Trying to make cyclists more seen

[LucyBoots]

Hey guys,

I'm on a bit of a mission to make the road a safer place for cyclists. My friend Ed and I have both been knocked off from behind, and it sucked. We developed a bike light and have now launched a kickstarter that tries to address the issue. I would love to know if you more serious road cyclists would be interested in something like this, and if not why not?

Briefly, we have developed a wearable, fibre optic rear bike light that helps drivers to judge the distance, width and speed of a cyclist. It consists of a central projective hub and 4 fibre optic arms that connect over your rucksack or back.

If you are intrigued at all, check it out here

Cheers,

Lucy

 

[mickle]

The bike in the video doesn't have a rear light fitted. Just sayin'.

 

[matthat]

Sort of like it but think it would work better sown into a rucksack cover (hump)!!

 

[Roadrider48]

Not a bad idea. Like the fact you can wear it on your rucksack or on your back.

 

[ufkacbln]

Doesn't help with the main issues though which are motorists either not looking , or when they do look reacting appropriately

 

[Easytigers]

It looks really good although I also think it needs an additional product with it sewn into a bike cover. I often need a waterproof cover for my backpack and it would be a faff to fit the cover then fit the lights etc

 

[summerdays]

I don't wear a ruck sac, and wouldn't bother wearing something that would mean my jacket was held on tight to me, if I was hot and unzipped it or even wanted to take it off.

 

[snorri]

It's too high up, that's not where people expect to see a rear light.
What do you do with it when not cycling? It takes up a lot of space, awkward to store.
I'm happier with my rear light permanently mounted on the bike, always there when I need it, even if having to travel unexpectedly after nightfall.

 

[theclaud]

Not for me, thanks. I'm sure it's well meant, but for me it's just another unhelpful contribution to a lighting arms race that cyclists and pedestrians can only lose. As @Cunobelin points out - drivers hitting cyclists from behind is a driver-behaviour issue. The only way to stop it is to hold drivers responsible. More, uglier and more cumbersome lighting for cyclists is onerous and retrogressive. We've reached the zenith of bicycle lighting - we have small, cheap LED lights than clip easily on and off. If you want to make cyclists "more seen", talk to the people behind the wheel who need to do the seeing.

 

[coffeejo]

*cough* More visible. *cough*

But the answer is greater driver-awareness, coming from both education and more prosecutions and convictions - with more effective sentencing.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Not for me, thanks. I'm sure it's well meant, but for me it's just another unhelpful contribution to a lighting arms race that cyclists and pedestrians can only lose. As @Cunobelin points out - drivers hitting cyclists from behind is a driver-behaviour issue. The only way to stop it is to hold drivers responsible. More, uglier and more cumbersome lighting for cyclists is onerous and retrogressive. We've reached the zenith of bicycle lighting - we have small, cheap LED lights than clip easily on and off. If you want to make cyclists "more seen", talk to the people behind the wheel who need to do the seeing.

Apart from the ''uglier'' bit - because I don't care about the aesthetics - I agree completely with this.

There's a slight potential issue with the legal lighting requirements. I believe current legislation stipulates a rear mounted light below 1 metre and a reflector. It doesn't seem to have been used much as a driver exoneration tactic in the courts and many tallish cyclists with lights attached to the seatpost are already in contravention.

Also, a partly full rucksack, which will bulk towards the bottom and a forward-leaning cycling position, will both tend to point the light at the sky. Cyclist and air traffic collisions are not yet a major issue.

 

[Dogtrousers]

@Cunobelin and @theclaud 's "bigger picture" comments notwithstanding ...

I'm a fan of gadgets and gizmos, and another winky gizmo surely isn't going to do any harm, so I'd consider it ... but ...

My first take on this is that it doesn't look terribly comfortable. From a personal point of view, I rarely ride with a rucksack so I'd be wearing it. I can imagine it being a bit of a faff when I needed to take off/put on my jacket. I can imagine that the resulting pressure points could get a bit sweaty.

I like the side lighting, but I'm not sure whether it would necessarily make me more visible. If my main lights haven't made me visible, then I'm not sure that this would tip the balance. I suppose that it may be sufficiently different/unusual to draw or maintain an inattentive driver's attention - but I could be wrong there, I'm just speculating.

I'd consider buying it, but only because I like new pretty things - I wouldn't do so with any degree of certainty that it would make me any safer/more visible than my existing lighting rear set up (and I'd only consider it as an add-on, not a replacement for, my existing lights). I'd be put off by the potential comfort/practicality issues, and as a result I'd probably decide against.

Another point is - have you done any testing to verify that, as you say, it "helps drivers to judge distance, width and speed of cyclists"? Have you done any road tests to find out how much better distance/speed perception is for this over a baseline of, say, a single blinky red or a single solid red? Or do you know of any published tests in this area? I guess that the psychology of perception is quite a complex area, so how sure are you of your assertions?

There's also the legal aspect to consider. Are you proposing this as a sole light, or as a supplement to existing lights. And if the former, is it legal? (I suspect the answer is probably no).

 

[Sara_H]

I will admit that I keep a fabric reflective harness type thing in my pannier for use when I find myself in a black outfit at night and have often thought it would be an idea to fit a blinky to it.
But I wouldn't consider this product as its quite bulky to carry when not in use.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

There's a slight potential issue with the legal lighting requirements. I believe current legislation stipulates a rear mounted light below 1 metre and a reflector.

Close, it's between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground for the rear light and between 250mm and 900mm from the ground for the rear reflector.

GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I would love to know if you more serious road cyclists would be interested in something like this, and if not why not?

It's not for me, thanks. As others have already pointed out, the primary problem isn't that currently available lighting isn't adequate, it's that drivers are not looking properly or are failing to react properly to the presence of a cyclist.

The video shows a cyclist riding at night without an obligatory rear light fixed to the bike. You should avoid giving the impression that this light dispenses with the need for obligatory lighting; errant drivers will seize on any aspect of our failure to be compliant with vehicle lighting laws to transfer blame to the cyclist. (I know you refer to this in your text but it's way down at the bottom and the video is what people will pay attention to.)

Good luck with your venture though.


GC