Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 12:19, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 2 Dec, 10:15, Roger Thorpe wrote:
Doug wrote:
The irony is that by not having lights he was putting himself far more
at risk of death from being hit by a driver than by being a danger to
anyone else, unlike say a car with no lights.
Well, Doug. Having very nearly ridden into an unlit cyclist a few times,
I'd think it fair to say that the risk to others, including pedestrians
is considerable.
Roger Thorpe
Well, Roger. Having been run down and injured by a driver who even
failed to see my lights the risk to me was considerable and to no one
else.
That makes it alright then.

As I said, the cyclist with no lights is more a danger to themself
than to anyone else, unlike a motorist with no lights who is a danger
to all, given the large mass and velocity difference.

I'm sorry what is your point? That because an unlit car is more
dangerous than a bike the unlit cyclist should be ignored?
Roger Thorpe