[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR, —I should like to
endorse The Spectator's views on the question of rear lights for cyclists, and in particular to reply to Mr. Watling's letter. If motorists could " drive within the limits of the lights they employ " there would be no need
for any vehicle to carry a rear light or reflector, as the vehicle would itself be visible in time. Surely the law, for which both
your correspondents have such reverence, cannot have imposed this without reason ! If it is necessary for a car to carry a light, which can be seen before the car itself, it is doubly necessary for a slow moving vehicle, which is more rapidly overtaken.
The real trouble is that neither the law nor the public seem to realize the principles of elementary physics. A reflector set for headlights (and many seem set only for the stars) cannot be seen in a dipped light, and only serves to give the cyclist a false sense of security. Consequently, on a main road where lights must constantly be dipped, the cycle only becomes visible at the moment of passing, and only a car travelling at equal speed could pull up behind it. Perhaps Mr. Watling really wishes to impose cycling speed as the limit for night driving.
To bring expense into the matter is quite absurd. The cost of a lamp, compared to that of a cycle, is negligible, and is a very small contribution for the cyclist to make towards the public safety on roads for which the motorist is heavily taxed,
while he goes free.—I am, Sir, &c., F. M. EDE. 99 Elgin Crescent, W. 11.
Previous page
