Get some f*****g lights!!!!

[BentMikey]

They do, BM. I know, I've done it myself, and I'm (as you might expect) a little more cyclist aware than most HGV drivers. A very bright front light can be mistaken for one of those house security lights too.

Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.

For a start, few people actually use good lights and for them hi viz is a big aid to visibility, and even for those who do use good lights, hi viz gives a shape to the area behind the lights.

That's fair enough - hiviz, which doesn't always work, might help people with poor lights like Flying-Monkey for example. It's nonsense when it comes to super bright lights though. There's very little chance you'll see any hiviz around the light.

 

[BentMikey]

Tonight while riding home from Uni, I was waiting at a junction to pull out with traffic as far as the eye could see in either direction. It was dark but not fully night yet. Coming down the inside of a line of cars on my side of the road was a cyclist.

This is a well known case where reflectives, won't work. You need a light source pointing from near your eyes towards the cyclist, and there isn't one when you're waiting at a T-junction. It's one of the reasons that active lighting is reliable and far better than hiviz.

Of course your cyclist's dim lights didn't help matters either.

 

[BentMikey]

Despite most of us on this forum thinking it's mad to cycle without lights, I'm wondering if the statistics of accidents back up the idea that this is actually dangerous? I've never seen anything in my local paper about KSI accidents due to lack of lights, quite the opposite.

What we all perceive as risky cycling isn't actually that risky according to this reported study:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The figures were slightly higher when the cyclist was killed, but in such cases only the driver's account is available."

 

[Piemaster]

Oh the joys of daytime TV. Just caught an item on 'rip off Britain'
Guy (ex-detective) out running in hiviz. And I mean FULL hiviz, tights and shirt - obviously someone that believes in its merits. Didn't seem to have much in the way of reflectives though.
Certainly stood out and would get noticed in daylight, even if just the 'wtf' factor as it was unusual rather than the usual tabard/jacket/shirt that are more common.

 

[BentMikey]

Hiviz is the combo of both fluorescent and reflectives. I assume you mean he had just fluo lycra on?

 

[Jezston]

Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.




That's fair enough - hiviz, which doesn't always work, might help people with poor lights like Flying-Monkey for example. It's nonsense when it comes to super bright lights though. There's very little chance you'll see any hiviz around the light.

Mikey - I think you are actually being quite rude to Flying Monkey to be fair.

You are also continuously stating opinion as fact and dismissing other people's views even though you have no evidence to support your statements any more than they do.

I'm sure the WTF factor is indeed useful on a recumbent - I'd have thought most drivers aren't going to know what the hell that thing with the lights on it is anyway, and I guess reflectives aren't going to be much use if you can't see your body from behind. But I, and in fact that BIG study you linked to to support your argument earlier, would suggest when on an upright reflectives are very useful indeed as they show shape, they show the driver there is a vulnerable road user ahead and they should drive accordingly. I don't think confusing the driver and making them wonder what on earth that object ahead is is a good idea as they might not behave appropriately around, and also I feel it could through up other risks like target fixation.

But on the other hand I feel what that article you linked to is correct, that too much pressure is being put on the cyclist to 'be seen' rather than on the driver to 'see'. I think as long as you have half decent rear lights and/or reflectives so that you aren't invisible should be enough, any more than that and you'll still get dozy drivers who just aren't looking anyway ploughing into you.

 

[Norm]

Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.

You've never mistaken a solitary head light for a cyclist? Or mistaken drive-way lights for cars coming the other way? I have so you'd better make that two.

That's fair enough - hiviz, which doesn't always work, might help people with poor lights like Flying-Monkey for example. It's nonsense when it comes to super bright lights though. There's very little chance you'll see any hiviz around the light.

I don't think that RT was talking about around the light. That distinction was dismissed a few pages back in the mention of reflectors which are built in to car lamp clusters.

But a hi viz / reflective vest which is 50cm above the height of the bike-lights can certainly be seen.

 

[BentMikey]

You've never mistaken a solitary head light for a cyclist? Or mistaken drive-way lights for cars coming the other way? I have so you'd better make that two.

A car for a motorcycle, sure. A traffic light? Let's not be totally ridiculous.

If you want to take it further to Rhythm Thief's additional point of front lights, then I bet if you have mistaken these, then you very quickly realised that they weren't vehicles, long before you got close enough to need to take any avoiding action.

Again, you won't see any hiviz around these lights anyway, so it's an irrelevant point.

But a hi viz / reflective vest which is 50cm above the height of the bike-lights can certainly be seen.

Not around a dinotte, I think.

 

[BentMikey]

p.s. Jezton, it's flying monkey's own implicit admission that he had relatively poor lights. He went out and bought a better one after all.

 

[gaz]

Has anyone thought that some of us dont want to look like a cyclist?
In some situations I would prefer to look like a motorbike due to the speed that I am holding. In cases like these I turn all my lights to constant to give that affect. This has stopped many smidsy's which I used to get daily.

 

[Ravenbait]

What this seems to boil down to is this:

It's a legal requirement to use lights when it's dark. So do it, otherwise you're not just a muppet, you're an illegal muppet.

If you believe that drivers in your neck of the woods are more likely to treat you with respect and care if they know you are a cyclist, then hi-viz (bright colours + reflective) are a good thing because then they will identify you as a cylist. Unless you have lights that make the eyes bleed, in which case you (a) don't need it; and (b) they probably won't see it anyway. You can be the People's Front of Judea.

If you believe that drivers are generally careless, even though they don't mean to be, because they are prone to being distracted by being late/other traffic/changing the CD/arguing with Radio 4/fixing their hair/talking on the phone/smoking a fag/eating a bacon butty/reading the latest Booker prize winner/playing Nintendo then you may find the WTF factor to be more helpful as unknown objects are treated with more caution than known objects. This is particularly the case if you live in an area where drivers are generally less than lovely towards cyclists. You can be the Judean People's Front.

Both approaches have their place. Both are valid for differing circumstances and it is up to an individual cyclist to choose his visibility strategy according to circumstance, as long as the legal minimum has been achieved. Yelling and insulting one another because some of us think one approach is better than the other just makes us splitters. I don't think either approach is wrong. I prefer the second, as in my experience it is more effective*. If your experience is different, then good for you.


*Most effective of all, I've found, is wearing next to nothing, although this only really works in summer and I expect it's more effective for girls.

Sam (quite fancy one of those Mars 4.0s though)

 

[Amheirchion]

This is a well known case where reflectives, won't work. You need a light source pointing from near your eyes towards the cyclist, and there isn't one when you're waiting at a T-junction. It's one of the reasons that active lighting is reliable and far better than hiviz.

Of course your cyclist's dim lights didn't help matters either.

He didn't have any reflectives.

 

[gaz]

Tonight while riding home from Uni, I was waiting at a junction to pull out with traffic as far as the eye could see in either direction. It was dark but not fully night yet. Coming down the inside of a line of cars on my side of the road was a cyclist.

My initial thoughts were, "fething ninja, what idiot is out at this time wearing black and with no lights". When he got to within about 2 car lengths though, I noticed a tiny little set of flashing lights on the handlebars, blinking yellow and barely noticeable. Then as he got a car length closer I realised he was actually wearing a bright yellow cycling jacket.. I'm sure he thought he was safe, but it made me worry that he had to be that close before I noticed he wasn't all in black, and that he actually had a front light.

I didn't get a look at the back of him though, as a gap emerged just as he went by for me to get out through.

Isn't this just a case for having a powerful front light? Nothing will make that cyclist safer than having a bright front light which won't get lost in the other traffic.
Unfortunatly most lights sold in bike shops aren't powerful enough IMO.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What this seems to boil down to is this:

It's a legal requirement to use lights when it's dark. So do it, otherwise you're not just a muppet, you're an illegal muppet.

If you believe that drivers in your neck of the woods are more likely to treat you with respect and care if they know you are a cyclist, then hi-viz (bright colours + reflective) are a good thing because then they will identify you as a cylist. Unless you have lights that make the eyes bleed, in which case you (a) don't need it; and (b) they probably won't see it anyway. You can be the People's Front of Judea.

If you believe that drivers are generally careless, even though they don't mean to be, because they are prone to being distracted by being late/other traffic/changing the CD/arguing with Radio 4/fixing their hair/talking on the phone/smoking a fag/eating a bacon butty/reading the latest Booker prize winner/playing Nintendo then you may find the WTF factor to be more helpful as unknown objects are treated with more caution than known objects. This is particularly the case if you live in an area where drivers are generally less than lovely towards cyclists. You can be the Judean People's Front.

Both approaches have their place. Both are valid for differing circumstances and it is up to an individual cyclist to choose his visibility strategy according to circumstance, as long as the legal minimum has been achieved. Yelling and insulting one another because some of us think one approach is better than the other just makes us splitters. I don't think either approach is wrong. I prefer the second, as in my experience it is more effective*. If your experience is different, then good for you.


*Most effective of all, I've found, is wearing next to nothing, although this only really works in summer and I expect it's more effective for girls.

Sam (quite fancy one of those Mars 4.0s though)

I'm from the Campaign for a Free Galilee. We hate flourescent colours as it ruins our camoflage.

I want BLACK clothes with GOOD reflectives and the reflective bits can't be flouro. I want decent lights, in the plural, both front and rear. Up front these need be a combination of "see by" and "be seen" and since, lighting wise, I cringe from single points of failure on lights that means a minimum of two lamps up front and at least two on the rear. In a free Galilee helmet lights front and rear are optional.

 

[Ravenbait]

I'm from the Campaign for a Free Galilee. We hate flourescent colours as it ruins our camoflage.

I want BLACK clothes with GOOD reflectives and the reflective bits can't be flouro. I want decent lights, in the plural, both front and rear. Up front these need be a combination of "see by" and "be seen" and since, lighting wise, I cringe from single points of failure on lights that means a minimum of two lamps up front and at least two on the rear. In a free Galilee helmet lights front and rear are optional.

This is me and Shackleton done up for the Dumb Run in 2008:

Others can be seen on the Dumb Run tag: http://www.flickr.co...s/tags/dumbrun/

I'm with you. I dress in black with reflective strips, have decent lights front and rear.

Please note that I don't usually have such crazy lighting. The glow sticks and crystal stars are of dubious legality and only come out once a year. Excellent WTF quotient, however.

Sam