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

[Rhythm Thief]

Just going back a bit.....

Traffic lights come in pairs, so if a single light is possibly mistaken as a traffic light, surely a pair of red lights (as on a car) is an absolutely ridiculous concept as it mimics traffic lights more closely?

Yes, if you see two traffic lights way off in the distance you can mistake them for a car, and vice versa. I'm not saying it happens every time I come to some traffic lights; my point was that it can - and does - happen.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Your car needs to wear hiviz too,else it might be mistaken for a bicycle and run over.

Let's not forget that cars have lots of reflective surfaces - windows and paintwork - which give definition to the object behind the lights.
Look, I don't care whether you wear hi viz or not. I don't really care much how good your lights are or how many you have. All I'm trying to do is give you all an idea of what helps you to be seen from behind the wheel and why - sometimes - a single constant light is not the best option, no matter how bright.

 

[BentMikey]

if you see a red traffic light in the distance it's very easy to momentarily mistake it for something else.

So combined with hiviz not showing up until you're quite close, this point you made is nothing more than excessive debate polarisation, and not related to cyclist safety at all. Just point scoring.

Even if it were true (and it's extremely unlikely) that you mistake bicycle or car lights for stationary lights, is that actually a problem? All it means is that drivers drive around the light with a safety margin. Even aggressive drivers are less likely to drive into stationary lights than cyclists, because that'll damage their cars more.

Hiviz is a simple rabbits foot to make people feel better, but has no useful safety effect when decent lights are used. All you're talking about is wanting cyclists to look like cyclists, which is not a safety bonus either.

 

[Debian]

Well, well, well.

I certainly didn't expect this thread to generate the level of debate and controversy that it has, but it now contains some very interesting views and observations!

In the end it's all down to personal preferance I guess, all I, or anyone else can really do is to state what they find effective and in that vein my opinions are these:

1) Working lights are a legal requirement on cycles when ridden on public highways after lighting up time. So fit some and use them, if you don't you are both a moron and illegal.

2) You should allow for points of failure - fit at least two front and two rear lights

3) The lights you do use should be of adequate brightness, I've seen more than a few that are next to useless.

4) Hi-Vis gear is very useful in conditions of poor visibility during daylight / twilight

5) Reflective gear is very useful after dark, especially when worn on the upper body and the ankles

6) Flashing front and rear daylight running lights are good.

The first three points, IMO are non-negotiable.

Points 4, 5 and 6 are purely based on my observations as a driver as to what I find makes a cyclist most visible to me and helps me to see a cyclist in adequate time for me to give him or her the margin of comfort and safety that they deserve. Others will have different opinions no doubt, but this is what works for me.

As a general additional point, I really wish that plod would take more action on all forms of anti-social road use. I know that resources are limited but demonstrating a zero-tolerance approach over the little things would, I think, go a long way towards changing peoples attitudes. I think it would do no harm at all for the police to set up "road blocks" on a random basis , stopping all vehicles that are obviously not in conformance with construction and use regulations; vehicle lights not working or malfunctioning, using foglights inappropriately, chavvy blue front auxilliary lights, cyclists with no lights at night, etc.... Have a "no excuses" policy - issue tickets in all cases and, where the fault makes the vehicle unfit for use, impound it until fixed and that includes cycles.

 

[asterix]

A good summary from the OP, I also agree with this:

To move on to a different part of this discussion, I think pedal reflectors are much more likely to make people think cyclist than hiviz vests are.

After all, loads of road users/workers wear high vis vests these days.


Also, in the countryside, with winding lanes and hedges, visible headgear is a big help (note avoidance of the more controversial 'H' word!). IIRC the Highway code suggests that white is a good colour (motorcycling). It's surprising how easy it is to spot a cyclist wearing white headgear above a hedge in daytime.

 

[Origamist]

A good summary from the OP, I also agree with this:



After all, loads of road users/workers wear high vis vests these days.

Indeed.

Anything that accentuates the bio-mechanical nature of cycling will draw attention to the act of cycling. Pedal reflectors do this well (or a patch of Scotchlite on your clipless shoes), but snap on ankle retro-reflectives do this far better (larger surface area and 360 degree coverage).

Spoke lights/reflectors also help to identify cyclists...

Traditionally a Sam Browne was a very common signifier of a cyclist (or a soldier if you want to go back a century), but these have fallen out of fashion (and motorcyclists use similar reflective belts). I prefer a Sam Browne to a yellow vest/tabard with retro-reflectives.

 

[pshore]

The single best thing you can do to avoid this is to fit a good bright flashing LED at each end in addition to your constant lights. They really stand out.

Yep, totally agree. When a driver is having a quick look to pull out from a side road past queuing traffic in the dark, all they see is a whole load of lights and experience tells them they are all cars so they pull out.

My experience is that unless you have a flashing light you will not stand out when filtering. It's exactly the same on my motorcyle which has three front lights, I am invisible when filtering because it doesn't stand out.


On rural roads, I have noticed more of a trend for ankle reflectors / pedal reflectors recently. They are very very good at getting you noticed early.

 

[Wobblers]

I'm not at all convinced about the effectiveness of hi-viz in urban areas at night. It simply takes on the same colour as the street lights so there's very little contrast with the road. I often come across cyclists in hi-viz who are almost invisible at night even with hi-viz because of this. Reflectives, too, need light to be effective, but there tends to be so much light around that reflectives just don't stand out. On the other hand, there's nothing better than hi-viz at dusk or when it's cloudy.

I can see (please excuse the pun!) that reflectives make much more sense - and visual impact along a dark country lane.

It's nowt to do with my eyes, it's just the way my brain - being a human as I am - works. After all, a red traffic light is a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens and a bicycle rear light is either a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens ... if you see a red traffic light in the distance it's very easy to momentarily mistake it for something else.

I've never mistaken rear lights for traffic lights! Could it be a result of the cab of your HGV being higher up than the rest of the traffic? And do you find that hi-viz is more effective in a rural or urban setting?

 

[c2c]

Got a lift from Nottingham to Derby by my flatmate this morning as I needed to take my computer in to work (ah the benefits of an IT department being your free computer repair service!) - very misty in Derby - passed about 5 cyclists on the way into the center and not one of them had any form of lights whatsoever. One didn't even have any reflectors either. All on BSOs with the seats too low spinning slowly in low gears.

Fortunately it was fairly light by then.

Is anyone here from Derby? I'd like to speak frankly about what I think of people from Derby.

Went to see the mighty Bristol City play derby last season, stayed over to sample the delights of the town..................... there were no delights, what a s**thole !!. But having said that, a very dear friend of mine who hails from Derby is probably the most intelligent bloke i know, teaches physics, as a side line................. for fun......!!!

Dozy no light cyclists exist in every town innit..

 

[fossyant]

I tend to go with a UFO look (WTF)........... having been at the misfortune of a SMIDSY, with lots of good lights, reflective kit etc, I am paranoid.

I don't go with hi-viz generally - my kit has reflective bits on, and my waterproof just happens to be flo. yellow.

I do however go ab bit OTT on the light 'wattage', front and rear, as it's certainly a "WTF is that" reaction I get. I still use 'flashers' mainly as back up and to 'identify' it as a bike, whilst the 'big' lights are usually on constant, unless it's daylight and very dull, then they go on flash.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

So combined with hiviz not showing up until you're quite close, this point you made is nothing more than excessive debate polarisation, and not related to cyclist safety at all. Just point scoring.

Not point scoring at all. The point I keep trying to make - and frankly I don't know why I'm bothering since in your utter determination to be right in all circumstances you keep steamrollering over it anyway - is that hi viz (or flashing LEDs, pedal reflectors, etc.) helps to identify a distant light as a cyclist from the word go. This prevents drivers from using up concentration that would better be used elsewhere, because once you know what a light up ahead is, you don't have to peer into the darkness going "now what's that?", thereby running the risk of missing something else important happening nearby. It's more difficult to describe than to experience, but you seem to be determined not to get it anyway, so I shan't bother trying again.

Even if it were true (and it's extremely unlikely) that you mistake bicycle or car lights for stationary lights, is that actually a problem? All it means is that drivers drive around the light with a safety margin. Even aggressive drivers are less likely to drive into stationary lights than cyclists, because that'll damage their cars more.

Well, it's much the same thing as mistaking a cyclist for an HGV trailer, which was a theory you were expounding a few pages back. It's not normally a problem as such, all it means is that your brain is engaged in trying to work out what that lamp ahead is - is it a cyclist I need to allow for, is it a pedestrian carrying a torch, is it a house security light, or what? - whereas if your headlights pick up pedal reflectors, a reflective top, supplementary flashing LEDs or whatever, you can plan your overtake much earlier.

Hiviz is a simple rabbits foot to make people feel better, but has no useful safety effect when decent lights are used. All you're talking about is wanting cyclists to look like cyclists, which is not a safety bonus either.

Both these statements are what we call "opinion". Your hectoring tone implies that they're something else called "facts". Which they aren't.

 

[gaz]

What one thing makes a cyclist look like a cyclist from far away? certainly not hi-viz, as many people wear hi-viz on the road, be them police or people working on the road.

 

[neslon]

A lot of false dichotomies being advanced here ffs. HiViz, reflectives, lights: they all do something to make you seen, albeit in different circumstances. None is bad, and each isbet ter than none (all isnt a bad option, really)

 

[Gixxerman]

My thoughts are that I do not expect that they have to wear hi-viz or reflectives.
I would happily settle for them just meeting the minimum legal requirements of having working lights fore and aft.
If the lights are bright and/or they have multiple lights, then all the better.
If they choose to wear hi-viz / relflectives then all the better still.

It is worth bearing in mind that the OP was just asking for them to meet their legal obligation.
If they choose by their own free will to ride on public roads without lights during the hours of darkness and they get kncked off, then as far as I am concerned that is just hard luck. If I myself chose to ride without lights in the dark and subsequently get knocked off, then I would accept that I had been foolish and irresponsible and accept all that came with it (provided that the motor vehicle and driver were meeting their legal requirements also. I.E. not speeding, talking on phone, drunk etc.).
The majority motor vehicle drivers will give you room when they pass, but to do this, they first need to see you.
Anything that makes you more visible must be a good thing surely.
I can't see any downsides to being more visible.

 

[lukesdad]

I was driving with that very much in mind. The first incident happened as I was waiting to pull out from a side road, I simply could not see the unlit and ninja-dressed cyclist in the dark and fog.



And if no-one does anything to attract such idiot cyclists attention then they will carry on their merry way regardless. I was not "in a frame of mind", rather I was trying to give the cyclist a hint.

Don't forget, I am, by choice, a cyclist rather than a motorist and I'm fully aware of the situations.

I maintain my view that any cyclist not displaying decent lights + reflectors and not wearing hi-vis kit in current conditions is a class-A moron, no two ways about it.

Use public transport it ll do wonders for your blood pressure.