Do you use your lights in the day light hours

[nickyboy]

How far do you take that beggar-thy-neighbour attitude? Would you consider it acceptable to push another cyclist into traffic if it might help you avoid a collision?

Sharing the roads seems inherently a social task. Lighting up motivated by attracting more attention than you should get (rather than lighting up to help oneself see or to comply with the law) seems anti-social whether it works or not.

Is that a serious question? Of course I wouldn't push another cyclist to avoid a collision. That is completely different from me choosing to use lights in the day time. The law sets the minimum standard acceptable on the road. If I want to exceed that standard then that's up to me. If others don't want to then that's up to them.

FWIW I believe that day time lights make me more visible and thus less susceptible to a collision with another road user. It would be no comfort to me if I was involved in a collision whilst unlit but "at least I didn't attract more attention than I should get"

 

[mjr]

I suspect there's a better example of a legal-but-selfish action that's frowned upon but I can't think of it right now.

How much comfort will your lights be if you see a cyclist alongside you get hit because a motorist was distracted by your lights?

 

[fossyant]

Indeed, many seem to be, but trying to second guess their fraudulent attempts to impose pointless practices isn't covering one's own backside: it's bending over and greasing up, plus helping them to get their next victim!

I wish there was an insurer who promised to point out when there's no evidence supporting the other insurer's suggested anti-cycling measure and they'd have to prove otherwise in court to reduce their liability.

Insurers will try anything. In my case I have additional GPS data that shows speed etc.

The guy turned right across my path. Unless you have been in this situation you won't know. No matter how right you were they will try and wiggle out of paying some fees. The more evidence you have the better.

Believe you me.

 

[mjr]

Insurers will try anything. In my case I have additional GPS data that shows speed etc.

The guy turned right across my path. Unless you have been in this situation you won't know. No matter how right you were they will try and wiggle out of paying some fees. The more evidence you have the better.

Believe you me.

I believe you on that aspect, but I also believe that they'll try anything, so if a cyclist has lights, they'll simply claim that the driver they insured was dazzled instead. We cannot pre-empt all these fraud attempts because some are mutually exclusive, so shouldn't we probably do what's best for society instead of what we think insurers will claim?

 

[Drago]

Nevertheless, if someone T bones you in broad daylight, and the best they can trot out is "I didn't see them", then they've done nothing to divert blame to the innocent cyclist.

Suzuki did a lot of research into daytime lighting in the Eighties. They discovered running headlights - as opposed to specialist dim/dip lighting - on a motorbike corresponded with an increased likelihood of collision. The concluded that the light breaks up the outline of rider and machine, thus depriving the brain of an observer of the datum required to effectively calculate speed as the brain was unable to register the rate at which the shape grew against it's background. I can't see typical legal cycle lights bringing about this phenomenon, but some of the badly aimed stupid bright lights some cyclists use might be powerful enough to do just that.

 

[Vantage]

To see and to reduce the risk of police attention. Would you answer my earlier questions, please?

Well you only really asked one question and it was if a lack of brakes was comparable to a lack of lights. The answer being yes as both are proven safety devices.
Someone else's failure to take adequate safety precautions is their own fault, not mine, unless it's my duty to ensure they take those precautions such as my kids.

You say you use lights at night to reduce the chances of being caught by the police. What about those cyclists who don't use lights at night? Don't you feel guilty that your actions are making them look bad?

 

[fossyant]

Lights shouldn't be dazzling during the night never mind day. If they are during the day then there is something wrong.

Drivers often use SMIDSY as an excuse. Their insurer will try and pull your case to bits.

As for doing things for society as general, that's not going to save your bacon on the road. Drivers don't give a hoot about any road users

I don't ride on the road now. I did everything to avoid a collision but, despite that if someone doesn't look properly it's game over.

 

[nickyboy]

I suspect there's a better example of a legal-but-selfish action that's frowned upon but I can't think of it right now.

How much comfort will your lights be if you see a cyclist alongside you get hit because a motorist was distracted by your lights?

What? Can you give one single example of that ever happening anywhere in the world? I'm happy to discuss the social morality or otherwise of using lights in the daytime but please provide real-life possible scenarios. Until then, I will happily use my day lights based on my belief that they render me more visible to other road users and thus I am less likely to be involved in a collision

 

[mjr]

Well you only really asked one question and it was if a lack of brakes was comparable to a lack of lights. The answer being yes as both are proven safety devices.

Thanks for finally getting there - but they're still not comparable because it probably doesn't harm you whether Fred on the other side of the road has brakes or not, does it? That's probably a key difference with DRLs.

I did also ask:

You wrote that there was no reason not to light up in daytime... so I'm asking if you disagree with the suggested reasons or what?

and I feel you replied but did not answer.

Someone else's failure to take adequate safety precautions is their own fault, not mine, unless it's my duty to ensure they take those precautions such as my kids.

DRLs are a necessary safety precaution? So you do think you're grabbing attention at the expense of other road users... Sorry but I think that's selfish.

You say you use lights at night to reduce the chances of being caught by the police. What about those cyclists who don't use lights at night? Don't you feel guilty that your actions are making them look bad?

I also said I use them to see. I don't feel particularly guilty. I feel it's up to them. I think the CTC was right to oppose mandatory bike lights way back when.

Lights shouldn't be dazzling during the night never mind day. If they are during the day then there is something wrong.

Like your lights being misaligned or flopping around... which could easily be the case once the bike is bent in a collision.

Drivers often use SMIDSY as an excuse. Their insurer will try and pull your case to bits.

Sure and they can still try SMIDSY and try and pull your case to bits.

I don't ride on the road now. I did everything to avoid a collision but, despite that if someone doesn't look properly it's game over.

How often motorists seem to leave the roads now, it's surprising they don't kill more people off-road

 

[mjr]

What? Can you give one single example of that ever happening anywhere in the world?

Sadly not - very few collision cases end up on record in sufficient detail to attribute blame in that way.

Until then, I will happily use my day lights based on my belief that they render me more visible to other road users and thus I am less likely to be involved in a collision

That seems like an irrational belief similar to what people place on hi-vis. Even at night, unlit cyclists are involved in about 2% of collisions and it certainly seems like much more than 2% of people are riding unlit!

 

[fossyant]

Do you use lights at night? If so, why?

He doesn't want to attract the bizzies on his drugs runs.

 

[fossyant]

There is nothing wrong with using lights during the day if someone wants to. It creates no further hazards to any other road users.

Saying it may affect other cyclists is just your opinion. In my opinion someone using lights in daylight hasn't ever affected me not using any.

We are starting to go round in circles. If someone feels safer using them then that's upto them. Same can be said about ... helmets... ssshhhhh

 

[nickyboy]

Sadly not - very few collision cases end up on record in sufficient detail to attribute blame in that way.


That seems like an irrational belief similar to what people place on hi-vis. Even at night, unlit cyclists are involved in about 2% of collisions and it certainly seems like much more than 2% of people are riding unlit!

Well given that there is little statistical evidence to support whether daytime lights make you more or less likely to be involved in a collision we are left with everyone's "irrational belief". Actually, it's not irrational, it's unsubstantiated. So you can have your unsubstantiated belief and I can have mine. That's how it works. I'm not telling you to use lights so please don't tell me not to use them

 

[gavroche]

never

 

[mjr]

We are starting to go round in circles. If someone feels safer using them then that's upto them. Same can be said about ... helmets... ssshhhhh

Well, yes, DRLs are quite similar to H&H in that there's little evidence it helps, yet some advocates keep on claiming it works because common sense and it's not hurting anyone else, while others give scary stories that insurers try to reduce payouts for non-conformists which certainly seems like hurting someone else... this contradiction combines with what seems like determination to avoid simple questions to send it round in circles. I give up!