arrived an hour or so ago. I do not think they should be made compulsory, since lights are already compulsory at night, and make cyclists easily seen, but they are a useful optional back-up.
-
LR will be glad to know that I've bought a hi-viz top, which arrived an hour or so ago. I do not think they should be made compulsory, since lights are already compulsory at night, and make cyclists easily seen, but they are a useful optional back-up.
I am glad you have bought a high-viz top, because cyclists are NOT easily seen in dark clothing at night or in poor visibility, as I know for a fact being a driver. I still think you should wear a helmet.
-
I am glad you have bought a high-viz top, because cyclists are NOT easily seen in dark clothing at night or in poor visibility, as I know for a fact being a driver. I still think you should wear a helmet.
They are if they've got lights, which are compulsory at night.
-
They are if they've got lights, which are compulsory at night.
Tiny little cycle lights are drowned by car headlights, especially if the road is busy.
-
Tiny little cycle lights are drowned by car headlights, especially if the road is busy.
Come off it! They have to meet legal requirements, a red rear light will not be drowned out by white headlights, and if the road is that busy, there'll be so many headlights the cyclist will be lit up like Broadway.
-
This bloke's red light is clearly visible. He is, of course, wearing a hi-viz top, but the pint is his red light's visibility.
http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/wp-content/uploads/Night-Ride.jpg
-
Come off it! They have to meet legal requirements, a red rear light will not be drowned out by white headlights, and if the road is that busy, there'll be so many headlights the cyclist will be lit up like Broadway.
They are drowned by car headlights, high-viz jackets make cyclists more visible. If you drove a car you might not be so cocksure.
-
Maybe there is a market for helmets designed to make one look like a wobbly old granny - with a layer of gray wool on top? :)
I've seen it seriously suggested that cyclists should do the occasional deliberate wobble to put that element of doubt in the car drivers' minds.
-
This bloke's red light is clearly visible. He is, of course, wearing a hi-viz top, but the pint is his red light's visibility.
http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/wp-content/uploads/Night-Ride.jpg
This was taken just before the guy was mown down by the camera car that was way to close to him.
That's not realistic. Iy was a photograph taken on a well lit street with no other traffic about and the cyclist is literally only a few feet away. Cameras also are different from human eyes and a human might see something different.
There's no doubt that cyclists can be difficult to see even during the day time or at night with lights on. I wouldn't be making such things as high vis jackets compulsory because I think the barrier to cycling should be as low as possible, but I think they should be strongly encouraged.
-
I think ALL cyclists should have to take a compulsory test before being permitted out on the public highway.
-
I think ALL cyclists should have to take a compulsory test before being permitted out on the public highway.
Which will reduce the numbers cycling and increase car usage contributing to global warming.
-
Which will reduce the numbers cycling and increase car usage contributing to global warming.
It might make the roads safer on which to drive, some of the cyclist around here are IDIOTS, riding four abreast and jumping the lights!
-
It might make the roads safer on which to drive, some of the cyclist around here are IDIOTS, riding four abreast and jumping the lights!
There are rules against that. But your solution will increase global warming.
-
It might make the roads safer on which to drive, some of the cyclist around here are IDIOTS, riding four abreast and jumping the lights!
And how, pray, is a test going to reduce that?
The reason the drivers of motor vehicles have to pass a test and have a valid licence is that motor vehicles are large, hard, and fast, and can easily kill, maim or cripple. Bikes are light and slow, and much less lethal. They are also much simpler to operate. I'm not anti=test, but I am certainly anti-compulsory-test, and ditto with helmets.
-
Come off it! They have to meet legal requirements, a red rear light will not be drowned out by white headlights, and if the road is that busy, there'll be so many headlights the cyclist will be lit up like Broadway.
The legal requirements, though, are feeble. A minimum of four candela for a flashing light - most flashing bike lights are rated in lumens, and they're typically in the 25-30 range which is about half the requirement. UK cycling recommends fitting two, but light doesn't necessarily work geometrically, so putting 2 25 lumen lights doesn't give you 50 lumens.
Steady lights have to comply with BS 6102/3, but the requirements of that are pretty feeble, too; coupled with that, most manufacturers of bike lights are producing units that are marked as compliant with BS 6102 - you can have as many lights as you'd like, but at least one of them has to conform, so it's on you as the rider to check, not on them to ensure that all their lights are compliant.
It's also worth noting that the lights are required to be fitted no more than 1500mm from the floor, so all those adults with lights only on their helmets are probably in breach of the requirements.
Also worth noting that bikes (between sunset and sunrise, at least) are required to have amber reflectors in the front and back of the pedals - most of the racing bikes I see out there have the cleated pedals which rarely include these.
O.
-
It's also worth noting that the lights are required to be fitted no more than 1500mm from the floor, so all those adults with lights only on their helmets are probably in breach of the requirements.
In my experience people who have helmet lights do so in addition to more traditionally mounted lights.
-
In my experience people who have helmet lights do so in addition to more traditionally mounted lights.
I tend to find there's a mix - I probably don't pay enough attention to the numbers to be able to say which is more, but there's enough of each that I'd have to if I wanted to make a judgement.
O.
-
I tend to find there's a mix - I probably don't pay enough attention to the numbers to be able to say which is more, but there's enough of each that I'd have to if I wanted to make a judgement.
O.
My experience is commuting in London and I think it is rare to see someone with a helmet light without other lights. The helmet-light cyclist is typically lit up like a christmas tree :)
Out of interest - I wonder what the law says about the Boris bike front lights which project an image of a bike symbol onto the road some distance in front of the rider.
-
My experience is commuting in London and I think it is rare to see someone with a helmet light without other lights. The helmet-light cyclist is typically lit up like a christmas tree :)
Out of interest - I wonder what the law says about the Boris bike front lights which project an image of a bike symbol onto the road some distance in front of the rider.
The pattern of light isn't specified - the restrictions are on mounting height, intensity and a reference to another standard for the interpretation of 'white' as a light colour (I don't have access to the referenced standard to check what it says).
O.
-
The pattern of light isn't specified - the restrictions are on mounting height, intensity and a reference to another standard for the interpretation of 'white' as a light colour (I don't have access to the referenced standard to check what it says).
O.
Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.
I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.
-
Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.
The current requirement only applies, I think, to bikes made after 1998, but more tellingly the lights are only required between sunset and sunrise, and there are some cyclists who would suggest that they never use the bike at those times.
I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.
If you're buying a racing bike you don't want any additional weight or drag, and you have a reasonable argument that you're not likely to be using it in the dark. If you're buying a kids bike you don't want the extra expense on something they're going to grow out of, especially as they're also perhaps not going to use it at night. And then you get the fact that some people will already have lights from their previous bike, some will want LEDS, some will want flashing, some may (though I don't know why) want a dynamo and it's not a high enough cost item for those sorts of options to be viable from the manufacturer. That said, I think Halfords, Evans and the like are perhaps missing a trick by not pushing the compliance angle at least a little.
I don't actually cycle any more - I used to commute, but my current job is WAY too far to ride - so it may be that these stores are doing better than I think at this.
O.
-
Given that lights are a legal requirement it seems strange that bikes aren't required to be sold with appropriate lights 'factory' fitted, so to speak. The notion of buying a car and then separately having to by lights seems non-sense.
I think having legal lights fitted when you buy would be helpful as the regulations are a minefield as you indicate - I doubt I'm fully clear and may indeed not be compliant. Why put the onus on the cyclist by requiring them to work out what does and what does not meet legal requirements - just require them to be fitted at source.
racing cyclists want their bikes to be as light as possible, so don't fit lights during the day.
As a matter of fact, the non-fitting of lights to bikes is traditionally British: in Europe, bikes other than lightweights always have come with lights pre-fitted - often dynamo ones, which are more popular in Europe than here.
-
The current requirement only applies, I think, to bikes made after 1998, but more tellingly the lights are only required between sunset and sunrise, and there are some cyclists who would suggest that they never use the bike at those times.
Some people don't drive at night, but you cannot buy a car without lights.
If you're buying a racing bike you don't want any additional weight or drag, and you have a reasonable argument that you're not likely to be using it in the dark. If you're buying a kids bike you don't want the extra expense on something they're going to grow out of, especially as they're also perhaps not going to use it at night. And then you get the fact that some people will already have lights from their previous bike, some will want LEDS, some will want flashing, some may (though I don't know why) want a dynamo and it's not a high enough cost item for those sorts of options to be viable from the manufacturer. That said, I think Halfords, Evans and the like are perhaps missing a trick by not pushing the compliance angle at least a little.
Sure people can always remove or replace factory fitted parts with other bits and pieces of their choice, but that isn't really an argument for not having them fitted in the first place. Given that it is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights of a particular spec then it seems strange that there is no legal requirement for any new bike sold to have those fitted as standard. Given the bulk nature of those components I suspect it would add a very small cost to the bike for a cheap but legal pair of lights.
-
racing cyclists want their bikes to be as light as possible, so don't fit lights during the day.
So the buyer can just remove the lights themselves if they are concerned about the weight. That would be up to them - but to sell a bike which cannot be legally ridden on the road except between the hours of sunrise and sunset seems odd to me.
As a matter of fact, the non-fitting of lights to bikes is traditionally British: in Europe, bikes other than lightweights always have come with lights pre-fitted - often dynamo ones, which are more popular in Europe than here.
Indeed - and I suspect most bikes sold in the UK aren't exclusively for racing purposes, but are intended for a range of uses at a range of different times of day and night. So why not sell them in a legally compliant state for use at any time.
-
Some people don't drive at night, but you cannot buy a car without lights.
Cars are, in the main, utilitarian, people use them as tools. Bikes are far more commonly used for recreational purposes.
Sure people can always remove or replace factory fitted parts with other bits and pieces of their choice, but that isn't really an argument for not having them fitted in the first place. Given that it is a legal requirement for bikes to have lights of a particular spec then it seems strange that there is no legal requirement for any new bike sold to have those fitted as standard. Given the bulk nature of those components I suspect it would add a very small cost to the bike for a cheap but legal pair of lights.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it was the direct influence on the law - the market for bikes is a different one from cars, and the manufacturers would likely object to having to elevate costs for the extras only for a notable portion of their customers to complain that they don't want a number of the extras.
O.
-
Cars are, in the main, utilitarian, people use them as tools. Bikes are far more commonly used for recreational purposes.
True, but the proportion of cyclists (even recreational) cyclists who never intend using a bike except in the hours of daylight must be pretty small.
I wasn't trying to suggest that it was the direct influence on the law - the market for bikes is a different one from cars, and the manufacturers would likely object to having to elevate costs for the extras only for a notable portion of their customers to complain that they don't want a number of the extras.
But if the law was altered rapidly the bike buying public would get used to it. So we'd no more have buyers complaining about the lights being automatically included as we do now about the reflectors (both front, rear and pedal) being automatically included. I suspect some cyclists don't want these either but, I think, they are always included.
-
True, but the proportion of cyclists (even recreational) cyclists who never intend using a bike except in the hours of daylight must be pretty small.
I don't know. Although I travel into London (normally) on a weekly basis, the overwhelming majority of the cyclists I encounter are in enormously long columns on the rural roads around where I live of a Saturday or Sunday, and I suspect they're out mid-morning, pub-lunch and home in time for dinner.
But if the law was altered rapidly the bike buying public would get used to it. So we'd no more have buyers complaining about the lights being automatically included as we do now about the reflectors (both front, rear and pedal) being automatically included. I suspect some cyclists don't want these either but, I think, they are always included.
If you get a high-end bike (so my brother informs me, who's into that sort of thing) you get the frame and then buy the running gear and the pedals and the like separately, but that's probably just for the 'all the gear, no idea' MAMIL's like him.
You could push a wholesale regulation change through, but if the mission at the moment is to at least appear to be encouraging people onto bikes, doing anything that could be intepreted as pushing up costs or making things more difficult is not going to wash. It's not that a law change wouldn't work, I think, it's just a lack of any strong will and the potential for backlash that the current government doesn't need.
O.
-
I don't know. Although I travel into London (normally) on a weekly basis, the overwhelming majority of the cyclists I encounter are in enormously long columns on the rural roads around where I live of a Saturday or Sunday, and I suspect they're out mid-morning, pub-lunch and home in time for dinner.
True - but I imagine most of those weekend cyclists probably have another bike at home that they use for getting about/commuting etc.
If you get a high-end bike (so my brother informs me, who's into that sort of thing) you get the frame and then buy the running gear and the pedals and the like separately, but that's probably just for the 'all the gear, no idea' MAMIL's like him.
But you have to be a pretty serious cyclist to be doing that - starting with a frame and choosing components isn't what most people buying a bike will do - they will buy a ready made up bike, and if bought new this (I believe) is required to be fitted with a bell, front and rear reflectors, pedal reflectors and wheel reflectors as standard. I can't see many people complaining about those being fitted as standard, so why not also include entry level (but legal) front and back lights.
You could push a wholesale regulation change through, but if the mission at the moment is to at least appear to be encouraging people onto bikes, doing anything that could be intepreted as pushing up costs or making things more difficult is not going to wash. It's not that a law change wouldn't work, I think, it's just a lack of any strong will and the potential for backlash that the current government doesn't need.
When implemented at scale I think the cost is marginal at most - and the same could be said for reflectors etc (see above). I suspect most people will buy lights at some point - actually having them fitted as standard will likely be cheaper than buying them separately. And it would reduce confusion over which lights are, and are not, legal.