lights scheme

[gambatte]

Just spotted this
bbc
Not sure what I think of the scheme overall. I can see some looking at it and thinking. "Why get any lights? Just wait till I get pulled and get some freebies"
"In 2010, 45 cyclists were seriously injured on South Yorkshire's roads, according to police figures" But in how many of those cases was a lack of lighting a contributory factor?

 

[wintonbina]

Hmmm! It does make you wonder. I was knocked off my bike recently & I had 2 front lights, 2 back lights, Bright orange jacket & ankle reflectors and the driver didn't see me till I was on her bonnet!
Prehaps Ninja's do rule

 

[Hawk]

There's a quote from someone, can't recall who that says something to the effect of "The best way to camouflage yourself in an urban environment is to dress up as brightly as possible and hang as many lights as you can afford from yourself".

There is a difference between making yourself bright and colourful vs making yourself conspicuous. I think the aim is for you to contrast with whatever's behind you - if you're dressed brightly and cycling in front of a queue of bright headlights, this is (imo ofc) less visible than being dressed in all black in the same scenario; just what I've been thinking of late...

 

[gaz]

I've had 3 collisions with other road users over the years. twice at night, once during the day. All 3 of those times I was using lights.

 

[ufkacbln]

It is difficult to tell whether or not there is an effect.

The number of accidents may be low due to the decreased number of cyclists so not reflect (pun intended) the problem.

I know however that from my own anecdotal evidence lighting is totally ineffective for the same reasons that HiViz remains ineffective......... the drivers need to look and more importantly see cyclists, then react appropriately - but fail to do so. Or worse still "it's just a cyclist" and carry on as if you didn't exist.

 

[Norm]

I know however that from my own anecdotal evidence lighting is totally ineffective for the same reasons that HiViz remains ineffective......... the drivers need to look and more importantly see cyclists, then react appropriately - but fail to do so. Or worse still "it's just a cyclist" and carry on as if you didn't exist.

Whilst I agree that it is totally ineffective for some drivers (who look but fail to see or, even worse IMO, discount "just a cyclist"), I don't accept that is the case for every other road user.

 

[doug]

Maybe the stealth ninjas think if the drivers can't see you, they can't harm you

 

[Red Light]

Just spotted this
bbc
Not sure what I think of the scheme overall. I can see some looking at it and thinking. "Why get any lights? Just wait till I get pulled and get some freebies"
"In 2010, 45 cyclists were seriously injured on South Yorkshire's roads, according to police figures" But in how many of those cases was a lack of lighting a contributory factor?

When I looked at the data a few years back I could find no evidence that accidents were more likely at night and that is despite the oft made assertion that most cyclists don't use lights at night.

 

[BentMikey]

That's Dr Tony Raven's quote.

This is why I prefer to have lights that don't make me appear to be a cyclist. Cyclists are soft and squishy, and not dangerous to drivers. Unknown unidentified vehicles with 'k off bright lights might be dangerous, and so the driver tends to leave more room and more time just in case.

 

[GrasB]

That's Dr Tony Raven's quote.

This is why I prefer to have lights that don't make me appear to be a cyclist. Cyclists are soft and squishy, and not dangerous to drivers. Unknown unidentified vehicles with 'k off bright lights might be dangerous, and so the driver tends to leave more room and more time just in case.

Bright shaped beams confuse them who don't look properly even more