Daytime running lights

[mjr]

Oh well I’ll just bin my bike lights and wear all black at night ,I don’t want to be guilty of distracting any car drivers

On a similar note, I do actually turn my lights off or down in fog when I'm riding on a certain bi-directional cycle track to the right of a bendy road because I don't want a motorist travelling in the same direction to be misled into following my back light and thereby straying into the oncoming traffic lane between us. I try to avoid that one in that direction at night because the law says to use lights regardless of such concerns and the standlights only last a few minutes.

 

[icowden]

And yet, it seems like you're not confident enough in either study to cite them. I've never seen a single decent quality study which suggests conspicuity aids have any significant effect good or bad, which means they are a distraction from doing things which are more likely to have benefits.

I have cited them multiple times on this site. I didn't want to repeat myself. But, this is the copenhagan study of 7000 cyclists:-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

There is a newer study by University of Nottingham but the sample was just 76 cyclists and the researchers warn not to draw inferences from the study because of the small sample size.

Incidentally I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from your premise. It doesn't follow that because something does or doesn't have a significant effect that it becomes a distraction. Also the Copenhagan study does demonstrate what could be considered a significant effect.

 

[mjr]

I'm not sure that your first statement is a given. If we re-word it as "the child is potentially putting themselves in danger if they do not see a car. Will DRLs make the car a little more visible and therefore help the child not to put themselves in danger?" then indeed DRLs might help that situation. It is hard to see that a child (or an adult) would be less likely to be able to see a car if they have DRLs. DRLs are not in and of themselves, camouflage and it can be reasonably demonstrated that in many situations, a car with DRLs is more visible than one without.

1. It can also be reasonably demonstrated that in many situations, it is more difficult to judge the approach speed of a car with DRLs.
2. Do we really want to go down the road of blaming children for "putting themselves in danger"? This smacks of blaming people who get stabbed for daring to go into certain parts of town and other dodgy things. It's the bad drivers who put such children in danger. Maybe with a side order of blame for government failing to regulate this well for decades.

 

[mjr]

I have cited them multiple times on this site. I didn't want to repeat myself. But, this is the copenhagan study of 7000 cyclists:-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

That's 6800 self-selected cyclists self-reporting accidents, with the tested jacket having "TEST PILOT" emblazoned across it which I suspect will have had more effect on other road users than the colour or small reflective stripes. Also, the paper doesn't include a parallel analysis of the single-party "personal injury accidents" which seems a bit odd given its potential to sanity-check the similarity of the test and control groups.

In short, even without me spending the time getting into the numbers, I think we disagree about whether that's a "decent quality study".

It doesn't follow that because something does or doesn't have a significant effect that it becomes a distraction.

How can people promoting a measure that doesn't work not be a distraction from the real issues?

 

[Dogtrousers]

Meanwhile, in the real world, we should require evidence that health interventions work and don't do harm, not merely a lack of evidence that they do no good!

This really important. And it's also important not to use the "well it stands to reason ... it must work" argument. "It's bright and shiny, it must save loads of kiddies' lives! Stands to reason." That's like (to continue the health care analogy) the doctrine of signatures. "But it's lungwort - of course it's good for the lungs. Stands to reason."

Personally I find myself somewhere in the middle. I'm happily susceptible to the St Christopher effect myself, as mentioned in another thread about carrying extra tools to ward off the pixies.

A bit like my dentist who admitted to taking some quack remedy or other for knee pain even though he really knew it was worthless. I wanted say to him "but you're medically trained, don't be such a plonker" but as he had a drill in his hand I kept quiet.

 

[icowden]

That's 6800 self-selected cyclists self-reporting accidents, with the tested jacket having "TEST PILOT" emblazoned across it which I suspect will have had more effect on other road users than the colour or small reflective stripes. Also, the paper doesn't include a parallel analysis of the single-party "personal injury accidents" which seems a bit odd given its potential to sanity-check the similarity of the test and control groups.

In short, even without me spending the time getting into the numbers, I think we disagree about whether that's a "decent quality study".


How can people promoting a measure that doesn't work not be a distraction from the real issues?

It doesn't include single party as obviously if you fall off your bike and no one else is involved, the jacket you are wearing is somewhat irrelevant.
Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work, so your last sentence is nonsensical. You have also provided no research as to what these "real issues" are that you are so keen on.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work,

Just an aside , but isn't that attempting to prove a negative? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that jazz.

The thing that needs to be tested is whether a measure works. Not whether it doesn't.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I don't think there any much evidence to suggest that having DRLs is creating a problem.

If you've ever looked directly at a bright light, then the iris contracts, and it reduces the amount of light hitting the retina. This is the temporary blinding effects the lights have on the viewer. DRLs are bright lights and they are reducing the ability of those who see them of seeing other stuff they really should be able to see. We should be allowing people's eyes to be correctly adjusted to the ambient light so they can see everything going on, with appropriate contrast, not just a few sources where bright lights are.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Oh well I’ll just bin my bike lights and wear all black at night ,I don’t want to be guilty of distracting any car drivers

Wear what you like, it makes no difference to whether a numpty hits you. But please have your lights on at night. Unlike daytime a car driver will not see you in plenty of time at night, if you don't have lights.

 

[hatler]

Ref kids running out without looking and DRL covered cars and the likelihood of there being a collision, with respect, this isn't the point.

The point is that it is hard to judge the speed of a DRL clad car. The danger comes therefore when the pedestrian/cyclist/other road user sees the car, misjudges its speed, crosses in front of it thinking there's plenty of time and then finding out (painfully) that there wasn't.

 

[mjr]

It doesn't include single party as obviously if you fall off your bike and no one else is involved, the jacket you are wearing is somewhat irrelevant.

Exactly My point! It should show no effect across the board, shouldn't it? I wonder why it's missing.

Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work, so your last sentence is nonsensical. You have also provided no research as to what these "real issues" are that you are so keen on.

The failure of proponents over decades to prove it works is sufficient proof that it doesn't work.

I've pointed you at the book "Death on the Streets" which would be a good start.

 

[Randomnerd]

The OP wanted to know about day lights for his bike. You’ve had a good OT tussle, but what’s the verdict on lights on bikes in the day?

Did I miss the conclusion?

FWIW IME they’re a fad becoming a thing becoming the thing becoming why-don’t-you-run-‘em-weirdo. I’m only a chopper, meandering along for utility and pleasure; no road rat. Faced with bike day lights I’ve met, I see two camps. One lit-up tribe come out of the woods at me with retina searing beams on full suspension MTBs. Happened a fair bit over the last three years, but rare before. The other sparkly tribe I can hear coming as I spot the pupil bursting dots in the verge a mile off: the blinking castanet cassette crew are approaching, their on off search beams warning all who have eyes that they’re not to be violated.

It’s only my view, but lights all the time, particularly really bright flashing lights, seems a waste of time. I rely on road craft and craning my neck a lot to keep safe. All drivers are killers when I’m on a bike, and anything which might give me a sense of “safety” could undermine that attitude.

As for lights on cars in full sun and mountains of hi vis, it’s bonkers. I’m of the Tufty and Green Cross Code era - safety was drummed into us. Cars were bright green and orange and daffodil yellow in the seventies and could be seen on Mars. My school pal at primary still got killed by a carefully driven turquoise Datsun while crossing the road outside school. Accident.

 

[Drago]

Mr Spoons, the verdict depends on who you ask.

I say no in good daylight conditions, and yes in murky daylight, poor visibility, and at night.

Others prefer to do different for no more reason than they feel it must make them safer, but seem unable to evidence that point.

 

[icowden]

The thing that needs to be tested is whether a measure works. Not whether it doesn't.

Yes - I may have badly explained my point. I have found studies that suggest the measure works despite @mjr's assertion that no-one has proved it works.

@FWIW i agree with @Drago , some common sense needs to be used. If the light is poor, it is better to be cautious and lit, than less visible.
As for DRLs on cars - frankly they annoy me (but I understand why they are present, and don't begrudge their existence)...