Cyclists! 1450

Well, it would certainly be a more convenient place for you to "argue" from.

But the law *isn't* "happy with that", for the obvious reason that if motor vehicles were permitted on the roads without lights during daylight hours, there's be many cases where journey was unavoidable delayed into the hours of darkness and the vehicle driven without lights.

And that's putting it charitably. Cyclists who don't have lights on their machines are breaking the law in a completely pre-meditated way. The law would do better to prevent that in the same way as it prevents it for motor vehicles. It's all so simple and so obvious, and its implementation would be so fair and so sensible.

Tee hee.. can you spell "red herring"?

There is nothing impractical about carrying lights on a push-bike. You do it. I had fitted lights on the last bike I had. Other cyclists can do it.

You don't "carry an argument through to its logical conclusion" by basing your conclusions on a non-sequitur.

It is not unlawful to walk on the street in the dark (or poor lighting conditions) without lights.

It *is* unlawful to cycle on the street in the dark (or poor lighting conditions) without lights.

And now you know why.

You have drawn that conclusion out of a false premise - haven't you?

Can you tell us all what that false premise was?

I don't argue that push-bikes should be sold with lights.

I argue that whenever a push-bike is on the road, it should be fitted with working lights which will comply with the requirement for the bike to be lit when required.

The outcome is that no driver can seek to excuse driving without lights because he couldn't be bothered to bring them out and it's now gone dark. It would be better if that excuse were not available to law-breaking cyclists like those other cyclists (not you, and not me) we are talking about.