UKC

First of all, I need to be clear that I'm pro-cycling - my brothers are cyclists, my husband's a cyclist, many of my friends are, etc etc, and my main interest here is in cyclists not getting squished or mashed on the roads.

Right, that out of the way, I can proceed... would there be any merit in cyclists adopting the thing that motorcyclists (and Scandinavian drivers) do, and having 'running lights' on, or at least a rear one, to make them even easier to spot? I was thinking about it after trundling up the hill out of my village behind a group of cyclists - they were all pretty brightly attired, but one person at the back didn't have lights on and wasn't as conspicuous as a couple of people further into the pack who did have rear lights. I know people use lights in the dark (obviously!) but this was just a gloomy day.

Any pros or cons to this idea?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Oops - just seen the other thread, but this one's about having a light on permanently whilst riding, not just on unlit roads,

In reply to Tall Clare: I run a rear light on pretty much all days other than the brightest in the winter. I also have a tiddly (but remarkably bright) light on my helmet, that I can turn on if it gets gloomy. And even on my summer/nice weather bike (that doesn't really go out in the rain) I have a little Lezyne red light permanently on the seat post.

Daft not to.

In reply to Tall Clare: Not a bad idea but it would have to be pretty bright I would think to be effective in even dull dayloght. When driving I too find cyclists in dull clothing difficult to see, particularly when in the shade while I am still in a brightly lit area. There was an interesting article linked by, I think, John Rushby a while back about what sort of colours and patterns stand out. I think the conclusion was bright colours but with patterns on (like a wasp perhaps). I think encouraging that sort of clothing over simply bright colours (and certainly over greys and browns) would be a good idea.

In reply to andy:

My TC (aka the Monochrome Cyclist) does the same - seems like a logical idea to me. Just wondering if it should be mandatory.

In reply to MG:

I agree - I offered to get Mr TC some garish bikewear and his response was less than positive Wearing black, grey, etc, does make cyclists really hard to see!

In reply to Tall Clare:

Wouldn't hurt to do it, that's for sure. I often have a rear light on in daylight.

Doesn't solve the problem of drivers who see you and still don't know how to overtake safely.

In reply to MHutch:

Well there is that, but unfortunately we can only take responsibility for our own actions - it's hard to mitigate against idiots.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Not riding on the Grassington road is my main defence.

In reply to Tall Clare: I'm not convinced that in poor daylight luminous jackets are any easier to see than anything else - reflectives rely on the car having lights on (which of course many don't when they should). I'm pretty much all dark blue/black, but I have a Hope District+ on the back which is visible from space, so you're not missing me.

And I ride down the Grassington road about three or four times a week in all weathers, and know its every pothole intimately - I don't actually think it's bad, and riding a fast chaingang down there after dark is one of the great pleasures of riding round here!

In reply to andy:
what about from the front ?

In reply to Tall Clare:

I always have lights on, even in bright sunlight - the reasoning there is that the contrast between bright sunlight and shade is sufficient to make anyone in the shade invisible to someone in the sunlight.

My road bike always has one tiny flickery light on at the front and two flashing lights on the back. If it's raining, a powerful strobe is added to the front. At night a big 'see where' you're going light is added to the front too.

My commuter fixie has 5 lights - big strobe and lesser strobe on the front - big one on the bars and the lesser one lower down on the offside fork - both always on. On the back there are three flashing lights (of which the two brightest were on this morning). Add to that a fluo relfective wrist band on each hand (each with red flashing LEDs - off this morning), and a runner's reflective gilet. The wrist bands are for turn signals and for those motorists who half overtake you and then forget you're there.

As if that were not enough, the bike's wheels are fluo yellow. The black frame is covered in reflective tape (black, reflects silver). Finally, my pannier has a fluo 'Hump' cover.

No doubt people say 'Look at that t**t' which is great, because at least they've seen me!

In reply to andy:

Luminous / bright coloured jackets reflect any scattered light so of course a luminous orange or yellow top is way more visible than black in all but pitch blackness. That's why any profession where visibility is important issue them as standard.

Unfortunately luminous cycling tops don't pass a 'cool' threshold for some cyclists

In reply to andy:

Yes, but bright colours don't. There is all sort of complexity in human perception I know but surely you don't really think dull brown on a dull brown background is as noticeable as bright orange on a dull brown background?

In reply to Tall Clare:

I think the current technology just makes running lights a feasible proposition. Unfortunately the cost of rechargeables hasn't quite made it a 'no brainer' for most people (me included - although I always wear hi vis clothes which helps)

In reply to Tall Clare:

After having a bike stolen I have been riding to and from town on an old Rayleigh - without lights or reflectors for a couple of months. Now I have running lights I certainly feel safer, and less like a fugitive.

I think there no reason not to now-a-days, the ones I got (loathsome to replace the expensive ones on my stolen bike) were £4 each, compact, superbright LED which mount and unmount very easily, and are surprisingly good.

The new LED ones remove most of the cons like cost, getting them nicked, fixing mountings, expensive batteries, etc.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I tend to ride on the correct side of the road, to be honest. But if it gets crappy viz I do carry a little white light as well (and if I'm out any time after about 2pm I put my proper front light on).

In reply to MG:

But all backgrounds aren't dull brown, are they? Where I ride there's green fields, orange bracken, grey walls etc etc. I've not got any orange jackets and I'm not gojng to buy any - but I'm better lit up than the majority of cars I pass (including the many, many thousands of luminous orange cars I see...).

In reply to Tall Clare:

Probably not, because most bike lights are simply not bright enough to make much difference unless you have the type with the heavy external battery pack. Hi-vis would be vastly more use.

Neil

In reply to andy:

I do put my car lights on at the merest hint of murk, but that's because I'm an idiot who went off to buy a red car and came back with a dark grey (i.e. tarmac coloured) one. In my experience it's drivers of silver, dark grey and black cars who don't put their lights on - if the car's red or yellow it's likely to have them on. No logic to it...

In reply to andy:

As a cyclist and driver, I'd say the front light's most important use is in making the cyclist's position more visible in the side and rear view mirror, thus making overtakes safer.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Technology's moved on - a lot of very bright lights have tiny battery packs now.

In reply to Neil Williams:

And, of course, helping the cyclist to see where they're going...

In reply to Neil Williams:

Not sure I'd agree - I used to have a little Smart light that was visible from about quarter of a mile away (as confirmed by the fact my mate had one and I could see him getting further and further ahead...). Small LEDs are pretty remarkable these days - the one on my helmet weighs about 50g and is very bright - stick 2 or three of them on your hat and you'd be a lot more visible than a roadmender's jacket.

In reply to andy:

Up to you of course but I would think wearing orange (or similar) would be as good if not a better investment as using lights all the time. There is a reason why construction, railway and other workers have to wear this sort of clothing - it stands out against a range of backgrounds and light conditions.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I don't commute by bike any more, so almost all my riding is open, country roads, but I'd agree in heavy traffic a front light's important, but I tend not to run one on daylight. However as 3 or 4 rides a week are in proper darkness now, I'm riding with everything I've got switched on!

In reply to andy:

I was thinking of say a car pulling out from a side junction. I try and improve the odds by wearing something "bright".

In reply to Tall Clare: Can't understand why cyclists don't wear anything but yellow/ orange and have a decent attention getting light on all the time at this time of year.

Suspect fashion has a lot to do with it.

In reply to Tall Clare: I've got various of the little strobe ones that you can buy in a red + white two pack for often less than a fiver. Often do use them winter day time too.

Here in Finland cars have to have lights on always and its really noticeable how much harder it is to see them even in good light when they don't. Not sure why they don't just have the law EU wide. While driving in recent murky days I've noticed people riding with lights on during the day (and mostly they ride on separated cycle paths) and it is SO much easier to notice them, even with just little blinkies. It means if you are going to turn down a side road across the cycle path you can wait for them to cross (as drivers should but often don't).

In reply to Tim Davies:

How about the number of newspaper articles criticising MAMILS in day-glow lycra

In reply to Tall Clare:
How about more emphasis being put on drivers to look out for cyclists. If a driver can't see an object the size of a cyclist in day light and be driving in a way that allows them to slow down and pass them safely then maybe they shouldn't be driving.

The amount of times someone says 'I saw a cyclists dressed in black' and then moans about it. The fact is that you saw them and yet still complained. Alot of drivers like to refer to cyclists as one group and complain about them for whatever reason they can. Maybe if all cars were bright orange then there wouldn't be as many car crashes.

I drive about 18k a year and sure I see a few idiot cyclists but it's nothing compared to the dangerous driving, mobile phone use, tailgating that I see daily from other drivers.

The media is jumping on the cycling deaths in London this week and yet it emerged yesterday that one person a day is killed by a London Bus. Surely that should be headline news. If 365 people a year were getting killed by cyclists it would be everywhere but it seems to be accepted that there are driving and bus fatalities but it only becomes news when cyclists are involved.

In reply to Tim Davies:

What of pedestrians, too? Remember who is on the road by right and who is by licence.

There is the self preservation aspect, of course. But motor vehicles use the road by licence, not by right, so justifying "I didn't see you" on that basis (assuming at night BS approved lights are used) is a little presumptuous.

Neil

In reply to andy:

How large is that light? A bright but small light can be quite difficult to interpret if there are no other visual cues. Think Father Ted: is it a dim light close to, or a bright light far away? Wearing hi-vis (as GrahamD says, it's not just retro-reflective) as well provides two quite different visual references for the same object which makes it easier to interpret what you're seeing. I think that's better than just two lights, since an observer still doesn't know how far apart the lights might be mounted on the bike (ever had a car coming towards you at night that turned out to be a motorcycle with twin headlights much closer than you thought?)

Driving around Edinburgh in the current dank, gloomly evenings it's astonishing how both cyclists and pedestrians, when wearing dark clothing, can merge into the general murk even on ostensibly well-lit urban streets. (I remember a few years ago when we offered to take my 90+ year old Dad shopping to get him something more stylish than his usual beige jacket, he declined on the grounds that the light-coloured jacket meant he was more likely to be seen at night. On reflection I reckon he had a point.)

Based on how difficult I know it is for drivers to see cyclists at this time of year, my conspicuity kit consists of the following:
- a BS-compliant LED rear light/reflector combo permanently fitted to the rear offside seat stay (I find it depressing how many bikes I see that don't even have a reflector, let alone lights);
- a bright CatEye multi-facet red LED light on the seat pin. This has two separate light circuits, each of which can be switched between off, steady, regular strobe, left-to-right-to-left cycling and random strobe. That's good for getting attention;
- hi-vis armbands with flashing red LEDs built in;
- a red LED on the back of my helmet;
- a cycling rucksack in hi-vis material with reflective detailing;
- a CatEye white front reflector with a yellow LED steady/flashing position light built-in;
- a Fluxient 1600 lumen LED headlight with three power settings+strobe;
- a backup LED torch which can be bungeed to the handlebars if the big light fails.

Which of those I use depends on the prevailing light conditions but I tend to agree with TC that it's safer to err on the side of caution and not just wait until official lighting-up time before some of the lights go on.

Of course we would all be a lot safer still of some people didn't have a tendency to hoon around with little regard for their own safety or that of others - but you do what you can and, as TC says, it's hard to mitigate against idiots.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

One person a day killed by a London bus? I think you should listen to the news more carefully and interpret what they actually say and mean.

If I was driving a car and crashed into a bus severely injuring myself. Then I would be one of those 365 people "Killed or seriously injured in a collision involving a bus".

Given the number of buses driving around London, what is actually surprising is they only contribute to less than 6% of all accidents. surprising

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:



All very worthy, but just how do you do that ? fine continue to prosecute drivers for without due care and attention or dangerous driving but don't take a away an individual's responsibility to not act like atw*t on a bike by wearing black clothes and without adequate lights. Make it easier for drivers to look out for cyclists.

In reply to GrahamD:

TBH I think it's time for the British Standard for bike lights to be updated, as it does make some pretty useless attempts at lights legal.

That said, if the police can't be bothered to enforce having lights at all, they won't be enforcing whether they are BS compliant or not.

Neil

In reply to GrahamD:

You do it by education, Poster campaigns,Awareness campaigns, questions about cyclists in the driving test.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Apologies, I did misread slightly. However the 6% figure is confusing, at one point the BBC says 'TfL said only 6% of accidents involving buses resulted in injury.' it then says "Although bus trips account for over 25% of road journeys in London, only 6% of road collisions resulting in an injury involve London buses,.

The fact they use trips for the 25% presumably means that one bus full of people = 60 trips. If the statistics were per vehicle on the road it wouldn't look quite as good.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I think I'll keep my faith in orange tops and lights rather than rely on a poster campaign for drivers, if its all the same to you

In reply to Martin W:

I had a driver pull out of a side road on me. Said he'd seen me, but thought the 2 bright lights 20cm apart on my handlebars were headlights on a vehicle much further away.

In reply to Chris Harris:

That's probably where an extra flashing light comes in. Nothing says "bicycle" like a flashing light.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams: One bright fixed beam, one flashing on the front to catch attention. Moving sideways a little if you see a car on a side road to give it some other visual clues. On the back one fixed beam and one flashing for the same reason.

In reply to Neil Williams:
I don't know, the motorist Chris encountered would probably say they thought is was a plane passing overhead.

In reply to The New NickB:

The problem comes with the information you are trying to convey to a motorist in a very short moment in time.

A better solution is to use one light pointing straight ahead to light your way and another pointing about 10-20ft in front of you to create a pool of light on the ground which gives position and speed information. The worst solution is to aim the lights at the drivers eyes which more and more cyclists seem to think is a good idea despite being illegal.

In reply to Neil Williams:

The regs allow for lights to meet any equivalent EU standard as well as BS. Since the UK is a fairly small market manufacturers tend not to want to bear the cost of accreditation especially since they come out with so many models.

Most lights on bikes these days are far more effective than the bare BS level allows for.

Someone mentioned Germany- bikes over 12Kg in weight must be fitted with lights meeting the German regs. (My dynamo and its associated light are German).

I don't agree with using bike lights to blind/annoy drivers, the main light should be aimed downward and a subsidiary light on flashing mode serves to catch drivers' attention.

ALC

In reply to Tall Clare:

Can anyone see Adam Hart-Davies?

http://www.brad.ac.uk/admin/pr/pressreleases/hart-davis.jpg

In reply to Tall Clare:

QNo in normal daylight conditions it offers no advantages and meanwhile drains the batteries quickly so that the light in a few days would be dim for riding at night. Leave it to the person riding as to whether to turn on their lights.

What you could do however is change British Standards for bike lights to be more like the French which talks about colour front and back and how far away they need to be visible. Simple to understand and simple to verify / enforce.

In reply to TobyA:

I find it less so for red rear lights, but you have sort of highlighted why I'm not a huge fan of daylight running lights - anything that doesn't have lights can disappear. Especially if one vehicle has particularly bright lights, it can seem to be artificially replicating the effect of very low sun.

Several times whilst out running or cycling I've seen vehicles with bright headlights driving toward me, only to fairly late spot another vehicle ahead of them masked by the blazing light from behind. Motorbikes can seem particularly prone to this effect.

I've also seen some cars over the last couple of weeks with headlights so bright I couldn't see the road in front of me as they approached and had to come to a halt until they had passed.

I'd rather the tendency was to reduce the brightness of headlights except where they are needed to identify the shape of the road.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Running lights should be obligatory for all moving vehicles.