Having your light's on for a daylight commute ?

[mjr]

That's hardly comparable. Does everybody else have a bodyguard or armour?

It's exactly comparable - everybody else doesn't have rear lights on! Walkers! Horse-riders! Bus stops! Benches!

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?

Try looking at the bizarre anecdote-based decision-making of the motorists that made up the the inter-war Commons and the Transport Advisory Committee. That's where "a bit of common sense" rather than following rigorous evidence got us.

Of course lights make things more visible.

So if a tree falls in the forest with no-one to shine a light upon it, is it invisible?

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?

Indeed. I can already be seen by anyone who bothers to look properly.

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.

I think we're basically agreed on that, but disagree about whether wasting energy on daytime running lights is reasonable.

 

[Flying Dodo]

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.

But for many, we don't stand out - that's the point. You make the valid case for riding noticeably and defensively in poor conditions. Doesn't having rear light make you more noticeable? Why advocate just one course of action to be more visible?

 

[KneesUp]

I put bike lights on when I would use the lights in the car. Admittedly I tend to put the car lights in conditions where other people do not (low sun, bit misty, rain, first hint of dusk) That said I rode home at about 9 the other night and discovered that my front light battery - which had stood up to a winter in Yorkshire with no problem - has been knackered by a Bank Holiday weekend it Wales, so it doesn't work. I'm still alive (but I did have a rear light on).

 

[Dogtrousers]

I ride with little red blinker permanently attached to my bike. Mainly because that is where I keep it. If I think the weather is a bit murky I switch it on. Outside summer I often as not have a small front light too, which I may also switch on. I don't wait for the legally decreed sunset and sunrise, I use my own judgment.

 

[Dommo]

It's exactly comparable - everybody else doesn't have rear lights on! Walkers! Horse-riders! Bus stops! Benches!.

You are deliberately ignoring my point. I was talking about vehicles on the morning commute lit up in bad lighting and you know it. Walkers, bus stops and benches are generally not known to progress along a road, flowing with the motor traffic at a similar pace.

Try looking at the bizarre anecdote-based decision-making of the motorists that made up the the inter-war Commons and the Transport Advisory Committee. That's where "a bit of common sense" rather than following rigorous evidence got us.

You will get zero argument from me on the basis of evidence-based action, but like I said before, I'm pretty sure motor vehicles have rear lights for a reason. Maybe cars didn't have them previously and then someone realised that lights might help to stop people driving into each other at night...

So if a tree falls in the forest with no-one to shine a light upon it, is it invisible?

Yes. If literally no visible light strikes the tree and is reflected then it is invisible. Let's leave that one!

Indeed. I can already be seen by anyone who bothers to look properly.

Yes, absolutely. Absolve yourself of any responsibility on the count of light-based visibility, but then make sure you "ride noticeably."

I think we're basically agreed on that, but disagree about whether wasting energy on daytime running lights is reasonable.

Yes, we're agreeing about everything but one point. That's kind of why I find your stance a tad odd in that you want to do everything else to make yourself visible, ride defensively and take sensible precautions, yet "wasting" a few milliwats of battery power doesn't seem to be a good return on the investment of the lights and a couple of AA batteries. I will also go back to my original point in that I'm talking about riding in reduced visibility, not daytime running lights in general.

 

[youngoldbloke]

I don't commute, but I do use lights when conditions warrant it (as I do when driving - when driving in bad conditions a rear light on a bike often means that the rider is visible at a greater distance than would be the case otherwise - as does lighter clothing). I also put on lights in very bright sunshine - in deep shade, and when riding into the sun.

 

[Jamieyorky]

I had lights on this morning. It felt like winter again with lights and my waterproof jacket on.

Tell me about it, i had all last week off work so cycling on this morning felt like i'd been off all summer and eas cycling in winter again.

 

[Hip Priest]

In heavy rain I'll put the lights on, whether I'm on the bike or in the car:

 

[mjr]

You are deliberately ignoring my point. I was talking about vehicles on the morning commute lit up in bad lighting and you know it. Walkers, bus stops and benches are generally not known to progress along a road, flowing with the motor traffic at a similar pace.

Outside That London, walkers are progressing along the road (I've no footway to my doctors', for example - where I lived before, I had no footway to the shop 200m away) and people on bikes are generally not flowing with the motor traffic at anywhere near a similar pace. Even in smaller towns and cities, most of the roads have 30mph or higher limits and that's seen as a target by many motorists, rather than an absolute limit. Compared to their 60+mph, most of us are much closer to the speed of bus stops or benches than motor vehicles most of the time.

I'm pretty sure motor vehicles have rear lights for a reason. Maybe cars didn't have them previously and then someone realised that lights might help to stop people driving into each other at night...

It's more like a sequence of anecdotes about rich early motorists claiming that rear lights would have stopped them driving into whatever they hit. I can't find now the summary of the history of rear lights that I read before, but here's a typical snatch from Hansard from 2 February 1945:

However careful one might be—and I have driven motor cars since 1905—one is very often faced with the grave difficulty of seeing a cyclist. Over and over again I would have given anything to have felt more sure whether or not there was a cyclist ahead of me.

And it's with those sort of anecdotes and sentiments that early motorists cursed us all with rear lights and drivers who go far faster than they can see with their own lights.

Absolve yourself of any responsibility on the count of light-based visibility, but then make sure you "ride noticeably."

Sure. If you ride where nobbers are more likely to be looking and are hoping for the best while preparing for the worst, that's far far better than shining a dim red light while riding in the gutter.

That's kind of why I find your stance a tad odd in that you want to do everything else to make yourself visible, ride defensively and take sensible precautions, yet "wasting" a few milliwats of battery power doesn't seem to be a good return on the investment of the lights and a couple of AA batteries.

I feel the costs - including those to people walking and other unlit road users - aren't worth the benefits, which is almost the definition of a bad return on investment. I'll put the headlight on if needed to see and either light on if legally required.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Open to interpretation...


Colleague of mine used to use the Hayling Island Ferry

She would cycle with lights to the ferry and decide whether to use them through Eastney

One morning she was stopped by the Police for not having lights

Politely explained that as it was past " lighting up" time and it wasa bright spring morning there was no need or legal requirement.

Constable insisted that as in his view visibility was impaired he was going to issue a fixed penalty

She then got out a camera and photographed the ferry, and approach road and asked if he could record the refusal formally

Court eventually decided the Police were more valid and fined her

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Would you care to point out where anyone (apart from yourself) has claimed this doesn't apply?

 

[Drago]

Why didn't she use the very smart bridge?

 

[Bobby Mhor]

Sister in law asks me.. 'Why do cyclists have their flashing lights on in daylight?'
I reply 'You noticed so it works then'..

In the good old days when I had a motorbike, lights were on at all times...
personal choice I guess..

 

[Keith Oates]

I also put the lights on in the daytime if the weather etc. warrants it but I also see riders who have them on in bright daylight and they are not doing any good at all. BUT like most things if it makes you feel safer leave them on because they are not causing any harm.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[buggi]

The answer is... If you would normally turn your lights on when driving because of low visibility, then yes, definitely turn them on when on the bike.


In general, I'm not particularly bothered about helmets and hi viz,I think they make sod all difference but I do use day running lights. One of the reasons I use the back ones is in case I turn into low sunlight. This is also the most common time for drivers to use their screen wash as when they are facing low sun is when they realise their windscreen has got dirty. The first few wipes of the wipers often messes up the windscreen and they lose visibility for a few seconds (you didn't expect them to slow down when they can't see did you???). A bright flashing light under my silhouetted arse might help. The front one helps when filtering. I see a distinct difference in the amount of drivers move over enough to allow me better access to filter when I've got them on (I'm sure they are not being polite... Just worried I might scratch their car LOL). Think they pick up my flashing light in their mirrors... Even when they are doing their make up or texting. They catch the flash in their peripheral vision.