Commuting in the dark of night.

[Richard A Thackeray]

Tomorrow will be my first dark 'rush hour' (if we really have one around here) since last winter
I'm on a 09:00 - 18:00 this week (Mon-Fri)


My CGR has;
4 lights on rear (2 x constant, 1x 'pulse', 1 x 'flash')
4 lights on 'bars (1 x constant, 2 x flash - at different rates/1 x 'spotlamp'...)
There's also 4 of the little (Lidl specials) silicone case/strap lights on helmet

Top seat-pin; flash
Lower seat-pi; constant
R/h seat-stay; constant
L/h seat-stay; pulse

Cateyes are the two 'flash
White 'Smart'(?) is constant
Magic-Shine 828 is the spot-light (& also for an unlit stretch)

Reflective front & rear mud-flaps (from 'Raw', pricey, but good!!)
An extra reflector on the rear 'flap (from my old collection of trailer spares)
Schwalbe Marathons, with the reflective banding
Spoke reflectors

I've already dug out my (Boardman) '360' jacket - by that, I mean one of those that are coated in the beading that makes up the stripes on a Hi-viz jacket
Just phone-flash

This illustrates what's required

Sods Law

Some will use it all to judge how close they can drive!!

Oh!
I have this to (eventually) send for repair
A friend gave it to me, as the switch is broken (R800)

 

[lazybloke]

I predict a week of UFO sightings in Wakefield

 

[mjr]

I love that graphic showing clothing is irrelevant if you have reflectors. A minimum 4 candles lights is visible 500-600m IIRC.

 

[lazybloke]

I love that graphic showing clothing is irrelevant if you have reflectors. A minimum 4 candles lights is visible 500-600m IIRC.

In ideal conditions maybe, but surely that assumes clear lines of sight, reasonable angles of incidence , no dazzling by other light sources, etc.

In the real world, there are all manner of circumstances that reduce your conspicuity. Can't say I'd ever festoon myself with quite as many lights as above, but I strongly believe good lighting helps.

Obviously it does little to protect you against a drunk, or a driver who is looking down at their phone, etc, but there are other risks that lights do reduce to some degree.

 

[mjr]

In ideal conditions maybe, but surely that assumes clear lines of sight, reasonable angles of incidence , no dazzling by other light sources, etc.

Well, obviously, but if you are around a blind bend or some other selfish cyclist is dazzling drivers, your clothing is irrelevant as well as your lights anyway.

Obviously it does little to protect you against a drunk, or a driver who is looking down at their phone, etc, but there are other risks that lights do reduce to some degree.

Only riding into shoot you can't see. Other than that, once you have basic lighting and reflectors, making yourself look less human and more roadsign is not helpful for being treated appropriately IME.

 

[Lovacott]

In the real world, there are all manner of circumstances that reduce your conspicuity. Can't say I'd ever festoon myself with quite as many lights as above, but I strongly believe good lighting helps.

I have three front lights and three rear.

One on the front and back are dynamo lights which I run for the whole trip. Two on the front are LED rechargeables which I use on the lanes.

I turn off the LED's on the front when I start to get into civilisation because I basically don't need them.

The dynamo rear light is a good size and runs on for five minutes or so when stopped once the capacitor has built up a bit of charge.

I bought some decent reflective tape which I have fitted to the frame and forks for visibility from the side.

I have a bar end mirror so that I can see anything approaching from behind in the lanes, and I take a "non confrontational" approach by pulling into the nearest farm gate or passing place to let traffic come past me (I see very few cars until the last mile of my journey home).

Once I am in town, I am moving with the traffic (rush hour) so nobody tries to overtake me anyway.

There is one 400 yard stretch of fast A road that I use where I have had a few close passes during the summer, but this week in the dark, people seem to be giving me a wider berth. I assume it's because it's harder for them to judge the size of the bike in the dark so they either cross over to the other side of the road to overtake or slow down and stay behind me.

When I drive, it never bothers me if a cyclist is well lit up and wearing loads of Hi Viz. It does piss me off when you see a cyclist with nothing but a tiny flashing LED and dark clothing, especially in the rain.

 

[mjr]

When I drive, it never bothers me if a cyclist is well lit up and wearing loads of Hi Viz.

Why not? The selfish nobber is trying to distract drivers into looking at them when they could be looking at you, plus helping to excuse drivers who say "SMIDSY but you should be dressed like that cyclist over there"

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Or last half as long ...

Which means you rode your commute twice as fast!🤪

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

The selfish nobber is trying to distract drivers into looking at them when they could be looking at you, plus helping to excuse drivers who say "SMIDSY but you should be dressed like that cyclist over there"

Maybe because they'd rather a driver crashed into you, rather than them.
You always seem to take the attitude that anything that happens must be the motorists fault, and that cyclists have little if any responsibility for their own safety or to make themselves as visible as possible. I see loads of idiotic badly lit or completely unlit cycling on a daily basis, and in the event of such a cyclist getting taken out by a driver, I would say they had it coming to them.

 

[kingrollo]

Maybe because they'd rather a driver crashed into you, rather than them.
You always seem to take the attitude that anything that happens must be the motorists fault, and that cyclists have little if any responsibility for their own safety or to make themselves as visible as possible. I see loads of idiotic badly lit or completely unlit cycling on a daily basis, and in the event of such a cyclist getting taken out by a driver, I would say they had it coming to them.

Is there anything in this world you approve of - you seem to despise everyone and everything

 

[mjr]

You always seem to take the attitude that anything that happens must be the motorists fault, and that cyclists have little if any responsibility for their own safety or to make themselves as visible as possible.

You always seem to make stuff up about other people when you have no credible argument.

There is no "as visible as possible". You're either visible or not and if your bike is lit normally, your clothes are almost irrelevant.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Maybe because they'd rather a driver crashed into you, rather than them.
You always seem to take the attitude that anything that happens must be the motorists fault, and that cyclists have little if any responsibility for their own safety or to make themselves as visible as possible. I see loads of idiotic badly lit or completely unlit cycling on a daily basis, and in the event of such a cyclist getting taken out by a driver, I would say they had it coming to them.

That's a nonsense argument. If a bloke walk around with a sign saying "punch me as hard as you can in the face" would you?
Even if a cyclist is hit and they had no lights, i think the motorist should still be breathalyzed and testing for drugs, legality and competency. Even in the pitch black i see Pedestrians, Cats, Foxes, Deer, even Insects. A cyclist should have correct PPE, but they're aren't invisible without!

 

[Lovacott]

Maybe because they'd rather a driver crashed into you, rather than them.
You always seem to take the attitude that anything that happens must be the motorists fault, and that cyclists have little if any responsibility for their own safety or to make themselves as visible as possible. I see loads of idiotic badly lit or completely unlit cycling on a daily basis, and in the event of such a cyclist getting taken out by a driver, I would say they had it coming to them.

Anyone who drives a car will understand how hard it is to see anything though a sheet of glass in the pitch black when it is being bombarded with rain and the inside is steaming up quicker than the demister setting on your fan can handle.

If other cyclists want to prove a point by being minimalist in their visibility, they can exclude me from their campaign.

I'd rather look like a twat and get home alive than look dead cool.

 

[HMS_Dave]

Anyone who drives a car will understand how hard it is to see anything though a sheet of glass in the pitch black when it is being bombarded with rain and the inside is steaming up quicker than the demister setting on your fan can handle.

If other cyclists want to prove a point by being minimalist in their visibility, they can exclude me from their campaign.

I'd rather look like a twat and get home alive than look dead cool.

Then you pull over/adjust your speed to cope. That is a terrible excuse quite frankly and would be and offence namely "driving without due care and attention". Ive driven for many years and have no difficulty with this concept and touch wood ive never driven over any pedestrian or animal let alone a fellow road user...

 

[Lovacott]

Then you pull over/adjust your speed to cope. That is a terrible excuse quite frankly and would be and offence namely "driving without due care and attention"

But the simple fact is that a minority of people do drive that way.

They set off late for work, start driving before the demister has kicked in, only scrape the ice off the square foot of windscreen right in front of their eyes. Maybe their alarm didn't go off and they have only been awake for five minutes.

It's no good your family proving that a driver killed you because he wasn't paying enough attention. It won't bring you back.

In real life, there are a minority who don't give a shoot about anything. There are people who drink drive, there are people who drug drive. There are people who have never driven before who steal cars and take them for joyrides.

Why do you have such a downer on responsible cyclists trying to mitigate risk?

It doesn't make any sense.