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

[Rhythm Thief]

That theory of BIG article is mostly bollocks, with a couple of good points buried in a mass of difficult to read bullshit.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Visibility, however one achieves it - and I have an open mind on this, in fact yesterday I went out and bought a new back light as a result of the discussion above (thanks, Gaz) - is really presaged on the basic assumption (and it's not an assumption unique to me or which I invented) that someone is going to have the best chance of seeing you AND take some positive action on that basis - give you more space, or at least not put you in danger etc. The aggressive driver is not going to care whether you're more visible or not. Visibility will not do anything to help in the case of someone with an intent to harm you, and there's no point in discussing it in relation to that possibility.

Exactly my point.

 

[BentMikey]

Yuo seem to be saying in one paragraph that it's impossible to mistake bike lights for anything else, and then in the very next paragraph that some motorists might confuse a bike with an HGV trailer. You can't have it both ways.

With the respect I have for you, I expect you to debate better than this and not try to make a straw man. My point again, for clarity:
Bright tail light(s) are not going to be mistaken for traffic lights, and they aren't going to look like a cyclist either. They look like an unknown vehicle ahead, which causes motorists to give more time and space because they aren't sure what hazard that vehicle might pose, what size it is, etc. I'm not having anything both ways here.

I'll say it again. There's no coincidence that super bright LED users report getting more space at night than they do during the day. I suggest this is because they no longer look like a cyclist.

Interesting (my bold). So hi viz is a good thing, then?

That Theory of BIG article only gives 1 point for bright lights and 2 points for hivis.

Firstly, DM doesn't use the word hiviz, and secondly, it was written back in 1998 IIRC. Back then reflectives would quite likely be more effective than the relatively dim rear lights available. That's not the case today, with super bright LEDs easily capable of making hiviz and reflectives invisible and pointless, which point I've made before, up thread.

 

[BentMikey]

There's no point to you being quite so objectionable.

I'm sorry if you find my posts objectionable - I can't quite imagine why though. Perhaps it's best to stick to debate points rather than this sort of thing?

Visibility, however one achieves it - and I have an open mind on this, in fact yesterday I went out and bought a new back light as a result of the discussion above (thanks, Gaz) - is really presaged on the basic assumption (and it's not an assumption unique to me or which I invented) that someone is going to have the best chance of seeing you AND take some positive action on that basis - give you more space, or at least not put you in danger etc. The aggressive driver is not going to care whether you're more visible or not. Visibility will not do anything to help in the case of someone with an intent to harm you, and there's no point in discussing it in relation to that possibility.

You've rather missed my point. Drivers tend to give more space and time to vehicles they perceive to be bigger and to ones that they perceive as being more of a danger to them. For example, I'm sure someone posted about a study on here which showed that people pull out right in front of smaller vehicles and cyclists, and not when it's a large vehicle like a lorry or bus.

On overtakes, see my point about people's experiences with overtaking space at night with super bright LEDs.

p.s. I'm quite amused you don't want to credit me with correctly guessing your rear lights are old tech.

 

[gaz]

Since I got my 3w rear light I've been getting some very good overtakes in locations I used to always get bad ones.
Bright lights rule!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

p.s. I'm quite amused you don't want to credit me with correctly guessing your rear lights are old tech.

I tend to listen to people who ask questions and offer positive advice and examples, rather than people who are rude and negative. I'm surprised you can't see why people (and not just me) find your manner objectionable - just look at your own posts. You'd do rather better if you coupled any knowledge you might have to offer with some manners - IMHO of course.

PS: I didn't miss the point you actually made. If you wanted to make a different one, you should have made it.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Bright tail light(s) are not going to be mistaken for traffic lights ...

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. I'm talking about in areas of complete darkness here, not streetlit environments, which incidentally gives credence to my point about definition of the area behind the light being useful. Which is what hi viz can provide.

Firstly, DM doesn't use the word hiviz, and secondly, it was written back in 1998 IIRC. Back then reflectives would quite likely be more effective than the relatively dim rear lights available. That's not the case today, with super bright LEDs easily capable of making hiviz and reflectives invisible and pointless, which point I've made before, up thread.

I suspect we're going to have to agree to diasagree on this one. But I will say he may not use the words "hi viz", but that's what he's describing. I absolutely disagree that a hi viz tabard is "invisible and pointless". 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.

 

[Amheirchion]

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.

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm not convinced by that. We do after all have a responsibility in law to fit lights to our bikes for riding at night, and regardless of the moral rights and wrongs of it, anyone riding unlit on an A road (or any road, really) at night, thinking "well, it's their responsibility to look for me" is really asking for trouble. And where does it stop? Should we be expecting pedestrians to develop x ray vision in order to see unlit cyclists swooping down hills in unlit villages? Or is it ok for anyone to decide to turn their car lights off because other drivers should be looking out for unlit objects? It's a nice argument, and I can see the point you're making, but it's ultimately meaningless.

No one denies that - it is how far you take it.

You have to accept responsibility, and the HiViz argument is simply shifting that from the overtaking vehicles.

Drivers even expect sheep to wear HiViz in Wales, and there are active campaigns in Dartmoor and teh New Forest for compulsory HiViz for horses!

"I know I am on a moor in the middle of nowhere and I should expect wildlife - but it is your fault because your horse did not have HiViz!"

Drivers need to take responsibility for looking and reacting apropriately.. how "lit"do you need to be?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

It's worth remembering that the title of this thread is "get some f****g lights!". We're not talking here about whether two lights is better than one, or whether we should be using hi viz or not; we're talking about those idiots who give us all a bad name by inexplicably wobbling around on busy roads with no lights whatever. No one can reasonably expect a driver to be able to see people like that in time to react safely.
My stance on hi viz is that I don't drive around expecting everyone to be using it, but when I do see people using it I realise that it makes them far more visible that those without it. So I wear it myself, partly I suspect because I get hi viz tabards free from work. But mostly because, as outlined ad nauseam in previous posts, it helps to prevent your single rear light being mistaken for anything else.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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.

With dipped headlights you have to be quite tight on a cyclist/motorcyclist not wearing reflectives before your lights illuminated their torso effectively. Has to be that way else motor vehicles would dazzle the feck out of every driver. Hence my contention that light colours alone offer no advantage over black. and it makes it hard for drivers to see our signals and we don't have brake lights...

Some of Rhythm Thief's observations, and his status as a pro HGV driver and cyclist, make for a compelling case for reflectives though.

So here is a question, does anyone do a sam browne or tabard or ruck sack cover (not that I ever ride with a rucksack, than has good reflectives but is NOT made in a day glo colour? A plain white/gray one would be my ideal, like my bagaboo velcro trouser "clips" of which I use two pairs, one around the lower leg and the other around the wrists.

 

[pwh91]

[Coming from someone with 4 lights on his bike]

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. Most accidents seem to happen to people lit up like a Christmas tree.

I have a theory that the Ninjas we see cycling around (typically, low-riding at 8mph straight through traffic lights and zebra crossings irrespective of who's in the way) aren't actually mortal humans but come from some kind of branch of the wizarding community and so have a magical force-field hence avoiding accidents.

Something in this...?

 

[psmiffy]

[Coming from someone with 4 lights on his bike]

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?

The only data I have seen with respect to cyclists using light and accidents is the TRL analysis of London Data
2001-2006

20 - fatalities in the dark/under street lighting
14 had no lights
3 had some lights
1 lights were unrecorded

Total of all the fatalities in the period was 108

 

[gaz]

[QUOTE 1262619"]
Just to clarify, hivis to me includes some Scothlite tape as well and not just a brightly coloured jacket.


[/quote]

Indeed, and as i've said, most cycling 'hivis' products don't have enough scothlite tape.

 

[BentMikey]

And BTW BM, I might just have a little more experience of cycling in such difficult conditions (permanent snow and ice and almost total darkness on much of my commute for 4 months+ of the year, with frequent driving snow storms) than you...

Well, I can't argue on the snow and ice, but I can on the darkness. If I'm not mistaken in that you live near Toronto, that currently has around a half hour more daylight than London, yes? I think I commute in darkness more than most as I teach up until dark, which means I ride home in darkness on most of my commutes, even through midsummer. I'm always slightly surprised when people start commenting on how it's time to get the lights out again in late summer/autumn.

On the rudeness, perhaps you can drop that now? It's not productive, and it's coming across to me as nothing more than a whinge, and as though you have nothing better to get at me with.