Having your light's on for a daylight commute ?

[Shut Up Legs]

So commuting to work this morning in the rain, so will be alot of spray on the roads from car's etc.... Who ride's with there lights on on a day like this ?

I do. In the messed-up country I live in, motorists who hit cyclists are always looking for some lame excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, so having flashing lights makes this tougher for them.

 

[byegad]

I ride in the dark once or twice a year, but all my trikes have two front and rear lights fitted full time. The reason is simple, I live 10 miles from the sea and North Sea Haar often blows in creating a thick mist. In poor visibility, whatever the cause I'd put my lights on, better safe than save a couple of batteries IMHO.

 

[Origamist]

Actually isn't it a legal requirement to have lights at night OR in times of poor visibility ? Or is that just another law that doesn't apply to cyclists.

Can anyone remember a post where sidevalve said something positive about cycling?

 

[Rooster1]

I ride with a flashing front most of the time, and sometimes a rear in daytime if it is raining, Both are rechargeable so I am never worried about battery life or getting replacements.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I've not taken mine off yet, but didn't bother turning them on this morning, my commute was spitting with rain, but just not that dreary really. If it does darken down, I'll turn them on. When I've removed them completely I'll probably chuck a couple of knogs in the bag and similarly hook them on if the commute is proper dark because of weather. If I'd turn side lights on in the car, I'll turn bike lights on on the cycle.

 

[Drago]

Edit, Come to think of it, isn't it mandatory now that all new cars are manufactured to have the side lights on all the time, or do i have that wrong?

For new models type approved after a certain date, despite their being no link to casualty reduction in anything other than the Northern European sub arctic climate. It's the car equivalent of cycle helmets - it must surely work, because common sense says it does.

 

[MiK1138]

Put my rear light back on this morning dug out the waterproofs and thermals, WHY IS IT WINTER AGAIN SO SOON?

 

[biking_fox]

I have reelights so they're always on. But I don't bother turning on my brighter lights unless it seems necessary, which wan't the case this morning.

 

[subaqua]

Have a dynamo and can't be bothered to lean forward and switch the switch off on the front light. It doesn't switch voltage off to rear so will have a rear light whatever.

 

[DEFENDER01]

Come to think of it, isn't it mandatory now that all new cars are manufactured to have the side lights on all the time, or do i have that wrong?

B.M.W cars have side lights on all the time.
Thats because their indicators dont work.

 

[Dommo]

This. A thousand times this. Put lights on if they'll help you see, but other than that, please show solidarity with other people walking and cycling and refuse to help motorists drive faster than what they can see to be clear.

Rear lights on cars are not to help the driver to see. They are there to allow the vehicle to be seen more easily. The same goes for your bike. Not putting a rear light on your bike in reduced visibility is hardly going to make drivers safer - right or wrong, it will just increase your chances of getting creamed in the name of solidarity. I get the whole thing about not wearing hi-viz or putting your lights on in normal conditions, but not putting a light on in the rain etc, when all other vehicles are doing so is just asking for trouble. I realise it's not technically a legal requirement but there's a line between making a point and just being generally sensible on the road.

 

[mjr]

but not putting a light on in the rain etc, when all other vehicles are doing so is just asking for trouble.

And would you say not having a bodyguard with me "is just asking" to be attacked? And not wearing body armour "is just asking" to be shot? And that roadside tree "is just asking" to be felled because it has no lights on it?

No. This self-loathing by some cyclists here is not sensible. I use rear lights when legally required (and they're legal, meeting the current RVLR - unlike most here?), but I know that nothing I can do can make me "be seen more easily". That's a daft idea: we're already not invisible just because we look like ordinary people. We're pretty easy to spot. For example, I'm big enough, ugly enough and moving in an attention-grabbing manner. If a motorist is looking properly, they will see me. It's the ones who either can't see properly (42%) or that simply don't look that we need to address.

Trying to make all non-motorists use more lights more often distracts us from more effective actions, like pressing for regular proper eyetests as a condition of driving licences, or road design changes so that when the blind nobbers crash, they damage themselves and not bystanders or our neighbourhoods.

 

[Flying Dodo]

And would you say not having a bodyguard with me "is just asking" to be attacked? And not wearing body armour "is just asking" to be shot? And that roadside tree "is just asking" to be felled because it has no lights on it?

No. This self-loathing by some cyclists here is not sensible. I use rear lights when legally required (and they're legal, meeting the current RVLR - unlike most here?), but I know that nothing I can do can make me "be seen more easily". That's a daft idea: we're already not invisible just because we look like ordinary people. We're pretty easy to spot. For example, I'm big enough, ugly enough and moving in an attention-grabbing manner. If a motorist is looking properly, they will see me. It's the ones who either can't see properly (42%) or that simply don't look that we need to address.

Trying to make all non-motorists use more lights more often distracts us from more effective actions, like pressing for regular proper eyetests as a condition of driving licences, or road design changes so that when the blind nobbers crash, they damage themselves and not bystanders or our neighbourhoods.

Your comments about bodyguards or body armour are different issues though.

Yes, you're right - it would be nice if drivers actually bothered to drive with due care and attention at all times. But they don't. So if there's even a remote possibility that just one dozy driver actually spots a blinking red light in the corner of their eye ahead in the murk and moves across a bit rather than ploughing into an unlit cyclist they didn't see, surely that's better than taking the passive assumption that by doing nothing at all, things will somehow change and hoping that eventually they'll see the light and all drive properly?

We know that the courts favour drivers and society has this weird acceptance of thousands of road deaths and incidents as effectively being acceptable background noise, which does need to change, so action does need to be taken on that front, but that's clearly not going to happen quickly so it shouldn't be at the expense of stopping cyclists taking their own actions to make themselves stand out.

 

[Dommo]

And would you say not having a bodyguard with me "is just asking" to be attacked? And not wearing body armour "is just asking" to be shot? And that roadside tree "is just asking" to be felled because it has no lights on it?

That's hardly comparable. Does everybody else have a bodyguard or armour? The point I'm making is that you are suggesting purposefully going against what everyone else is doing (ie vehicles with lights on) just to prove a point. Fair enough that my use of "asking for" is a bad choice of words, but you get my point.

No. This self-loathing by some cyclists here is not sensible. I use rear lights when legally required (and they're legal, meeting the current RVLR - unlike most here?), but I know that nothing I can do can make me "be seen more easily". That's a daft idea: we're already not invisible just because we look like ordinary people. We're pretty easy to spot. For example, I'm big enough, ugly enough and moving in an attention-grabbing manner. If a motorist is looking properly, they will see me. It's the ones who either can't see properly (42%) or that simply don't look that we need to address.

I can assure you I'm not self-loathing. I just like to use a bit of common sense once in a while. If there's "nothing you can do" then why do cars have the rear lights in the first place? Of course lights make things more visible. Or are you saying that you only use the lights at night because it's the law as opposed to your believing that it actually helps you be seen? I agree that addressing the people not looking properly is the way forward but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take reasonable precaution to increase the chance of being seen in the meantime.

Trying to make all non-motorists use more lights more often distracts us from more effective actions, like pressing for regular proper eyetests as a condition of driving licences, or road design changes so that when the blind nobbers crash, they damage themselves and not bystanders or our neighbourhoods.

These are not mutually exclusive concepts. All of the things you are talking about can and should be addressed. My turning on a light in the rain is unlikely to influence public policy as far as eye testing for drivers is concerned. I'm not talking about forcing cyclists to dress like christmas trees. I'm not even suggesting a change in the law - making people use lights as you say. I'm simply suggesting that in conditions of poor visibility where other motorists have made a conscious decision to turn on their lights then not turning yours on just to prove a point seems self-defeating.

 

[mjr]

So if there's even a remote possibility that just one dozy driver actually spots a blinking red light ahead in the murk and moves across a bit rather than ploughing into an unlit cyclist they didn't see, surely that's better than taking the passive assumption that by doing nothing at all, things will somehow change and hoping that eventually they'll see the light and all drive properly?

That's not the choice (I don't just do nothing), plus (as I wrote before) we're quite visible anyway, plus self-loathing cyclists acting as if people should use rear lights almost all the time is much more damaging than the benefits to any of them.

action does need to be taken on that front, but that's clearly not going to happen quickly so it shouldn't be at the expense of stopping cyclists taking their own actions to make themselves stand out.

We're humans in a car-centric landscape. We already stand out. Putting a dimmer-than-the-daylight red light on your back won't add much and a dazzling rear light would be both unsafe and illegal. Better to concentrate on riding noticeably and defensively in poor conditions. Look around you often. Know how to do emergency turns. Practice break-falls. Know when to abandon bike. But more than that, join a cycling campaign group and join the voices for road justice, better driver licensing and so on.