# Get some f*****g lights!!!!



## Debian (6 Dec 2010)

[rant mode on] I am getting really well pissed off. I'm still driving to work as a result of me being knocked off the bike back in September, resulting in an injured knee, followed by me buggering up my back a few weeks back.

This morning it's very foggy and very frosty, visibility was not brilliant.

This morning I very nearly took out two cyclists in the space of two minutes!

One was coming down London Road at a considerable rate of knots towards Worcester, I was waiting to pull out from a side road. It was only as I was actually pulling out that I saw him - about 10 yards away. Dark clothing, no lights, I simply did not see him / her. Nothing happened but it was a lucky escape.

A few moments later I'm driving up London Road and there's another ninja, wobbling up the hill, no lights and not even a reflector that I could see. Dressed all in black on a black bike. I saw him when I was about twenty feet away. Sorry and all that but he got a blast of the horn as was passing.

I then saw three other similar cyclists in the space of the next five minutes!

If there'd been a collision between me and either of the cyclists I would no-doubt have been deemed to be at fault but in reality I wouldn't have been, not in any rational way.


Fecking idiot tosspots!!! Get some lights you twatting, unthinking, selfish, idiotic balls of lard!!! [\rant mode off]


----------



## cd365 (6 Dec 2010)

No lights really annoy me but the ones who put lights on which you can't see even when close up (batteries failing or just cheap nasty lights) are just as bad.


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2010)

Calm down dear!!


----------



## Jezston (6 Dec 2010)

Got a lift from Nottingham to Derby by my flatmate this morning as I needed to take my computer in to work (ah the benefits of an IT department being your free computer repair service!) - very misty in Derby - passed about 5 cyclists on the way into the center and not one of them had any form of lights whatsoever. One didn't even have any reflectors either. All on BSOs with the seats too low spinning slowly in low gears.

Fortunately it was fairly light by then.

Is anyone here from Derby? I'd like to speak frankly about what I think of people from Derby.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (6 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> Got a lift from Nottingham to Derby by my flatmate this morning as I needed to take my computer in to work (ah the benefits of an IT department being your free computer repair service!) - very misty in Derby - passed about 5 cyclists on the way into the center and not one of them had any form of lights whatsoever. One didn't even have any reflectors either. All on BSOs with the seats too low spinning slowly in low gears.
> 
> Fortunately it was fairly light by then.
> 
> *Is anyone here from Derby? I'd like to speak frankly about what I think of people from Derby.*


I used to live about 10 miles outside Derby, and Beanzontoast lives there... but he's not here at the moment and I'm fine with anything you wish to say about Derby folk... so fire away.


----------



## Jezston (6 Dec 2010)

They are all really, really thick.

Seriously, walk around Derby town center and it's like being in a zombie movie or something. Most of the people I work with here in Derby aren't from Derby, but those that are all appear to be in a daze continuously, talk really slow and seem to struggle to understand basic instruction.

If you ever find yourself visiting Derby, don't drink the water. Just be careful.


----------



## downfader (6 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> They are all really, really thick.
> 
> Seriously, walk around Derby town center and it's like being in a zombie movie or something. Most of the people I work with here in Derby aren't from Derby, but those that are all appear to be in a daze continuously, talk really slow and seem to struggle to understand basic instruction.
> 
> If you ever find yourself visiting Derby, don't drink the water. Just be careful.




Its like Southampton, its not that they're thicko, its the workin class heritage. You're not encouraged academically. 

Anywayyyy. Lights. Yes. Agree in FULL Debian. I feel like sticking a poster on the back of the bike advertisng that its the law, and sticking one up at work.


----------



## potsy (6 Dec 2010)

Have a guy at work that is still riding in on a hybrid with normal slick tyres,good on him and all that. 
Only trouble is he doesn't think it necessary to have his front light on,despite being clad solely in black, and on the road at 5am or 10pm.
Weirdly he has a nice bright rear light and a fully working torch strapped to his bars that he says he turns on when he gets to a junction/RAB





Have given up trying to get him to see sense,so now just leave him to it.


----------



## scouserinlondon (6 Dec 2010)

Having witnessed the antics of london cyclists recently from a driver's perspective it reinforced my policy of having my lights on all the time. I don't by into the 'you only need lights in london to be seen with' I have the hope 1 on reasonably high all the time and a fenix torch on my head. There's so much light pollution in London I believe you have to turn up the lumens just to be noticed.


----------



## Banjo (6 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> [rant mode on] I am getting really well pissed off. I'm still driving to work as a result of me being knocked off the bike back in September, resulting in an injured knee, followed by me buggering up my back a few weeks back.
> 
> This morning it's very foggy and very frosty, visibility was not brilliant.
> 
> ...



Total idiots IMHO. I have two front 2 back minimum sometimes hang another red on my back if riding on unlit roads.

Interesting that you think you would be held at fault in a collision,obviously noone wants an accident but wouldnt their lack of lights put the responsibility on them legally?


----------



## Debian (6 Dec 2010)

Banjo said:


> Interesting that you think you would be held at fault in a collision,obviously noone wants an accident but wouldnt their lack of lights put the responsibility on them legally?



It might put some of the responsibility on the cyclist but maybe not, who knows what arguments may be trotted out and what view plod would take? At the very least it would waste a huge amount of my time giving statements to police, possibly having to defend a careless driving charge, being pestered with amulance chasing lawyers, etc, etc. I know from my collision back in September how much time gets eaten up and that's a case where the driver who hit me admitted liability.

Then there's damage to one's own car to consider and get repaired, especially if, like my first near miss this morning, a cyclist could come barrelling into the side of the car and at the very least that would be a huge dent in the door. It's entirely possible that said cyclist could end up inside your side window having gone over the bars causing you, the driver, serious injury. If not injury causing you could be well out of pocket.

No, sorry... any cyclist who doesn't use decent lights and wear reasonably visible clothing, especially in this current run of weather is an ignorant, selfish tosser. Actually, why do I say I'm sorry, I'm not!


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2010)

scouserinlondon said:


> Having witnessed the antics of london cyclists recently from a driver's perspective it reinforced my policy of having my lights on all the time. I don't by into the 'you only need lights in london to be seen with' I have the hope 1 on reasonably high all the time and a fenix torch on my head. There's so much light pollution in London I believe you have to turn up the lumens just to be noticed.



Pretty much. In the morning you will also be competting with the low lying sun. So at this time of year i run my lights all the time for commuting.


----------



## 139NI (6 Dec 2010)

scouserinlondon said:


> Having witnessed the antics of london cyclists recently from a driver's perspective it reinforced my policy of having my lights on all the time. I don't by into the 'you only need lights in london to be seen with' I have the hope 1 on reasonably high all the time and a fenix torch on my head. There's so much light pollution in London I believe you have to turn up the lumens just to be noticed.



i agree. i have two front lights on the front. Its excessive but if you had just one and they blink, at every split second, you dont have a front light on - if you follow. This might be the moment at night where the diligent motorist looks round and doesnt see your light as it blinks.

Thus, by having two, i have at least one on at any time..


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262491"]
You said yourself that the conditions were very foggy and cold. Therefore anything quicker then 20 mph in a urban area and you are going to fast for the conditions imo.

You go on about 'selfish tossers' but the quote I see above has clearly been written by one. Grow up, slow down, be more alert or walk/get the bus. 

And define 'decent'?
[/quote]

Er, Lee, are you suggesting that it is sensible not to have decent lights, wear reasonably visible clothing etc.?

Seems pretty obvious that this is dangerous and selfish behaviour, which most of use have come across, and I can't quite see why you are being so rude to someone who has every right to complain about it. 

In terms of 'decent', this might help you: http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?tabid=4071


----------



## asterix (6 Dec 2010)

Can understand the OP's POV but pedestrians don't have lights and in fog I would and do drive at a speed decided with that in mind. 

It's always tempting to blast the horn when annoyed, but it is a) illegal and b) driving should not put you into such a frame of mind. After all, in a collision with a cyclist you would walk away unscathed in all probability; they might be killed.


----------



## Spinney (6 Dec 2010)

asterix said:


> Can understand the OP's POV but pedestrians don't have lights and in fog I would and do drive at a speed decided with that in mind.



But pedestrians are normally on the pavement, not wobbling along the road. And if they step out, they should look for cars first. 

(OK, I know lots of them don't, from what I read on here, but that's not the point).


----------



## atbman (6 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262491"]
You said yourself that the conditions were very foggy and cold. Therefore anything quicker then 20 mph in a urban area and you are going to fast for the conditions imo.

You go on about 'selfish tossers' but the quote I see above has clearly been written by one. Grow up, slow down, be more alert or walk/get the bus. 

And define 'decent'?
[/quote]

Don't see any evidence that he was driving too fast for the conditions, nor any reference to >20mph. Perhaps you can see something that I don't, so I'd be grateful if you'd point it out to me.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262491"]
You said yourself that the conditions were very foggy and cold. Therefore anything quicker then 20 mph in a urban area and you are going to fast for the conditions imo.

You go on about 'selfish tossers' but the quote I see above has clearly been written by one. Grow up, slow down, be more alert or walk/get the bus. 

And define 'decent'?
[/quote]

For the hard of reading and/or the terminally stupid.



> One was coming down London Road at a considerable rate of knots towards Worcester, *I was waiting to pull out from a side road*. It was only as I was actually pulling out that I saw him - about 10 yards away. Dark clothing, no lights, I simply did not see him / her. Nothing happened but it was a lucky escape.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Dec 2010)

Whilst I sympathise, there is the other side.

Twin Dinottes and twin Mars 4 on the rear, and had a white van overtake with about 6" because "He didn't see me"

My experience this morning is that a £250 set of lights showing about 80 times the required legal limit was pointless!


----------



## BentMikey (6 Dec 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Whilst I sympathise, there is the other side.
> 
> Twin Dinottes and twin Mars 4 on the rear, and had a white van overtake with about 6" because "He didn't see me"
> 
> My experience this morning is that a £250 set of lights showing about 80 times the required legal limit was pointless!



Instant ban and destruction of licence!!!


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2010)

Can we add, get some cycling lights.
As i had a cyclist come up from behind me tonight with a torch that had a flashing mode that was faaaar to fast and every time i looked behind me i was dazzled. I had to slow down to let him past and then hold a good distance back to make sure i wasn't going to be hit by any motorists he blinds with it.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgviWRjznog


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2010)

Spinney said:


> But pedestrians are normally on the pavement, not wobbling along the road. And if they step out, they should look for cars first.
> 
> (OK, I know lots of them don't, from what I read on here, but that's not the point).




So are a lot of cars!

Pedestrians also cross roads on crossings etc


----------



## Debian (7 Dec 2010)

400bhp said:


> For the hard of reading and/or the terminally stupid.



This is why User3143 is the only user on this forum that I block. He's an idiot.

Responding to earlier replies comparing road users to pedestrians, not the point. Cyclists are required by law to use running lights, pedestrians aren't. In general pedestrians are not walking in the road except on country lanes and there a sensible driver does watch out for them. Pedestrians do not generally barrel down roads at 20 - 30 mph either.


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

Aaaand he's back.

*facepalm*


----------



## downfader (7 Dec 2010)

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8723240.Dorset_Police_launch_crackdown_on_cyclists_riding_without_lights/

Would be nice if all law abiding cyclists bombarded this with comments about what they use. And how they encourage lighting.   

Not too sure what the Police think they're up to with the dreaded "h" comment.


----------



## Debian (7 Dec 2010)

downfader said:


> http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8723240.Dorset_Police_launch_crackdown_on_cyclists_riding_without_lights/
> 
> Would be nice if all law abiding cyclists bombarded this with comments about what they use. And how they encourage lighting.
> 
> Not too sure what the Police think they're up to with the dreaded "h" comment.





> David Brown, a Poole councillor and Echo cycling blogger, said: “The law is probably not enforced enough because there are too many cyclists out there breaking the law on lights. *But that number is a drop in ocean compared to the problem of law-breaking motorists*.”


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

> 87 per cent were breaking the highway code by not wearing helmets and brightly coloured or high visibility clothing



Oh shiiiii...


----------



## downfader (7 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> Oh shiiiii...




I know. Can o worm.


----------



## SquareDaff (7 Dec 2010)

ALthough I hate to raise this because it'll probably restart an age old debate - did I read this right and it's law to wear a helmet? I'd always assumed it was still my choice and don't!! Please correct me if I'm wrong!!


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

It is your choice. Only place where it is the law is Australia, the idiots.


----------



## asterix (7 Dec 2010)

> I'm still driving to work as a result of me being knocked off the bike back in September, resulting in an injured knee,



Sorry to hear it, what happened?




> Er, Lee, are you suggesting that it is sensible not to have decent lights, wear reasonably visible clothing etc.?



Isn't it a little unfair suggesting that the poster has a view that he did not express? 

Although I criticised the OP I do not hold a brief for unlit cyclists, either. (My winter steed has a hub dynamo plus led's).

My view is that motor vehicles should not claim the right to proceed at ever-increasing speeds regardless of conditions and that everyone else owes their users a duty to get out of their way. There is of course a balance that can be reached but perhaps we are moving/have moved beyond it in favour of drivers?


----------



## SquareDaff (7 Dec 2010)

Cheers - had visions of having to go routing through the loft to find the helmet that matches the peak I've found!!


----------



## downfader (7 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262513"]
How are the Aussies idiots? Surely it's upto them what they do in their own country and what laws they pass?
[/quote]


Yes it is up to Aus to decide. However many of their officials out there now realise they opened Pandora's Box and raised the head injury rate, as well as the other negative effects (well publicised many times before)


----------



## Debian (7 Dec 2010)

asterix said:


> Can understand the OP's POV but pedestrians don't have lights and in fog I would and do drive at a speed decided with that in mind.




I was driving with that very much in mind. The first incident happened as I was waiting to pull out from a side road, I simply could not see the unlit and ninja-dressed cyclist in the dark and fog.



asterix said:


> It's always tempting to blast the horn when annoyed, but it is a) illegal and b) driving should not put you into such a frame of mind. After all, in a collision with a cyclist you would walk away unscathed in all probability; they might be killed.



And if no-one does anything to attract such idiot cyclists attention then they will carry on their merry way regardless. I was not "in a frame of mind", rather I was trying to give the cyclist a hint.

Don't forget, I am, by choice, a cyclist rather than a motorist and I'm fully aware of the situations.

I maintain my view that any cyclist not displaying decent lights + reflectors and not wearing hi-vis kit in current conditions is a class-A moron, no two ways about it.


----------



## Norm (7 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> And if no-one does anything to attract such idiot cyclists attention then they will carry on their merry way regardless. I was not "in a frame of mind", rather I was trying to give the cyclist a hint.
> 
> Don't forget, I am, by choice, a cyclist rather than a motorist and I'm fully aware of the situations.
> 
> I maintain my view that any cyclist not displaying decent lights + reflectors and not wearing hi-vis kit in current conditions is a class-A moron, no two ways about it.


My concern with this, Deb, is that the person that you tooted has no idea that you are a cyclist. My guess is that he'll just mark you down as another impatient motorist who blew his horn _for no reason_ when he was having enough issues already dealing with the weather.

We need to think about how any messages we wish to pass will be received. When we "teach someone a lesson", the pupil's understanding is very often different to the teacher's.

That said, of course, anyone who rides without lights in dodgy conditions has very little imagination, as well as being very selfish. 

IMO.


----------



## ACW (7 Dec 2010)

Deb i fully agree with you, if you want to take a risk and potentially kill yourself then do it in a way that won’t affect anyone else.


----------



## Origamist (7 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> I maintain my view that any cyclist not displaying decent lights + reflectors and not wearing hi-vis kit in current conditions is a class-A moron, no two ways about it.



As someone who meets your "class-A moron" criteria, or maybe just class-C (for failing to wear "hi-vis kit") I was wondering what, if any, additional conspicuity measures you have taken in the "current conditions"? I'm guessing (as you seem very keen on visibility aids) that you've sprayed your car yellow and have deployed retro-reflective markings on your car's exterior in order to make your vehicle stand out more?


----------



## cd365 (7 Dec 2010)

downfader said:


> Yes it is up to Aus to decide. However many of their officials out there now realise they opened Pandora's Box and raised the head injury rate, as well as the other negative effects (well publicised many times before)



Is there any stats to prove that compulsory wearing of helmets in Aus has raised the head injury rate; I would like to read that.


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> I was driving with that very much in mind. The first incident happened as I was waiting to pull out from a side road, I simply could not see the unlit and ninja-dressed cyclist in the dark and fog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So if a driver doesn't like the way you are cycling or he doesn't like your lights, then it's ok for him to blast his horn as he passes you? What reaction would you give if a driver did so to you?

I'd be thinking 'eff off'. Your horn should be used as a warning, not as a comunicative tool which no one else will understand.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

It seems obvious to me that some people just will not take any criticism from someone who admits to driving. 

So take it from me, someone who doesn't drive, has never driven, and does not intend to, and who cycles all year whatever the weather, cyclists who make no effort to make themselves visible in the dark and in adverse weather conditions _are_ being unecessarily foolish. 

I've had numerous people I know where I live, who drive, thank me for having the high-viz backpack cover I use on - it is, by all accounts, far more effective than any number of back lights, especially on unlit roads. I honestly cannot see the argument for being more invisible in these situations. 

And there's no point in indulging in 'whataboutery' (whether you're talking about what peds or drivers should do to make themselves visible), we're talking about cyclists. 

And cyclists who ride invisibly frequently put me, as another cyclist, at risk, not just themselves. In North America it's even worse because a good proportion of these particular morons tend to ride on the wrong side of the street... oh yes they do.


----------



## adscrim (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It seems obvious to me that some people just will not take any criticism from someone who admits to driving.




Is it not more to do with the horn use? Most of us will know the feeling of a car blasting it's horn and scaring you half to death. I don't think people wish to condone riding without lights in conditions that need them, but it's the hypocrisy of highlighting someone's anti-social road use through some anti-social road use.

I believe there wouldn't be a problem if a window had been opened and some quiet word had been had instead.

"Fecking idiot tosspots!!! Get some lights Don't blast you're horn at me while I'm struggling to get up this hill you twatting, unthinking, selfish, idiotic balls of lard!!! "


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I've had numerous people I know where I live, who drive, thank me for having the high-viz backpack cover I use on - it is, by all accounts, *far more effective than any number of back lights*, especially on unlit roads. I honestly cannot see the argument for being more invisible in these situations.



Ahaahaaahaaaahaahahahaha! Yeah right, sure. You're probably used to only some primitive LED lights from the dawn of the era.

There are many modern LED lights, even relative cheapies, that will far FAR exceed any possible impact of a hiviz cover, both the fluorescent and reflective parts, both in the day and at night.


----------



## Origamist (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It seems obvious to me that some people just will not take any criticism from someone who admits to driving.



I'm happy to take constructive criticism from any quarter (including drivers), but am less keen to be likened to a moron for failing to meet a highly subjective Hi-Vis threshold. As it happens, I'm sad enough to get Ms O to check how I look from a car when she's driving at night.




Flying_Monkey said:


> So take it from me, someone who doesn't drive, has never driven, and does not intend to, and who cycles all year whatever the weather, cyclists who make no effort to make themselves visible in the dark and in adverse weather conditions _are_ being unecessarily foolish.



Agreed.



Flying_Monkey said:


> I've had numerous people I know where I live, who drive, thank me for having the high-viz backpack cover I use on - it is, by all accounts, far more effective than any number of back lights, especially on unlit roads. I honestly cannot see the argument for being more invisible in these situations.



I'm not sure how people can be "more invisible" - but I think I know what you mean (less visible). The difficulties begin when you ask people what levels of both conspicuity and perspicuity are reasonable for cyclists. What is deemed acceptable or a minimum standard seem to vary considerably. Like you, I have been congratulated by motorists, motorcyclists, and cyclists on an almost weekly basis for my visibility efforts (rear lights in my case), but never for wearing a retro-reflective Sam Browne belt. What, if anything, does that tell us?



Flying_Monkey said:


> And there's no point in indulging in 'whataboutery' (whether you're talking about what peds or drivers should do to make themselves visible), we're talking about cyclists.



I don't mind a bit of 'whataboutery' here as we all have to share the road and have a responsibility for one another. Focussing solely on cyclists is understandable (this is a cycling forum), but a failure to examine the bigger transport picture is unwise, IMO. That said, my comments were something of a cheap shot at the OP.


----------



## Alien8 (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I've had numerous people I know where I live, who drive, thank me for having the high-viz backpack cover I use on - it is, by all accounts, far more effective than any number of back lights, especially on unlit roads.



This is obviously something that you and Debs have in common - he quite easily gets the hump as well.

[A link for those who fail to see the cunning play on words]


----------



## Fletch456 (7 Dec 2010)

Origamist said:


> I don't mind a bit of 'whataboutery' here as we all have to share the road and have a responsibility for one another. Focussing solely on cyclists is understandable (this is a cycling forum), but a failure to examine the bigger transport picture is unwise, IMO. That said, my comments were something of a cheap shot at the OP.




Agreed. For me that would mean fines for car drivers for improper use of or not using one's lights. The number of cars I saw without lights on, or using sidelights, which were as good as useless in my short walk to the station this morning was impressive. 

It would for me, go for fog lights, when there isn't any fog - which many of today's young 'uns seem to like (hate it when they are shining in my rear view mirror), hazards when parked in a row so it looks like you're pulling out when you're not plus using headlights when it's a damn sight more useful. People so often do view driving as a right and a privilege.

Mis-use of lights such as fog lights has been a fineable offence for a long time but I imagine it is very very rarely enforced.


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262503"]I just got the impression that the OP was throwing his toys out of his pram and having a little temper tantrum.[/quote]








[QUOTE 1262512"]
It should be the law, and I'd quite happily wear a helmet. And no it's not the law at the moment.
[/quote]

You can wear one if you want, as I do. No need for legislation IMO.


----------



## Fletch456 (7 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262512"]
It should be the law, and I'd quite happily wear a helmet. And no it's not the law at the moment.
[/quote]


Australia - it is law but they are thinking of repealing it. It's an inhibitor to getting people into cycling is what they are saying and am inclined to agree. 

The issue IMO is more to do with fact helmet wearing is of benefit to London more than many other places (like so many things London has it's own quirks - to which I can testify after 6 years of commuting, by train and a bike at the London end - though thankfully no longer). Banning artic trucks as I believe Boris is considering would make it significantly nicer place to be on the road and pavement. Cycling proficiency - or abilities - I did cycling proficiency as a cub scout and my father taught excellent road side to both my brother and I about owning the road - signalling clearly and making sure you look properly when doing so too. 

These sorts of things would not only make more cyclists safer but increase the confidence of many, especially in our very busy noisy capital. The helmet is a last resort - if it is saving you then all else has failed. Though before anyone says, you can allow for others and their driving as we must do anyway but you can't account for all behaviours - that is true. Helmets are a good idea - a very good idea - but to make it law would be missing the point.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

Origamist said:


> That said, my comments were something of a cheap shot at the OP.



Okay, nice to see someone with the grace to admit it here! 

Onto those to whom such manners are clearly alien - BentMikey - you can laugh all you like, I am telling you _what has been reported to me_ - I have got two very effective back lights as well as the 'hump'! But it's the hump that gets the 'thank-you's'...

And BTW BM, I might just have a little more experience of cycling in such difficult conditions (permanent snow and ice and almost total darkness on much of my commute for 4 months+ of the year, with frequent driving snow storms) than you...


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2010)

A helmet isn't going to save you from a lorry!
It saves you from minor head injuries.




Flying_Monkey said:


> Onto those to whom such manners are clearly alien - BentMikey - you can laugh all you like, I am telling you _what has been reported to me_ - I have got two very effective back lights as well as the 'hump'! But it's the hump that gets the 'thank-you's'...


What rear lights have you got then?


----------



## Debian (7 Dec 2010)

You can all say what you like in reply to my OP obviously but my level of hypocrisy here is a lot lower than that indicated on the silly picture. I am a keen cyclist and I am fully aware of what it's like to be honked at, as well as to be knocked off my bike by a moronic and obviously blind motorist. The cyclist I did honk at, well it was more of a brief toot than a blast of the horn.

Over the past few weeks I have told quite a few cyclists to their face to get some lights on their bike - I invariably get either a blank and uncomprehending stare or a mouthful of abuse. Round my way of late, the unlit ninja breed of cyclist is outnumbering the lit and hi-vis'd breed and it's, quite frankly, pissing me off.

That's not to mention the unlit cyclist on the pavement a couple of weeks back doing a rate of knots on the very steep downhill bit of London Road by the Commandery. He was within inches, quite literally of taking me out (I was in pedestrian mode). He was doing at least 20mph, probably more and he could have easily killed me.

I am losing sympathy rapidly with many of my fellow cyclists right now.

You can argue against if you like but my argument remains - get some decent lights and some light coloured clothing and use them. If you don't then (on the lights at least) you are breaking the law as well as putting yourself, and others at risk of death and injury. If you insist on dressing in black on a black bike in the dark and with no lights then don't moan when I don't see you!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> What rear lights have you got then?



http://www.wiggle.co...led-rear-light/

and

http://www.wiggle.co...led-rear-light/

Oh, and double Lumicycle headlights on the front...

How about you?


----------



## Piemaster (7 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> Oh shiiiii...



No comments yet? Damm. I went out and bought popcorn especially.


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

I have one of these on my seatpost:
http://www.wiggle.co...led-rear-light/

And one of these over my rucksack:
http://www.ledwear.c...edbackpackcover

During the day, particularly during overcast or misty days, it's the rucksack cover that gets noticed.

When there's daylight, hivis seems to cut through and shout "cyclist!" far more than any lights do.

Shame the light part of the rucksack cover is terribly, terribly made. I'm on my third and already 2 of the leds have gone. 

In the dark, or particularly under orange streetlights, the hivis kind of blends into everything else.


----------



## Ravenbait (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> http://www.wiggle.co...led-rear-light/
> 
> and
> 
> ...



I've got two of the first (well, the updated 610), plus one of these:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/cateye-tl-ld1100-led-rear-light/

Plus 4 photon back-up lights and a fibre flare.

http://fibreflare.com/

On the front I've got twin lumicycles and a couple of these:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/cateye-hl-el410-led-front-light/

I've been complimented on my lighting numerous times. No one has ever complained about a lack of hi-viz (which I don't wear).

Sam


----------



## benb (7 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> You can all say what you like in reply to my OP obviously but my level of hypocrisy here is a lot lower than that indicated on the silly picture...



Assuming you mean the one I put up - that was aimed at Lee, as he accused you of throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum, which I found rather amusing.


----------



## Firestorm (7 Dec 2010)

On a dimly lit residential street the other night I saw a dark shape in the road go past me as I was walking home from the station. As it passed under the next streetlight I saw it was a woman on a bike, no lights , no reflectors and hi viz clothing would not have mattered because the view from behind was obscured by the child seat , with junior on board !


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> http://www.wiggle.co...led-rear-light/
> 
> and
> 
> ...


No wonder they saw your hump cover first. I wouldn't say either of them are at the brightness which will stand out from a distance.
Both on the seat post?

I have 2x fibre flare, 1x Blackburn mars 4.0 and a magicshine mj-818. And that's for commuting in London.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Yep, I'm not surprised. Both of those are old and relatively dim LEDs by modern standards. Get some more modern lights, and your hump will be rendered pointless. It already doesn't work in some situations because it isn't active in the way proper lights are.


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

I'm not sure about that - as raised in my self-illumination thread, when I've seen cyclists with very bright lights, you end up only seeing the lights and not the cyclist. I'd say you need at least reflectives, too. 

I'd have thought just being a couple of red dots, even if bright and flashing, wouldn't necessarily tell a driver that there is a cyclist there.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> If you insist on dressing in black on a black bike in the dark and _with no lights_ then don't moan when I don't see you!



Too many criteria Debian. Is your beef the colour of the bike the dress or the lack of lights? Surely it is simply the latter.

Apart for the bit in italics, well, I am Spartacus. But seriously, flourescent clothing is near useless in a lot of lighting conditions, and in some winter ones black is better than light coloured stuff imo & ime (as driver motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian). Reflectives mark you out from the light clutter in towns and in the dark in the country when caught by another vehicles lights. 

A novel arrangment of rear lights, noite the plural, is effective. A single powerful rear can often have you mistaken for a diferent sort of vehicle, or one with defective rear lights, unless and until pedal reflectors or other refective kit comes in to play.

So if you see me insisting on dressing in black and riding my black bike in the dark with lights on you can have a moan if you want but I reserve the right to moan back at you


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

I think we need a definition of "Hi Vis". When I say it, I mean something like one of those tabards builders and motorway workers (and lorry drivers) wear, in fluorescent yellow or orance with reflective strips all over them. The reflective strips are the single best aid to cyclist visibility after a good set of lights. I agree with Greg regarding an arrangement of lights, preferably a mix of flashing and constant, at each end, too: a single bright light isn't as good, since there's nothing to help a driver judge distance and it's easily mistaken for many other sources of bright light. F'rinstance, a bright constant front light looks remarkably similar to one of those security lights on the sides of houses; a bright constant rear light can look exactly like a red traffic light. Both real world examples. Flashing lights look like nothing else and mean you're instantly identified as a cyclist. I know there's a school of thought on here which believes that to be a bad thing, but I don't subscribe to that.

Regarding the OP, I'd say that most of the cyclists I "see" at night nowadays have no lights. I'm happy to drive in a way which accommodates such people, but if I ever do squish one - all too easily imaginable on a busy unlit A road in the dead of night - my first priority will be to try not to lose too much sleep over it.


----------



## Ticktockmy (7 Dec 2010)

I run two Cateye’s LD150 on the seat post, angled so that they both concentrate the light on a single point abut 12 feet behind the bike, and set to random flash, when I first set them up as a experiment, I tried different flashing modes, and random come our tops for making motorists think. 

I find now they hang back as their brains try to work out what the Feck is that, I found out also when I was experimenting looking at the light from led’s bouncing about all over the place was very attention grabbing, having spent a evening riding around the roads and lanes around Charlwood and Rusper and Faygate, I now feel happy that along with the flashing light on my back pack, I am seen. My only concern it could become a game for some motorist to play “guess which led will light next”, as they have 10 to choose from. I do once am back into Crawley, switch one of the Cateye’s off as one is quite bright enough.



And as a bye-line for those in the Horsham/Crawley area..The Dragon at Colegate has opened again


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

The problem with the random flash lights that I've seen is that there's only one LED lit up at any one time. Seems a bit daft to have a ten LED light and set it to random mode. Ten LEDs lit up all at once are far more visible.


----------



## Moodyman (7 Dec 2010)

From my motoring experience, cyclists with reflective builders' waistcoats & lights stand out more than those with just LED lights. The LEDs are great, but often get mixed in with other urban lights.

So when I cycle commute I also wear a builder's waistcoat to compliment my multiple lights, pedal & pannier reflectors.

Don't think anybody's right or wrong. Just go with whatever you're comfortable with.

And Debian....I agree...that your ninja cyclist should get some fooking lights.


----------



## Moodyman (7 Dec 2010)

*Ten LEDs lit up all at once are far more visible. 
*
But the batteries don't last as long.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

Moodyman said:


> From my motoring experience, cyclists with reflective builders' waistcoats & lights stand out more than those with just LED lights. The LEDs are great, but often get mixed in with other urban lights.



Yes, that's my experience too. I do a lot of driving at night.



> Don't think anybody's right or wrong. Just go with whatever you're comfortable with.
> 
> And Debian....I agree...that your ninja cyclist should get some fooking lights.



And I agree with this bit too.


----------



## 2Loose (7 Dec 2010)

3 rear smarts - 2 flashing, one constant here, but I do think that reflective trim, especially on the legs\feet, identifies a person in the distance in a way that lights just cannot do. 

Oh, I also agree with RT - I class HiViz as anything designed to be seen more easily in low light\dark conditions, not just yellow\orange\green, but anything with reflectives too.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Moodyman said:


> From my motoring experience, cyclists with reflective builders' waistcoats & lights stand out more than those with just LED lights. The LEDs are great, but often get mixed in with other urban lights.



See my response above to Flying Monkey. That might be true with older less bright LEDs, but good lights are the best answer. With good lights your waistcoat will be rendered invisible, in much the same way we no longer notice reflectors on cars that have their lights on.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (7 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Calm down dear!!



It's not a commercial you know...


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2010)

I dress in black!

My bike is black!

I do have lights though...

My black top is a Foska Bones and my black tights are Altura


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> See my response above to Flying Monkey. That might be true with older less bright LEDs, but good lights are the best answer. With good lights your waistcoat will be rendered invisible, in much the same way we no longer notice reflectors on cars that have their lights on.



Not actually true. In the case of car lights it's true because the reflectors are a part of the light cluster. But I certainly notice those reflective triangles which denote a trailer, even on trailers with very bright LEDs fitted. And, regardless of how bright a cyclist's lights are, a hi vis (see my post above for a definition) tabard is noticeable and helps a driver to judge distance in a way that a single light - no matter how bright it is - doesn't.


----------



## BlackPanther (7 Dec 2010)

Each to their own. On my bike I have 2 rear flashing led lights, spaced 10 inches apart. I also have a flashing led attached to the helmet. At the front I have 2 led lights spaced 22 inches apart at drivers eye level, and one led light pointing at the road. I dress in a yellow flourescent jacket, and wear a fluorescent orange/hi-viz led tabard,	http://cgi.ebay.co.u...=item255ee02663 which has 8 leds front and 8 leds rear flashing away, and is the most effective bit of kit in my arsenal, and well worth 14 quid. 

I also have iron on reflective stickers on my clothing, and my bike has diamond grade reflective stickers (like the emergency vehicles have) on the frame, forks, panniers etc. I really have to keep on top of the battery recharging business, and I've just about got it sussed, so I never have any flat batteries.....9 aaa batteries front, 4 aa rear and 2 aa for the vest. 



Rhythm Thief said:


> a hi vis (see my post above for a definition) tabard is noticeable and helps a driver to judge distance in a way that a single light - no matter how bright it is - doesn't.


I agree that a tabard is a great idea (especially an led one), but I've also found that dual lights are far more noticeable than single ones....the farer apart the better, and flashing is even better. It's not until I see another cyclist with a similar set up to my own, that I realise just how much difference it makes.


Like I say....each to their own, but I want to make it home from work every night. I don't care if I look like a Xmas tree.


----------



## slowmotion (7 Dec 2010)

BlackPanther said:


> Each to their own. On my bike I have 2 rear flashing led lights, spaced 10 inches apart. I also have a flashing led attached to the helmet. At the front I have 2 led lights spaced 22 inches apart at drivers eye level, and one led light pointing at the road. I dress in a yellow flourescent jacket, and wear a fluorescent orange/hi-viz led tabard, http://cgi.ebay.co.u...=item255ee02663 which has 8 leds front and 8 leds rear flashing away, and is the most effective bit of kit in my arsenal, and well worth 14 quid. I also have iron on reflective stickers on my clothing, and my bike has diamond grade reflective stickers (like the emergency vehicles have) on the frame, forks, panniers etc. Like I say....each to their own, but I want to make it home from work every night. I don't care if I look like a Xmas tree.




Are you sure you are BlackPanther?


----------



## Ticktockmy (7 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The problem with the random flash lights that I've seen is that there's only one LED lit up at any one time. Seems a bit daft to have a ten LED light and set it to random mode. Ten LEDs lit up all at once are far more visible.



Because it is random, and two diffrent units there are at least two leds alight at a time.. I thought that that myself that all 10 leds alight at once would be effective, but it just becomes a cycle light. Once the light are jumping around it surprising how effective it is as the flash sequence is quite fast.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

Ticktockmy said:


> Because it is random, and two diffrent units there are at least two leds alight at a time.. I thought that that myself that all 10 leds alight at once would be effective, but it just becomes a cycle light. Once the light are jumping around it surprising how effective it is as the flash sequence is quite fast.



Two LEDs are still basically two small pinpricks of light, moving around or not. I've found these to be an awful lot less noticeable than ten LEDs all flashing on and off.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Not actually true. In the case of car lights it's true because the reflectors are a part of the light cluster. But I certainly notice those reflective triangles which denote a trailer, even on trailers with very bright LEDs fitted. And, regardless of how bright a cyclist's lights are, a hi vis (see my post above for a definition) tabard is noticeable and helps a driver to judge distance in a way that a single light - no matter how bright it is - doesn't.



Thanks, Rhythm Thief, it is good to have the view of a professional driver. I guess the judging of distance thing must be what is being considered important by the drivers who have approached me to say 'thanks'. I have noticed myself how hard it is to judge distance from even quite powerful rear bike LEDs.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Not actually true. In the case of car lights it's true because the reflectors are a part of the light cluster. But I certainly notice those reflective triangles which denote a trailer, even on trailers with very bright LEDs fitted. And, regardless of how bright a cyclist's lights are, a hi vis (see my post above for a definition) tabard is noticeable and helps a driver to judge distance in a way that a single light - no matter how bright it is - doesn't.



As you're such a hiviz diehard, I'll have to leave it at disagreeing with you.

My point remains that hiviz is a waste of effort. Being seen is better achieved with bright lights. Being seen isn't the cyclist's problem 99% of the time, it's having drivers care enough to not bully us out of the way/pull out in front of us/overtake too closely.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> As you're such a high-viz diehard, I'll have to leave it at disagreeing with you.



It's purely based on my experience of what's most visible from behind the wheel in the dark.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

It's your opinion, and I'm sceptical based on my own driving experience. As you'll see in my edited post, so many cyclists confuse what the problem is - it's not being seen, it's having drivers care enough to not bully you out of the way.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (7 Dec 2010)

In my cycling experience, the huge majority of drivers are considerate enough not to bully me out of the way. The only times I got knocked off the bike by motorists were because I hadn't been seen. Both times I was well lit up and both times were because people pulled across a road into me. Both drivers were most apologetic and one of them gave me a lift home and got me fifty quid out of the cashpoint for a new wheel. I think your "99%" quote is a huge and rather sensationalist exaggeration.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

You can win a debate point on me not leaving it if you like. What's important to me is what works for real safety, and that's not the rabbit's foot of hiviz.

On the other hand, perhaps I'm a complete hypocrite, as my main bike is so much more visible than almost all the other bikes here.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

LOL, we're out-editing each other here.

That last post of yours proves my point rather well. They didn't see you despite you being very visible. Most likely they simply didn't look. Neither bright lights nor hiviz would have helped at all if the motorist didn't look. If they had looked, the most likely thing to catch their eye is good set of lights. [1]

Apart from this all we can do is use good cyclecraft and good anticipation, and even then that won't always save us from a collision.

[1] The effect of a powerful flashing light is awesome for being noticed by half-aware drivers. Try overtaking a long queue of traffic with an Exposure MaXx-D on flash, and you get half the motorists pulling out of your way. These are the same motorists that mostly never bother to look in their offside mirror, and most definitely will do nothing for you and your hiviz vest.


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2010)

Oooooooooh hi-viz, i said this would become the new helmet debate!!!

Have a read of this test. Very very interesting read.

In test situations, in darkness with a mix of drivers, cyclists where placed on the road side wearing the following clothing in 4 different situations; a black tracksuit, a black tracksuit with fluorescent yellow cycling vest (No reflective materials), a black tracksuit plus a fluorescent yellow cycling vest that includes silver reflective material and a black tracksuit and vest with reflective materials along with 50mm wide silver reflective strips positioned on the cyclists ankles and knees.
The results are very interesting, only 2% of the cyclists that wore just black where identified, 15% of the cyclists that wore a fluorescent vest where identified, 50% of the cyclists that wore the vest with reflective material where identified and a staggering 90% of cyclists that wore everything with reflective leg tape where identified.

The reflective vest they used in this test was similar to this.





How many cycling 'hi-viz' jackets are like this? *Not many!*
Things like the Hump backpack cover are good, as they have 2 big strips of reflective tape but, as the study shows, the best place to have reflective tape is on your legs, this is where the vehicles lights are going to be pointing and thats a part of you that should be moving constantly and thus makes it eye catching.

If you wear something like the above, then thats good. 50% of drivers will see you because of that. If you have some longs with good reflective patches all around (i have seen people with these and they are great!) then 90% of drivers will see you because of that.

But this



is not as good as the vest shown above, and this is the most popular thing you will see cyclists wearing when they are trying to be seen. Save your £60, and buy either a vest and some decent lights, or some decent lights!!


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

The hiviz debate has been going a long time, I remember it back in the C+ days.

Yeah, I think pedal reflectors are very good indeed, assuming you want to be identified as a cyclist. That's also the scope of the hiviz report above. Safety is not necessarily improved by being identified as a cyclist.

It's much more important to be seen as a road vehicle, IMO, not as a cyclist.


----------



## asterix (7 Dec 2010)

IMO only sufficient visibility for a motorist to see you should be necessary. Excessive hi-vis stuff is actually counterproductive and leads to the drivers attention being drawn towards the cyclist. This is dangerous since human's are subject to 'target fixation': 



> *Wikpedia:
> Target fixation* is a process by which the brain is focused so intently on an observed object that awareness of other obstacles or hazards can diminish. Also, in an avoidance scenario, the observer can become so fixated on the target that they will forget to take the necessary action to avoid it, thus colliding with the object.
> 
> 
> ...



Any competent cyclist or motorcyclist knows that if you want to take a bend successfully it is important to look in the direction you want to travel.

Sure, it's true that there are some drivers with very poor eyesight but I'd suggest they are a very small minority. As a driver I dislike seeing excessively bright cyclists (and day time running lights) as they fight for my attention when I am already aware of them and would be better occupied looking for things I had not already seen.


----------



## Dan B (7 Dec 2010)

From behind I'm happy that people identify me as a cyclist: there's a fair chance I'll be moving slower than most of the other things I might be mistaken for (except in dense traffic, but in dense traffic there's usually a lot of light from car headlights etc) and I'm happy if they assume they'll need to take action earlier than they might if they think I'm a moped

From the side/in front, the obverse applies. I'm moving faster than most cyclists (present company excepted) and I don't want anyone about to pull out on me because they think I'm only going at walking pace. So I'd rather be an Unidentified Moving Object in that case


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> It's your opinion, and I'm sceptical based on my own driving experience. As you'll see in my edited post, so many cyclists confuse what the problem is - it's not being seen, it's having drivers care enough to not bully you out of the way.



The people I was talking about are people who know me. They have neither expressed nor demonstrated any desire to bully me out of the way, and nor in my cycling experience (which is quite extensive) have most drivers seemed to want to do so in the various countries in which I have lived (including the USA, Canada, the UK and Japan). There's always a few, but then I've come across as many aggressive twerps and idiots on bikes (see above). 

This doesn't have to be a 'cyclists versus the world' issue. Since I have moved to where I now live in Canada, I have talked to many drivers I know who share my commuting route. They have told me what would help them and I have told them what helps me. It has been a productive exchange, I have helped to dispel some myths and misconceptions - and mostly it is about ignorance not aggression - and so far I have never felt in any fear for my life or that I was being bullied here. Of course that's not by any means possible in every situation, but it should tell all of us something about our assumptions of 'what drivers think'.


----------



## BlackPanther (7 Dec 2010)

asterix said:


> As a driver I dislike seeing excessively bright cyclists (and day time running lights) as they fight for my attention when I am already aware of them and would be better occupied looking for things I had not already seen.



But as a cyclist wouldn't you prefer a driver to see you (the most vulnerable thing on the road). I don't have lights on in the day but I wouldn't dream of riding without hi viz, because as I drive for a living, I see numerous cyclists every day. As a cyclist/motorcyclist/LGV driver, I'd like to think I am above average at spotting potential hazards, but there's a massive difference between a cyclist dressed in black, and one wearing hi viz.


----------



## asterix (7 Dec 2010)

BlackPanther said:


> But as a cyclist wouldn't you prefer a driver to see you (the most vulnerable thing on the road). I don't have lights on in the day but I wouldn't dream of riding without hi viz, because as I drive for a living, I see numerous cyclists every day. As a cyclist/motorcyclist/LGV driver, I'd like to think I am above average at spotting potential hazards, but there's a massive difference between a cyclist dressed in black, and one wearing hi viz.



Agreed:



asterix said:


> IMO only sufficient visibility for a motorist to see you should be necessary.



Some cyclists overdo it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2010)

Ticktockmy said:


> And as a bye-line for those in the Horsham/Crawley area..The Dragon at Colegate has opened again



Top news. Fancy meeting up for a pint over Xtmas?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> I have 2x fibre flare, 1x Blackburn mars 4.0 and a magicshine mj-818. And that's for commuting in London.



That's a lot of lighting and a lot of batteries involved... but I guess in London with all the other light sources around you'd probably need more to stand out. I don't think you have to go to quite such extremes where I live. I like the Fibreflares though... the all-round visibility issue is a serious one anywhere. May well have to invest in some, cheers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> The results are very interesting, only 2% of the cyclists that wore just black where identified, 15% of the cyclists that wore a fluorescent vest where identified, 50% of the cyclists that wore the vest with reflective material where identified and a staggering 90% of cyclists that wore everything with reflective leg tape where identified.



But the test betrays the testers prejudices that hi-viz (fluro plus reflectives) is da biz.

Why no all black plus reflectives? and as I maintain to my dying day

"If they ain't looking they won't see you" no matter what you wear or how you are lit up.


----------



## Silver Fox (7 Dec 2010)

If a collision occurs between a motorist and cyclist one of the criteria to be considered would be was the cyclist there to be seen.

Whilst each case would be viewed on its merits, if a cyclist failed to take reasonable steps to make themselves as visible as possible, ie lights and / or bright clothing, then a prosecution against a driver may not proceed.

The majority of my riding is off road these days but when I was pounding the black stuff I always dressed in bright gear with lights as required, it's the common sense thing to do.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> But the test betrays the testers prejudices that hi-viz (fluro plus reflectives) is da biz.
> 
> Why no all black plus reflectives? and as I maintain to my dying day
> 
> "If they ain't looking they won't see you" no matter what you wear or how you are lit up.



The CTC campaigned against rear lights as it would change the priority from other road users seeing, to the cyclist "being seen"

This is where the "HiViz" argument becomes farcical.

Drivers can see black cars, dark grey lampposts, black bollards, black railings etc.

How is this possible?


----------



## Ticktockmy (7 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Top news. Fancy meeting up for a pint over Xtmas?



Thats a idea? 
I may well cruise by there this week somewhen and check it out see who the new owners are, there is a nice bridleway up from Near Buchan park/bewbush I can bimble along then Micks ride, mind i went through there a few weeks ago and the logging machines had made the ride rather exciting, more so now I guess it is icy


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> But this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oi!

I have one of those jackets - the grey one.

It's covered in reflectives (hence the name 'night vision') and is also rather nice and warm. £60 well spent i'd say!

Anyway, what a lot of these stats and studies is missing a couple of major points I would like to reaffirm:

1. High Vis is completely useless at night. 
2. High Vis is eye poppingly light-shatteringly useful during DAYLIGHT, especially useful in overcast or misty conditions. The stuff reflects daylight like no light can.


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Drivers can see black cars, dark grey lampposts, black bollards, black railings etc.
> 
> How is this possible?



To be fair, black cars have to have lights on them, and lamposts, black bollards and railings don't tend to be in the middle of the road.


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> 1. High Vis is completely useless at night.
> 2. High Vis is eye poppingly light-shatteringly useful during DAYLIGHT, especially useful in overcast or misty conditions. The stuff reflects daylight like no light can.



High Vis is technically the combination of a fluorescent material and reflective tape. Which means it should work well in all environments. But cycling gear that is labelled as high-viz, generally doesn't have enough reflective tape, and the studies show the place to wear it is on the legs!


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

Sorry yes I should clarify by 'HiVis' I mean 'fluorescent'.


----------



## Jezston (7 Dec 2010)

Ok, to re-crystallise my own thoughts on the matter:

Fluorescents - useless at night, fantastic during the day (especially in poor conditions when everything else is grey)
Reflectives - ESSENTIAL at night, useless during the day
Lights - ESSENTIAL at night, useful-ish during the day.

One thing I really don't like is the whole wearing dark clothes and no reflectives but having lights more powerful than the sun style that seems to be popular. All you can see of that person at night is a couple of bright, sometimes flashing lights without knowing what the hell the lights are coming from. Some people seem to think it's a better idea to give a 'wtf' factor than clearly show you are a cyclist. I think that's a recipe for disaster.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> They have told me what would help them and I have told them what helps me. It has been a productive exchange, I have helped to dispel some myths and misconceptions - and mostly it is about ignorance not aggression - and so far I have never felt in any fear for my life or that I was being bullied here. Of course that's not by any means possible in every situation, but it should tell all of us something about our assumptions of 'what drivers think'.



The ignorant drivers are rarely the problem, they are easy to re-educate. As for the rest, either you don't have much riding experience with London and UK traffic, or you've been cycling with blinkers on.

As for the assumptions, I think they are perhaps mostly on your part. I posted elsewhere that it's a very tiny minority of drivers that are a problem. I have 84 youtube-worthy incidents in almost two years and 360-odd commutes. That's around one dodgy driver in 4 commutes. I think each of my commutes has, at a complete guess, an average of perhaps 2000 driver interactions, I cover a lot of mileage in sometimes very dense traffic. One dodgy driver in 8,000 is amazingly small, even to me. I think cycling is very safe, as safe as many other day-to-day activities we take part in.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> All you can see of that person at night is a couple of bright, sometimes flashing lights without knowing what the hell the lights are coming from. Some people seem to think it's a better idea to give a 'wtf' factor than clearly show you are a cyclist. I think that's a recipe for disaster.




WTF is an excellent strategy. It's exactly what you need to get more time and more space from drivers, some of whom otherwise wouldn't do so. It isn't about being seen, it's about the Theory of BIG. You've read about it, right?


----------



## Banjo (7 Dec 2010)

"That's not to mention the unlit cyclist on the pavement a couple of weeks back doing a rate of knots on the very steep downhill bit of London Road by the Commandery. He was within inches, quite literally of taking me out (I was in pedestrian mode). He was doing at least 20mph, probably more and he could have easily killed me.

I am losing sympathy rapidly with many of my fellow cyclists right now."


Their not cyclists mate, just ar$ehole$ on bikes.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Dec 2010)

I'm so tempted to rig up a crossbeam about 4ft wide and lash it to my bars with a pair of AyUps on each end, one white lamp facing front one saxon cap making red facing rear. and fit a number plate with "CYCLING" on my saddlebag with a lamp illuminating it.

excellent wtf? factor. bet the bar stewards would give me a wide berth then!


----------



## Banjo (7 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I'm so tempted to rig up a crossbeam about 4ft wide and lash it to my bars with a pair of AyUps on each end, one white lamp facing front one saxon cap making red facing rear. and fit a number plate with "CYCLING" on my saddlebag with a lamp illuminating it.
> 
> excellent wtf? factor. bet the bar stewards would give me a wide berth then!



Havent seen anyone go to that extreme but I have seen a bike with a rear light on a stick poking out about 18 inches to the right. 

On my commuter at the moment i have one light on the back of the rack in the center and one clipped to the back of the right side pannier. I definitely notice cars give me a slightly wider berth at night (slightly).


----------



## BentMikey (7 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I'm so tempted to rig up a crossbeam about 4ft wide and lash it to my bars with a pair of AyUps on each end, one white lamp facing front one saxon cap making red facing rear. and fit a number plate with "CYCLING" on my saddlebag with a lamp illuminating it.
> 
> excellent wtf? factor. bet the bar stewards would give me a wide berth then!



LOL! I bet. The problem would be filtering through standing traffic.

There's a better solution along similar lines, IMO. If you have a super bright rear LED, you can leave a large pool of light behind you on the road. Drivers are *very* unwilling to enter that pool of light.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2010)

Silver Fox said:


> If a collision occurs between a motorist and cyclist one of the criteria to be considered would be was the cyclist there to be seen.
> 
> Whilst each case would be viewed on its merits, if a cyclist failed to take reasonable steps to make themselves as visible as possible, ie lights and / or bright clothing, then a prosecution against a driver may not proceed.
> 
> The majority of my riding is off road these days but when I was pounding the black stuff I always dressed in bright gear with lights as required, it's the common sense thing to do.



Which again is the problem - responsibility to ensure you are seen, not responsibility of the motorist to look.

There was a guy who did some research in the 70's / early 80's who showed that HiViz is NOT The answer!

He found that wearing a black Police Uniform made him far more visible than any HiViz - which again makes the point of what drivers see and their reactions.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, we're out-editing each other here.
> 
> That last post of yours proves my point rather well. They didn't see you despite you being very visible. Most likely they simply didn't look. Neither bright lights nor hiviz would have helped at all if the motorist didn't look. If they had looked, the most likely thing to catch their eye is good set of lights. [1]
> 
> ...



I should make the point that I don't necessarily believe that Hi viz is the be all and end all of cycle safety. Good flashing LEDs do much the same job: that is, they give a driver something to identify the object as a cyclist and therefore help him or her to judge distance and plan an overtake accordingly. Or, in my case, avoid pulling out in front of him. But you're quite right that some motorists won't spot you regardless of how many lights you have.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

asterix said:


> As a driver I dislike seeing excessively bright cyclists (and day time running lights)* as they fight for my attention when I am already aware of them and would be better occupied looking for things I had not already seen.
> 
> *



That's just the point though: they don't. Instead, hi viz, flashing lights etc enable you to think "cyclist" immediately and plan your overtake accordingly. One constant light up ahead can leave you thinking "hmmm, distant traffic light, motorcycle in the distance ... or what?" This requires more concentration than the first scenario, and more than you've really got to spare in an urban environment.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Which again is the problem - responsibility to ensure you are seen, not responsibility of the motorist to look.



I'm not convinced by that. We do after all have a responsibility in law to fit lights to our bikes for riding at night, and regardless of the moral rights and wrongs of it, anyone riding unlit on an A road (or any road, really) at night, thinking "well, it's their responsibility to look for me" is really asking for trouble. And where does it stop? Should we be expecting pedestrians to develop x ray vision in order to see unlit cyclists swooping down hills in unlit villages? Or is it ok for anyone to decide to turn their car lights off because other drivers should be looking out for unlit objects? It's a nice argument, and I can see the point you're making, but it's ultimately meaningless.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Dec 2010)

Cool, it doesn't look like we're remarkably different in our views.



Rhythm Thief said:


> One constant light up ahead can leave you thinking "hmmm, distant traffic light, motorcycle in the distance ... or what?" This requires more concentration than the first scenario, and more than you've really got to spare in an urban environment.



This is exactly what you do want. "Unknown hazard" in the motorist's mind is going to be much larger and more dangerous than "Oh, it's only a cyclist". This ensures the driver will slow down and take more care than they otherwise would. It's a winner.

As for cunobelin's point, he's quite right. The highway code requires us all to drive at a speed where we can safely stop in the distance we can see to be clear ahead. The school of thought that pedestrians need to wear lights and hiviz is victim blaming, and just an excuse to allow speeding beyond what is safe. Trees, dogs, and all manner of other hazards don't carry lights or hiviz.


----------



## Firestorm (8 Dec 2010)

There have been comments on here about cars leaving their fog lights on when its not foggy and how wrong it is, and I am in complete agreement

Now I have just resumed cycling after many years and lights have certainly improved , which are the recommended lights which are bright, but not as bright as car fog lights ?, because I should not be using lights that intense when its not foggy.


----------



## Debian (8 Dec 2010)

benb said:


> Assuming you mean the one I put up - that was aimed at Lee, as he accused you of throwing your toys out of the pram and having a tantrum, which I found rather amusing.



Oooh, sorry then!


----------



## benb (8 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> Oooh, sorry then!



That's OK.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This is exactly what you do want. "Unknown hazard" in the motorist's mind is going to be much larger and more dangerous than "Oh, it's only a cyclist". This ensures the driver will slow down and take more care than they otherwise would. It's a winner.



All I can say is that you've got a lot more faith in drivers than I have ... if a driver thinks that the red light he can see ahead of him is a traffic light half a mile off, why is he going to slow down? If he can see it's a cyclist, there's a much greater chance that he'll overtake you safely. Unless he's a psycho (and few drivers are, contrary to appearances), in which case all the lights in the world won't help you. 



> As for cunobelin's point, he's quite right. The highway code requires us all to drive at a speed where we can safely stop in the distance we can see to be clear ahead. The school of thought that pedestrians need to wear lights and hiviz is victim blaming, and just an excuse to allow speeding beyond what is safe. Trees, dogs, and all manner of other hazards don't carry lights or hiviz.



I've gone over this fairly recently in another thread and made my views fairly clear. I drive well over 200 miles every night. I stick to speed limits and I drive in the distance I can see to be clear, as proven to myself by practical experiment more than once. There remain circumstances in which it would be entirely possible for me to miss a cyclist riding (illegally) without lights on an unlit A road in the dead of night: to give one example off the top of my head, an unlit cyclist could very easily materialise in front of my truck in the time between him being beyond the reach of my headlamps and, say, a car coming round the corner up ahead with foglamps on, dazzling me. Or, in an urban environment, unlit cyclists pretty much disappear when they're creeping around in the rearview mirrors. There's a huge difference between seeing a cyclist in time to shout "F**K!" and wrench the wheel over, hoping you miss him, and seeing him in time to plan your overtake from half a mile back, slow down and manoevre around him safely. I absolutely agree that drivers should be drivnig in the distance they can see to be clear, but equally cyclists should not be putting themselves on the road without making at least some effort to be visible. 

EDIT: Actually, having read the posts over again, I see that Cunobelin's original post was arguing against compulsory hi vis, which is fair enough. I'm arguing that cyclists (and pedestrians) should really use lights on unlit roads at night, which is something I suspect few would disagree with here.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> All I can say is that you've got a lot more faith in drivers than I have ... if a driver thinks that the red light he can see ahead of him is a traffic light half a mile off, why is he going to slow down? *If he can see it's a cyclist, there's a much greater chance that he'll overtake you safely.*



I doubt any modern LEDs would be mistaken for traffic lights. Wrong height, wrong shape, wrong intensity, not static. They are obviously vehicles, and because they're not moving in accordance with expectations from their brightness, they cause drivers to think again.

The bolded bit - is exactly what the few impatient London (and UK) drivers do, yes? Of course not. It's only a cyclist, they'll push past. Using super bright LEDs, they'll not be certain it's a cyclist, it might be an HGV trailer with the lights out on one side, so they take more time and give more space.

It's not a coincidence that a number of super bright LED users have posted how drivers give them much more space at night. It's the Theory of BIG.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I doubt any modern LEDs would be mistaken for traffic lights. Wrong height, wrong shape, wrong intensity, not static. They are obviously vehicles, and because they're not moving in accordance with expectations from their brightness, they cause drivers to think again.



LEDs, possibly not. A single bulb - especially a bright one - very easily. It may be "obviously a vehicle" to you, because it's on your bike, but to the chap in his car somewhere behind you who can just see a single point of bright red light in the darkness, it could very easily be ... well, any other source of bright red light. Flashing LEDs, as I've said before, are pretty much impossible to mistake for anything other than a cyclist. 



> The bolded bit - is exactly what the few impatient London (and UK) drivers do, yes? Of course not. It's only a cyclist, they'll push past. Using super bright LEDs, they'll not be certain it's a cyclist, it might be an HGV trailer with the lights out on one side, so they take more time and give more space.



Yuo seem to be saying in one paragraph that it's impossible to mistake bike lights for anything else, and then in the very next paragraph that some motorists might confuse a bike with an HGV trailer. You can't have it both ways. Besides, what I said is that "there's a much greater chance that he'll overtake you safely" [if he can identify you as a cyclist], which is true enough even allowing for the impatient arses who squeeze past you. As you've said yourself, no amount of lights prevents idiots being idiots.



> It's not a coincidence that a number of super bright LED users have posted how drivers give them much more space at night. It's the Theory of BIG.



I've never argued against using super bright LEDs, and I'm not quite sure where you've got the idea that I have.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> It's not a coincidence that a number of super bright LED users have posted how drivers give them much more space at night. It's the Theory of BIG.





> *Clothing*
> *No reflectives at night time **0
> *Dark 'natural' clothing 0
> Bright jazzy patterned clothing 1
> ...



Interesting (my bold). So hi viz is a good thing, then?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> The ignorant drivers are rarely the problem, they are easy to re-educate. As for the rest, either you don't have much riding experience with London and UK traffic, or you've been cycling with blinkers on.



Sure, I haven't cycled much in London, but it isn't the only place, not even the only city, in the world, you know. Otherwise, about twenty years commuting, club-riding, touring, taking part in sportives etc. in cities and countryside around the world, most in Britain (living mostly in Oxford and Newcastle), but also in even bigger and more crowded cities than London - Tokyo for example. Seeing as I have had very few accidents on the bike, I would suggest that I ride very much with my eyes open. 

There's no point to you being quite so objectionable.




> As for the assumptions, I think they are perhaps mostly on your part.



This is an argument of the 'I'm not but you are' variety... 



> I posted elsewhere that it's a very tiny minority of drivers that are a problem. I have 84 youtube-worthy incidents in almost two years and 360-odd commutes. That's around one dodgy driver in 4 commutes. I think each of my commutes has, at a complete guess, an average of perhaps 2000 driver interactions, I cover a lot of mileage in sometimes very dense traffic. One dodgy driver in 8,000 is amazingly small, even to me. I think cycling is very safe, as safe as many other day-to-day activities we take part in.



Well, yes. So where are all these people trying to bully you off the road who you claimed were the problem? Are even all the 'dodgy drivers', bullies?

In any case, you agree that there are a vanishingly small number of people trying to bully you off the road out there, even in London. However you were the one who claimed that being bullied off the road was the problem in this case we are discussing. It isn't. It's a different problem. We're talking about visibility, and in that context, any reference to bullying is a diversion. It's a form of 'whataboutery'. 

Visibility, however one achieves it - and I have an open mind on this, in fact yesterday I went out and bought a new back light as a result of the discussion above (thanks, Gaz) - is really presaged on the basic assumption (and it's not an assumption unique to me or which I invented) that someone is going to have the best chance of seeing you AND take some positive action on that basis - give you more space, or at least not put you in danger etc. The aggressive driver is not going to care whether you're more visible or not. Visibility will not do anything to help in the case of someone with an intent to harm you, and there's no point in discussing it in relation to that possibility.


----------



## Jezston (8 Dec 2010)

That Theory of BIG article only gives 1 point for bright lights and 2 points for hivis.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

That theory of BIG article is mostly bollocks, with a couple of good points buried in a mass of difficult to read bullshit.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Visibility, however one achieves it - and I have an open mind on this, in fact yesterday I went out and bought a new back light as a result of the discussion above (thanks, Gaz) - is really presaged on the basic assumption (and it's not an assumption unique to me or which I invented) that *someone is going to have the best chance of seeing you AND take some positive action on that basis - give you more space, or at least not put you in danger etc.* The aggressive driver is not going to care whether you're more visible or not. Visibility will not do anything to help in the case of someone with an intent to harm you, and there's no point in discussing it in relation to that possibility.



Exactly my point.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Yuo seem to be saying in one paragraph that it's impossible to mistake bike lights for anything else, and then in the very next paragraph that some motorists might confuse a bike with an HGV trailer. You can't have it both ways.



With the respect I have for you, I expect you to debate better than this and not try to make a straw man. My point again, for clarity:
Bright tail light(s) are not going to be mistaken for traffic lights, and they aren't going to look like a cyclist either. They look like an unknown vehicle ahead, which causes motorists to give more time and space because they aren't sure what hazard that vehicle might pose, what size it is, etc. I'm not having anything both ways here.

I'll say it again. There's no coincidence that super bright LED users report getting more space at night than they do during the day. I suggest this is because they no longer look like a cyclist.




Rhythm Thief said:


> Interesting (my bold). So hi viz is a good thing, then?





Jezston said:


> That Theory of BIG article only gives 1 point for bright lights and 2 points for hivis.



Firstly, DM doesn't use the word hiviz, and secondly, it was written back in 1998 IIRC. Back then reflectives would quite likely be more effective than the relatively dim rear lights available. That's not the case today, with super bright LEDs easily capable of making hiviz and reflectives invisible and pointless, which point I've made before, up thread.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There's no point to you being quite so objectionable.



I'm sorry if you find my posts objectionable - I can't quite imagine why though. Perhaps it's best to stick to debate points rather than this sort of thing?




Flying_Monkey said:


> Visibility, however one achieves it - and I have an open mind on this, in fact yesterday I went out and bought a new back light as a result of the discussion above (thanks, Gaz) - is really presaged on the basic assumption (and it's not an assumption unique to me or which I invented) that someone is going to have the best chance of seeing you AND take some positive action on that basis - give you more space, or at least not put you in danger etc. The aggressive driver is not going to care whether you're more visible or not. Visibility will not do anything to help in the case of someone with an intent to harm you, and there's no point in discussing it in relation to that possibility.



You've rather missed my point. Drivers tend to give more space and time to vehicles they perceive to be bigger and to ones that they perceive as being more of a danger to them. For example, I'm sure someone posted about a study on here which showed that people pull out right in front of smaller vehicles and cyclists, and not when it's a large vehicle like a lorry or bus.

On overtakes, see my point about people's experiences with overtaking space at night with super bright LEDs.

p.s. I'm quite amused you don't want to credit me with correctly guessing your rear lights are old tech.


----------



## gaz (8 Dec 2010)

Since I got my 3w rear light I've been getting some very good overtakes in locations I used to always get bad ones.
Bright lights rule!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> p.s. I'm quite amused you don't want to credit me with correctly guessing your rear lights are old tech.



I tend to listen to people who ask questions and offer positive advice and examples, rather than people who are rude and negative. I'm surprised you can't see why people (and not just me) find your manner objectionable - just look at your own posts. You'd do rather better if you coupled any knowledge you might have to offer with some manners - IMHO of course.

PS: I didn't miss the point you actually made. If you wanted to make a different one, you should have made it.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Bright tail light(s) are not going to be mistaken for traffic lights ...



They do, BM. I know, I've done it myself, and I'm (as you might expect) a little more cyclist aware than most HGV drivers. A very bright front light can be mistaken for one of those house security lights too. I'm talking about in areas of complete darkness here, not streetlit environments, which incidentally gives credence to my point about definition of the area behind the light being useful. Which is what hi viz can provide.




> Firstly, DM doesn't use the word hiviz, and secondly, it was written back in 1998 IIRC. Back then reflectives would quite likely be more effective than the relatively dim rear lights available. That's not the case today, with super bright LEDs easily capable of making hiviz and reflectives invisible and pointless, which point I've made before, up thread.



I suspect we're going to have to agree to diasagree on this one. But I will say he may not use the words "hi viz", but that's what he's describing. I absolutely disagree that a hi viz tabard is "invisible and pointless". For a start, few people actually use good lights and for them hi viz is a big aid to visibility, and even for those who do use good lights, hi viz gives a shape to the area behind the lights.


----------



## Amheirchion (8 Dec 2010)

Tonight while riding home from Uni, I was waiting at a junction to pull out with traffic as far as the eye could see in either direction. It was dark but not fully night yet. Coming down the inside of a line of cars on my side of the road was a cyclist.

My initial thoughts were, "fething ninja, what idiot is out at this time wearing black and with no lights". When he got to within about 2 car lengths though, I noticed a tiny little set of flashing lights on the handlebars, blinking yellow and barely noticeable. Then as he got a car length closer I realised he was actually wearing a bright yellow cycling jacket.. I'm sure he thought he was safe, but it made me worry that he had to be that close before I noticed he wasn't all in black, and that he actually had a front light. 

I didn't get a look at the back of him though, as a gap emerged just as he went by for me to get out through.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'm not convinced by that. We do after all have a responsibility in law to fit lights to our bikes for riding at night, and regardless of the moral rights and wrongs of it, anyone riding unlit on an A road (or any road, really) at night, thinking "well, it's their responsibility to look for me" is really asking for trouble. And where does it stop? Should we be expecting pedestrians to develop x ray vision in order to see unlit cyclists swooping down hills in unlit villages? Or is it ok for anyone to decide to turn their car lights off because other drivers should be looking out for unlit objects? It's a nice argument, and I can see the point you're making, but it's ultimately meaningless.



No one denies that - it is how far you take it.

You have to accept responsibility, and the HiViz argument is simply shifting that from the overtaking vehicles.

Drivers even expect sheep to wear HiViz in Wales, and there are active campaigns in Dartmoor and teh New Forest for compulsory HiViz for horses!

"I know I am on a moor in the middle of nowhere and I should expect wildlife - but it is your fault because your horse did not have HiViz!"

Drivers need to take responsibility for looking and reacting apropriately.. how "lit"do you need to be?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (8 Dec 2010)

It's worth remembering that the title of this thread is "get some f****g _lights_!"_. _We're not talking here about whether two lights is better than one, or whether we should be using hi viz or not; we're talking about those idiots who give us all a bad name by inexplicably wobbling around on busy roads with no lights whatever. No one can reasonably expect a driver to be able to see people like that in time to react safely. 
My stance on hi viz is that I don't drive around expecting everyone to be using it, but when I do see people using it I realise that it makes them far more visible that those without it. So I wear it myself, partly I suspect because I get hi viz tabards free from work. But mostly because, as outlined _ad nauseam_ in previous posts, it helps to prevent your single rear light being mistaken for anything else.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Dec 2010)

Amheirchion said:


> Then as he got a car length closer I realised he was actually wearing a bright yellow cycling jacket.. I'm sure he thought he was safe, but it made me worry that he had to be that close before I noticed he wasn't all in black, and that he actually had a front light.



With dipped headlights you have to be quite tight on a cyclist/motorcyclist not wearing reflectives before your lights illuminated their torso effectively. Has to be that way else motor vehicles would dazzle the feck out of every driver. Hence my contention that light colours alone offer no advantage over black. and it makes it hard for drivers to see our signals and we don't have brake lights...

Some of Rhythm Thief's observations, and his status as a pro HGV driver and cyclist, make for a compelling case for reflectives though.

So here is a question, does anyone do a sam browne or tabard or ruck sack cover (not that I ever ride with a rucksack, than has good reflectives but is NOT made in a day glo colour? A plain white/gray one would be my ideal, like my bagaboo velcro trouser "clips" of which I use two pairs, one around the lower leg and the other around the wrists.


----------



## pwh91 (8 Dec 2010)

[Coming from someone with 4 lights on his bike]

Despite most of us on this forum thinking it's mad to cycle without lights, I'm wondering if the statistics of accidents back up the idea that this is actually dangerous? I've never seen anything in my local paper about KSI accidents due to lack of lights, quite the opposite. Most accidents seem to happen to people lit up like a Christmas tree.

I have a theory that the Ninjas we see cycling around (typically, low-riding at 8mph straight through traffic lights and zebra crossings irrespective of who's in the way) aren't actually mortal humans but come from some kind of branch of the wizarding community and so have a magical force-field hence avoiding accidents. 

Something in this...?


----------



## psmiffy (8 Dec 2010)

pwh91 said:


> [Coming from someone with 4 lights on his bike]
> 
> Despite most of us on this forum thinking it's mad to cycle without lights, I'm wondering if the statistics of accidents back up the idea that this is actually dangerous?



The only data I have seen with respect to cyclists using light and accidents is the TRL analysis of London Data 
2001-2006 

20 - fatalities in the dark/under street lighting
14 had no lights
3 had some lights
1 lights were unrecorded

Total of all the fatalities in the period was 108


----------



## gaz (8 Dec 2010)

[QUOTE 1262619"]
Just to clarify, hivis to me includes some Scothlite tape as well and not just a brightly coloured jacket.


[/quote]

Indeed, and as i've said, most cycling 'hivis' products don't have enough scothlite tape.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And BTW BM, I might just have a little more experience of cycling in such difficult conditions (permanent snow and ice and almost total darkness on much of my commute for 4 months+ of the year, with frequent driving snow storms) than you...



Well, I can't argue on the snow and ice, but I can on the darkness. If I'm not mistaken in that you live near Toronto, that currently has around a half hour more daylight than London, yes? I think I commute in darkness more than most as I teach up until dark, which means I ride home in darkness on most of my commutes, even through midsummer. I'm always slightly surprised when people start commenting on how it's time to get the lights out again in late summer/autumn.

On the rudeness, perhaps you can drop that now? It's not productive, and it's coming across to me as nothing more than a whinge, and as though you have nothing better to get at me with.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> They do, BM. I know, I've done it myself, and I'm (as you might expect) a little more cyclist aware than most HGV drivers. A very bright front light can be mistaken for one of those house security lights too.



Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.




Rhythm Thief said:


> For a start, few people actually use good lights and for them hi viz is a big aid to visibility, and even for those who do use good lights, hi viz gives a shape to the area behind the lights.



That's fair enough - hiviz, which doesn't always work, might help people with poor lights like Flying-Monkey for example. It's nonsense when it comes to super bright lights though. There's very little chance you'll see any hiviz around the light.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Amheirchion said:


> Tonight while riding home from Uni, I was waiting at a junction to pull out with traffic as far as the eye could see in either direction. It was dark but not fully night yet. Coming down the inside of a line of cars on my side of the road was a cyclist.



This is a well known case where reflectives, won't work. You need a light source pointing from near your eyes towards the cyclist, and there isn't one when you're waiting at a T-junction. It's one of the reasons that active lighting is reliable and far better than hiviz.

Of course your cyclist's dim lights didn't help matters either.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

pwh91 said:


> Despite most of us on this forum thinking it's mad to cycle without lights, I'm wondering if the statistics of accidents back up the idea that this is actually dangerous? I've never seen anything in my local paper about KSI accidents due to lack of lights, quite the opposite.





What we all perceive as risky cycling isn't actually that risky according to this reported study:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

"The study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

The figures were slightly higher when the cyclist was killed, but in such cases only the driver's account is available."


----------



## Piemaster (9 Dec 2010)

Oh the joys of daytime TV. Just caught an item on 'rip off Britain'
Guy (ex-detective) out running in hiviz. And I mean FULL hiviz, tights and shirt - obviously someone that believes in its merits. Didn't seem to have much in the way of reflectives though.
Certainly stood out and would get noticed in daylight, even if just the 'wtf' factor as it was unusual rather than the usual tabard/jacket/shirt that are more common.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Hiviz is the combo of both fluorescent and reflectives. I assume you mean he had just fluo lycra on?


----------



## Jezston (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mikey - I think you are actually being quite rude to Flying Monkey to be fair. 

You are also continuously stating opinion as fact and dismissing other people's views even though you have no evidence to support your statements any more than they do.

I'm sure the WTF factor is indeed useful on a recumbent - I'd have thought most drivers aren't going to know what the hell that thing with the lights on it is anyway, and I guess reflectives aren't going to be much use if you can't see your body from behind. But I, and in fact that BIG study you linked to to support your argument earlier, would suggest when on an upright reflectives are very useful indeed as they show shape, they show the driver there is a vulnerable road user ahead and they should drive accordingly. I don't think confusing the driver and making them wonder what on earth that object ahead is is a good idea as they might not behave appropriately around, and also I feel it could through up other risks like target fixation.

But on the other hand I feel what that article you linked to is correct, that too much pressure is being put on the cyclist to 'be seen' rather than on the driver to 'see'. I think as long as you have half decent rear lights and/or reflectives so that you aren't invisible should be enough, any more than that and you'll still get dozy drivers who just aren't looking anyway ploughing into you.


----------



## Norm (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.


You've never mistaken a solitary head light for a cyclist? Or mistaken drive-way lights for cars coming the other way? I have so you'd better make that two.



BentMikey said:


> That's fair enough - hiviz, which doesn't always work, might help people with poor lights like Flying-Monkey for example. It's nonsense when it comes to super bright lights though. There's very little chance you'll see any hiviz _around the light_.


 I don't think that RT was talking about around the light. That distinction was dismissed a few pages back in the mention of reflectors which are built in to car lamp clusters.

But a hi viz / reflective vest which is 50cm above the height of the bike-lights can certainly be seen.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Norm said:


> You've never mistaken a solitary head light for a cyclist? Or mistaken drive-way lights for cars coming the other way? I have so you'd better make that two.



A car for a motorcycle, sure. A traffic light? Let's not be totally ridiculous. 

If you want to take it further to Rhythm Thief's additional point of front lights, then I bet if you have mistaken these, then you very quickly realised that they weren't vehicles, long before you got close enough to need to take any avoiding action.

Again, you won't see any hiviz around these lights anyway, so it's an irrelevant point.



Norm said:


> But a hi viz / reflective vest which is 50cm above the height of the bike-lights can certainly be seen.



Not around a dinotte, I think.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

p.s. Jezton, it's flying monkey's own implicit admission that he had relatively poor lights. He went out and bought a better one after all.


----------



## gaz (9 Dec 2010)

Has anyone thought that some of us dont want to look like a cyclist?
In some situations I would prefer to look like a motorbike due to the speed that I am holding. In cases like these I turn all my lights to constant to give that affect. This has stopped many smidsy's which I used to get daily.


----------



## Ravenbait (9 Dec 2010)

What this seems to boil down to is this:

It's a legal requirement to use lights when it's dark. So do it, otherwise you're not just a muppet, you're an illegal muppet.

If you believe that drivers in your neck of the woods are more likely to treat you with respect and care if they know you are a cyclist, then hi-viz (bright colours + reflective) are a good thing because then they will identify you as a cylist. Unless you have lights that make the eyes bleed, in which case you (a) don't need it; and (b) they probably won't see it anyway. You can be the People's Front of Judea.

If you believe that drivers are generally careless, even though they don't mean to be, because they are prone to being distracted by being late/other traffic/changing the CD/arguing with Radio 4/fixing their hair/talking on the phone/smoking a fag/eating a bacon butty/reading the latest Booker prize winner/playing Nintendo then you may find the WTF factor to be more helpful as unknown objects are treated with more caution than known objects. This is particularly the case if you live in an area where drivers are generally less than lovely towards cyclists. You can be the Judean People's Front.

Both approaches have their place. Both are valid for differing circumstances and it is up to an individual cyclist to choose his visibility strategy according to circumstance, as long as the legal minimum has been achieved. Yelling and insulting one another because some of us think one approach is better than the other just makes us splitters. I don't think either approach is wrong. I prefer the second, as in my experience it is more effective*. If your experience is different, then good for you.


*Most effective of all, I've found, is wearing next to nothing, although this only really works in summer and I expect it's more effective for girls.

Sam (quite fancy one of those Mars 4.0s though)


----------



## Amheirchion (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This is a well known case where reflectives, won't work. You need a light source pointing from near your eyes towards the cyclist, and there isn't one when you're waiting at a T-junction. It's one of the reasons that active lighting is reliable and far better than hiviz.
> 
> Of course your cyclist's dim lights didn't help matters either.



He didn't have any reflectives.


----------



## gaz (9 Dec 2010)

Amheirchion said:


> Tonight while riding home from Uni, I was waiting at a junction to pull out with traffic as far as the eye could see in either direction. It was dark but not fully night yet. Coming down the inside of a line of cars on my side of the road was a cyclist.
> 
> My initial thoughts were, "fething ninja, what idiot is out at this time wearing black and with no lights". When he got to within about 2 car lengths though, I noticed a tiny little set of flashing lights on the handlebars, blinking yellow and barely noticeable. Then as he got a car length closer I realised he was actually wearing a bright yellow cycling jacket.. I'm sure he thought he was safe, but it made me worry that he had to be that close before I noticed he wasn't all in black, and that he actually had a front light.
> 
> I didn't get a look at the back of him though, as a gap emerged just as he went by for me to get out through.


Isn't this just a case for having a powerful front light? Nothing will make that cyclist safer than having a bright front light which won't get lost in the other traffic.
Unfortunatly most lights sold in bike shops aren't powerful enough IMO.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Dec 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> What this seems to boil down to is this:
> 
> It's a legal requirement to use lights when it's dark. So do it, otherwise you're not just a muppet, you're an illegal muppet.
> 
> ...



I'm from the Campaign for a Free Galilee. We hate flourescent colours as it ruins our camoflage.

I want BLACK clothes with GOOD reflectives and the reflective bits can't be flouro. I want decent lights, in the plural, both front and rear. Up front these need be a combination of "see by" and "be seen" and since, lighting wise, I cringe from single points of failure on lights that means a minimum of two lamps up front and at least two on the rear. In a free Galilee helmet lights front and rear are optional.


----------



## Ravenbait (9 Dec 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I'm from the Campaign for a Free Galilee. We hate flourescent colours as it ruins our camoflage.
> 
> I want BLACK clothes with GOOD reflectives and the reflective bits can't be flouro. I want decent lights, in the plural, both front and rear. Up front these need be a combination of "see by" and "be seen" and since, lighting wise, I cringe from single points of failure on lights that means a minimum of two lamps up front and at least two on the rear. In a free Galilee helmet lights front and rear are optional.



This is me and Shackleton done up for the Dumb Run in 2008:








Others can be seen on the Dumb Run tag: http://www.flickr.co...s/tags/dumbrun/

I'm with you. I dress in black with reflective strips, have decent lights front and rear.

Please note that I don't usually have such crazy lighting. The glow sticks and crystal stars are of dubious legality and only come out once a year. Excellent WTF quotient, however.

Sam


----------



## Firestorm (9 Dec 2010)

https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## Norm (9 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> Nothing will make that cyclist safer than having a bright front light which won't get lost in the other traffic.


Can't agree with that any more than I agree with BM's comments on seeing reflectives.

The safest thing that I have found is a head mounted light, which I can "flash" towards people who may present a danger, such as those emerging from side-roads. That way, not only do I not get lost but I can actively grab people's attention.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> p.s. Jezton, it's flying monkey's own implicit admission that he had relatively poor lights. He went out and bought a better one after all.



'Relatively poor' is correct. They were still pretty damn visible. But I took a look at what Gaz said he used, saw that they were better, and I have replaced the weakest Cateye with one of the latest kind of light. 

Does this mean I will be abandoning my reflective backback cover? Absolutely not. 

In fact, I thought I would make this a little more objective, and I have asked some of the drivers (a sample of 12, in fact - a mix of women and men of different ages) who share my morning ferry ride about my visibility - some of those were people who had previous come up to me to say how much they appreciated my visibility, some were not. I asked two very simple questions:

1. "Do you think I am adequately visible after dark?" - to which all answered "yes"; and

2. "What is it that is most noticeable about me?" 

The answers to this were not so unanimous. Whilst two had noticed the new light, which is good (both of whom were older women, not sure what that implies...), and two people said 'lights' (in general), it is still the reflective backpack cover that more remark on (7 out of the 12). One person picked out the reflective flashing on my longs / overshoes. One person added that they thought that I should cycle on the other side of the road into traffic as this would be safer... there's always one. I did point out that this was not only illegal but a lot more dangerous for me and for other cyclists and drivers. They didn't seem convinced. This seems to be a more common thing amongst people who have never cycled as adults (or who cycle very rarely)... 

People may find this counterintuitive or not, but don't shoot the messenger: I am simply reporting some 'findings'. I was just disapppointed that not one person mentioned my 'sculpted buttocks' or my 'impressive thighs'... 

PS: On the colour issue. IMHO colours are pretty much irrelevant after dark - like Sam I dress in black - with the reflective bits I mentioned on the backs of the shoes, ankles, legs etc. And black is defintely more visible during the day, especially against the snow.


----------



## fossyant (9 Dec 2010)

Children, please. Off to your rooms !


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Well, I can't argue on the snow and ice, but I can on the darkness. If I'm not mistaken in that you live near Toronto, that currently has around a half hour more daylight than London, yes? I think I commute in darkness more than most as I teach up until dark, which means I ride home in darkness on most of my commutes, even through midsummer. I'm always slightly surprised when people start commenting on how it's time to get the lights out again in late summer/autumn.



I live in a rural area which has no streetlights at all. That was half the point. It's quite rare in the UK (in my experience), and certainly very rare around London, I would guess - though you can correct me on that. It's the combination of the hazardous conditions and the darkness which makes my commute so 'interesting' for 4 months of the year... 



> On the rudeness, perhaps you can drop that now? It's not productive, and it's coming across to me as nothing more than a whinge, and as though you have nothing better to get at me with.



I'm not interested in 'getting at you' or anyone else. I'm interested in an interesting and productive discussion, and even learning stuff and changing my mind if something is pointed out to me - as indeed I have as a result of this discussion. If someone is pleasant and adds to the discussion, there's nothing to add. If however, anyone is rude and unpleasant, I'll tell them (or the mods if they go way over the top). 

I don't see why the standard of conversation on an 'fun and friendly' forum should by default be childish and rude - that's all.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Dec 2010)

I might start a thread entitled "black is white".

I'm sure that would provide controversial.


----------



## Norm (9 Dec 2010)

You'd get some Douglas Adams quotes if you did.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> This is a well known case where reflectives, won't work. You need a light source pointing from near your eyes towards the cyclist, and there isn't one when you're waiting at a T-junction. It's one of the reasons that active lighting is reliable and far better than hiviz.
> 
> Of course your cyclist's dim lights didn't help matters either.



I've never said that hi viz is a substitute for good lights. It's a useful addition and it helps drivers to see you, but you need lights as well.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

To move on to a different part of this discussion, I think pedal reflectors are much more likely to make people think cyclist than hiviz vests are.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Amheirchion said:


> He didn't have any reflectives.



Oh, sorry, my assumption. I don't think I've seen many yellow jackets and no reflectives on there, though they do exist. It wouldn't matter anyway, as the reflectives would almost certainly have been just as ineffective as the fluo in the situation you describe


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> Isn't this just a case for having a powerful front light?* Nothing will make that cyclist safer than having a bright front light which won't get lost in the other traffic.
> *Unfortunatly most lights sold in bike shops aren't powerful enough IMO.



But they do. Have a look at some cars next time you're out and about and you'll see they've all got bright front lights. As I've mentioned before, those motion activated security lights you find on the sides of houses can look just like a bright bicycle headlamp when they're on in the distance: I've dipped my headlights for them before now. Sure, a bright light means you're more visible than you would be without it, but you can still be lost in other traffic. The single best thing you can do to avoid this is to fit a good bright flashing LED at each end in addition to your constant lights. They really stand out.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Really, that's amazing. If you mistake vehicle lights for traffic lights, I think a visit to specsavers is in order. I've never experienced this myself, and you're the only person I've ever heard making such unrealistic claims, in my opinion.




It's nowt to do with my eyes, it's just the way my brain - being a human as I am - works. After all, a red traffic light is a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens and a bicycle rear light is either a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens ... if you see a red traffic light in the distance it's very easy to momentarily mistake it for something else.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I've never said that hi viz is a substitute for good lights. It's a useful addition and it helps drivers to see you, but you need lights as well.



Exactly. There is a tendency, as in the helmet 'debate' and many others, to adopt a fundamantalist position at the same time as caricaturing anyone who disagrees, even partly, as having such a position. Luckily I am reasonable and can see this...


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Dec 2010)

Just going back a bit.....

Traffic lights come in pairs, so if a single light is possibly mistaken as a traffic light, surely a pair of red lights (as on a car) is an absolutely ridiculous concept as it mimics traffic lights more closely?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Dec 2010)

Your car needs to wear hiviz too,else it might be mistaken for a bicycle and run over.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Dec 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Just going back a bit.....
> 
> Traffic lights come in pairs, so if a single light is possibly mistaken as a traffic light, surely a pair of red lights (as on a car) is an absolutely ridiculous concept as it mimics traffic lights more closely?



Yes, if you see two traffic lights way off in the distance you can mistake them for a car, and _vice versa_. I'm not saying it happens every time I come to some traffic lights; my point was that it can - and does - happen.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Your car needs to wear hiviz too,else it might be mistaken for a bicycle and run over.



Let's not forget that cars have lots of reflective surfaces - windows and paintwork - which give definition to the object behind the lights.
Look, I don't care whether you wear hi viz or not. I don't really care much how good your lights are or how many you have. All I'm trying to do is give you all an idea of what helps you to be seen from behind the wheel and why - sometimes - a single constant light is not the best option, no matter how bright.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> if you see a red traffic light in the *distance *it's very easy to *momentarily *mistake it for something else.



So combined with hiviz not showing up until you're quite close, this point you made is nothing more than excessive debate polarisation, and not related to cyclist safety at all. Just point scoring.

Even if it were true (and it's extremely unlikely) that you mistake bicycle or car lights for stationary lights, is that actually a problem? All it means is that drivers drive around the light with a safety margin. Even aggressive drivers are less likely to drive into stationary lights than cyclists, because that'll damage their cars more.

Hiviz is a simple rabbits foot to make people feel better, but has no useful safety effect when decent lights are used. All you're talking about is wanting cyclists to look like cyclists, which is not a safety bonus either.


----------



## Debian (10 Dec 2010)

Well, well, well.

I certainly didn't expect this thread to generate the level of debate and controversy that it has, but it now contains some very interesting views and observations!

In the end it's all down to personal preferance I guess, all I, or anyone else can really do is to state what they find effective and in that vein my opinions are these:

1) Working lights are a legal requirement on cycles when ridden on public highways after lighting up time. So fit some and use them, if you don't you are both a moron and illegal.

2) You should allow for points of failure - fit at least two front and two rear lights

3) The lights you do use should be of adequate brightness, I've seen more than a few that are next to useless.

4) Hi-Vis gear is very useful in conditions of poor visibility during daylight / twilight

5) Reflective gear is very useful after dark, especially when worn on the upper body and the ankles

6) Flashing front and rear daylight running lights are good.

The first three points, IMO are non-negotiable.

Points 4, 5 and 6 are purely based on my observations as a driver as to what I find makes a cyclist most visible to me and helps me to see a cyclist in adequate time for me to give him or her the margin of comfort and safety that they deserve. Others will have different opinions no doubt, but this is what works for me.

As a general additional point, I really wish that plod would take more action on all forms of anti-social road use. I know that resources are limited but demonstrating a zero-tolerance approach over the little things would, I think, go a long way towards changing peoples attitudes. I think it would do no harm at all for the police to set up "road blocks" on a random basis , stopping all vehicles that are obviously not in conformance with construction and use regulations; vehicle lights not working or malfunctioning, using foglights inappropriately, chavvy blue front auxilliary lights, cyclists with no lights at night, etc.... Have a "no excuses" policy - issue tickets in all cases and, where the fault makes the vehicle unfit for use, impound it until fixed and that includes cycles.


----------



## asterix (10 Dec 2010)

A good summary from the OP, I also agree with this:



BentMikey said:


> To move on to a different part of this discussion, I think pedal reflectors are much more likely to make people think cyclist than hiviz vests are.



After all, loads of road users/workers wear high vis vests these days.


Also, in the countryside, with winding lanes and hedges, visible headgear is a big help (note avoidance of the more controversial 'H' word!). IIRC the Highway code suggests that white is a good colour (motorcycling). It's surprising how easy it is to spot a cyclist wearing white headgear above a hedge in daytime.


----------



## Origamist (10 Dec 2010)

asterix said:


> A good summary from the OP, I also agree with this:
> 
> 
> 
> After all, loads of road users/workers wear high vis vests these days.



Indeed.

Anything that accentuates the bio-mechanical nature of cycling will draw attention to the act of cycling. Pedal reflectors do this well (or a patch of Scotchlite on your clipless shoes), but snap on ankle retro-reflectives do this far better (larger surface area and 360 degree coverage). 

Spoke lights/reflectors also help to identify cyclists...

Traditionally a Sam Browne was a very common signifier of a cyclist (or a soldier if you want to go back a century), but these have fallen out of fashion (and motorcyclists use similar reflective belts). I prefer a Sam Browne to a yellow vest/tabard with retro-reflectives.


----------



## pshore (10 Dec 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The single best thing you can do to avoid this is to fit a good bright flashing LED at each end in addition to your constant lights. They really stand out.



Yep, totally agree. When a driver is having a quick look to pull out from a side road past queuing traffic in the dark, all they see is a whole load of lights and experience tells them they are all cars so they pull out. 

My experience is that unless you have a flashing light you will not stand out when filtering. It's exactly the same on my motorcyle which has three front lights, I am invisible when filtering because it doesn't stand out.


On rural roads, I have noticed more of a trend for ankle reflectors / pedal reflectors recently. They are very very good at getting you noticed early.


----------



## Wobblers (10 Dec 2010)

I'm not at all convinced about the effectiveness of hi-viz in urban areas at night. It simply takes on the same colour as the street lights so there's very little contrast with the road. I often come across cyclists in hi-viz who are almost invisible at night even with hi-viz because of this. Reflectives, too, need light to be effective, but there tends to be so much light around that reflectives just don't stand out. On the other hand, there's nothing better than hi-viz at dusk or when it's cloudy.

I can see (please excuse the pun!) that reflectives make much more sense - and visual impact along a dark country lane.



Rhythm Thief said:


> It's nowt to do with my eyes, it's just the way my brain - being a human as I am - works. After all, a red traffic light is a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens and a bicycle rear light is either a collection of LEDs or a single bulb behind a red lens ... if you see a red traffic light in the distance it's very easy to momentarily mistake it for something else.



I've never mistaken rear lights for traffic lights! Could it be a result of the cab of your HGV being higher up than the rest of the traffic? And do you find that hi-viz is more effective in a rural or urban setting?


----------



## c2c (10 Dec 2010)

Jezston said:


> Got a lift from Nottingham to Derby by my flatmate this morning as I needed to take my computer in to work (ah the benefits of an IT department being your free computer repair service!) - very misty in Derby - passed about 5 cyclists on the way into the center and not one of them had any form of lights whatsoever. One didn't even have any reflectors either. All on BSOs with the seats too low spinning slowly in low gears.
> 
> Fortunately it was fairly light by then.
> 
> Is anyone here from Derby? I'd like to speak frankly about what I think of people from Derby.



Went to see the mighty Bristol City play derby last season, stayed over to sample the delights of the town..................... there were no delights, what a s**thole !!. But having said that, a very dear friend of mine who hails from Derby is probably the most intelligent bloke i know, teaches physics, as a side line................. for fun......!!!

Dozy no light cyclists exist in every town innit..


----------



## fossyant (10 Dec 2010)

I tend to go with a UFO look (WTF)...........  having been at the misfortune of a SMIDSY, with lots of good lights, reflective kit etc, I am paranoid.

I don't go with hi-viz generally - my kit has reflective bits on, and my waterproof just happens to be flo. yellow.

I do however go ab bit OTT on the light 'wattage', front and rear, as it's certainly a "WTF is that" reaction I get. I still use 'flashers' mainly as back up and to 'identify' it as a bike, whilst the 'big' lights are usually on constant, unless it's daylight and very dull, then they go on flash.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So combined with hiviz not showing up until you're quite close, this point you made is nothing more than excessive debate polarisation, and not related to cyclist safety at all. Just point scoring.



Not point scoring at all. The point I keep trying to make - and frankly I don't know why I'm bothering since in your utter determination to be right in all circumstances you keep steamrollering over it anyway - is that hi viz (or flashing LEDs, pedal reflectors, etc.) helps to identify a distant light as a cyclist from the word go. This prevents drivers from using up concentration that would better be used elsewhere, because once you know what a light up ahead is, you don't have to peer into the darkness going "now what's that?", thereby running the risk of missing something else important happening nearby. It's more difficult to describe than to experience, but you seem to be determined not to get it anyway, so I shan't bother trying again. 




> Even if it were true (and it's extremely unlikely) that you mistake bicycle or car lights for stationary lights, is that actually a problem? All it means is that drivers drive around the light with a safety margin. Even aggressive drivers are less likely to drive into stationary lights than cyclists, because that'll damage their cars more.



Well, it's much the same thing as mistaking a cyclist for an HGV trailer, which was a theory you were expounding a few pages back. It's not normally a problem as such, all it means is that your brain is engaged in trying to work out what that lamp ahead is - is it a cyclist I need to allow for, is it a pedestrian carrying a torch, is it a house security light, or what? - whereas if your headlights pick up pedal reflectors, a reflective top, supplementary flashing LEDs or whatever, you can plan your overtake much earlier. 



> Hiviz is a simple rabbits foot to make people feel better, but has no useful safety effect when decent lights are used. All you're talking about is wanting cyclists to look like cyclists, which is not a safety bonus either.



Both these statements are what we call "opinion". Your hectoring tone implies that they're something else called "facts". Which they aren't.


----------



## gaz (10 Dec 2010)

What one thing makes a cyclist look like a cyclist from far away? certainly not hi-viz, as many people wear hi-viz on the road, be them police or people working on the road.


----------



## neslon (10 Dec 2010)

A lot of false dichotomies being advanced here ffs. HiViz, reflectives, lights: they all do something to make you seen, albeit in different circumstances. None is bad, and each isbet ter than none (all isnt a bad option, really)


----------



## Gixxerman (10 Dec 2010)

My thoughts are that I do not expect that they _have _to wear hi-viz or reflectives.
I would happily settle for them just meeting the minimum legal requirements of having working lights fore and aft.
If the lights are bright and/or they have multiple lights, then all the better.
If they choose to wear hi-viz / relflectives then all the better still.

It is worth bearing in mind that the OP was just asking for them to meet their legal obligation.
If they choose by their own free will to ride on public roads without lights during the hours of darkness and they get kncked off, then as far as I am concerned that is just hard luck. If I myself chose to ride without lights in the dark and subsequently get knocked off, then I would accept that I had been foolish and irresponsible and accept all that came with it (provided that the motor vehicle and driver were meeting their legal requirements also. I.E. not speeding, talking on phone, drunk etc.).
The majority motor vehicle drivers will give you room when they pass, but to do this, they first need to see you.
Anything that makes you more visible must be a good thing surely.
I can't see any downsides to being more visible.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Dec 2010)

Debian said:


> I was driving with that very much in mind. The first incident happened as I was waiting to pull out from a side road, I simply could not see the unlit and ninja-dressed cyclist in the dark and fog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Use public transport it ll do wonders for your blood pressure.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (11 Dec 2010)

gaz said:


> What one thing makes a cyclist look like a cyclist from far away? certainly not hi-viz, as many people wear hi-viz on the road, be them police or people working on the road.



Good flashing LEDs are about the best thing, in my opinion. They shout "cyclist" like nothing else. Hi viz helps because it gives a shape to whatever is behind the lights. Hi viz on its own could be anyone - pedestrian, roadworker, whatever - but coupled with reasonable lights it helps identify a cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Dec 2010)

Of course there is a real question as to whether I actually want to be identified as a cyclist anyway!

Lots of motorists will react inappropriately as soon as they see a cyclist. If you keep them confused then they have to slow down, observe and make decisions.


----------



## asterix (11 Dec 2010)

Gixxerman said:


> *If they choose by their own free will to ride on public roads without lights during the hours of darkness and they get kncked off, then as far as I am concerned that is just hard luck.*



Don't tell Jeremy Claxon!


----------



## Alien8 (11 Dec 2010)

I have never heard of a cyclist being stopped/fined for not have _reflectors/reflective-wear_.

I have never heard the baying-mob demand the heads of cyclists because "they all ride at night without _reflectors/__reflective-wear__"_.

I have never heard anyone say to a cyclist "Get some f*****g _reflectors/__reflective-wear_".

This suggests to me that the roll of reflectors (and reflective-wear) are very much secondary to lights in terms of a cyclist's visibility.

[Yes, legislation still demands reflectors in a pre-described form - but it's not obvious to me why.]

All this business about being identifiable as a cyclist, as opposed to just another road user, deflects the responsibility of all road users to be responsible for themselves, their vehicle and how they use that vehicle on the highway.

If you see a white or red light it is your responsibility to take appropriate action, eg slow down, until you can clearly identify the source of the light and act accordingly.

As long as your lights satisfy any legislative requirements that is enough. There will always be an argument that extra lights, reflective this and that etc, can in certain situations be beneficial but this will all be minor compared to having a set of lights that satisfy the requirements of the law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Dec 2010)

Alien8 I can pretty well guarantee that if I rode my commuter with my full ninja outfit inc. reflectives without lights on an urban commute no one would shout anything at me about the lack of lights such is the WTF? effectiveness of multiple moving reflectors/reflectives. Impossible to miss, if you're looking, when driving a car and following or approaching me more or less head on.

But the lights need to be present for the junctions, and on the rural unlit part of the commute, when I want to be visible and identifiable as a (vulnerable) road user, well before a vehicle's headlights act on the reflective surfaces.


----------



## Norm (11 Dec 2010)

I had my first daytime ride with the new Exposure Flare today. I had it placed fairly high on my rucksack. All vehicles, except one bus, gave me noticeably more room, both behind me before pulling out, and when they were overtaking.

I know I shouldn't attribute the space I was left to the new light, and a sample size of one journey wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny, but I was wondering all the way into town why I was getting more space, it was only when I caught the reflection of myself in a shop window that I remembered the Flare was on there.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Dec 2010)

I have twin Dinottes, each about 8 times the brightness of the Flare, and drivers cannot see (or rather react appropriately)


----------



## BentMikey (13 Dec 2010)

Hiviz is also known as urban camoflage, LOL!


I'm also very sceptical of being seen as a cyclist, especially at night. It's an invitation for drivers to be less careful than they would otherwise be.


----------



## summerdays (13 Dec 2010)

I've been in the car a couple of times more than normal recently and been thinking about this thread and so I've been noticing the cyclists and how they have caught my attention, everything from the all in black on the pavement, to the motorcyclist who actually had more lights (red/yellow/blue/red) than my Christmas tree - he got the most WTF reaction and we slowed right down... partly out of curiosity as well. There was the one I spotted with a yellow not really bright top but spotted them before noticing the light - which was of medium brightness I guess. Then last night going around a slight bend in a road noticed a cyclist ahead through the tree trunks as the car caught their builders jacket type hi-vis well before noticing the light. And I guess that is one of the plus points for hi-vis - usually lights are at their brightest when directly in line with the lights.

I think you have to look yourself at how you spot cyclists and remember that we as cyclists are probably better at it than non-cyclists. Look at your route/conditions - it will differ depending on whether you are riding in town with lots of lights and conflicting bits of information, to in the countryside which I don't tend to do as a townie. It also probably varies whether you are cycling in a place with lots of cyclists verses being the only one for miles around. I prefer them to realise I'm a cyclist as I'm not the fastest of cyclists and they will quickly catch up from behind and so use the not fully hi-vis coat - pink rather than yellow and add the reflective ankle straps which I think are really good at catching the attention with the movement. But in the same way that I don't want to see a helmet law, I don't want to see a law saying we must wear hi-vis.


----------



## asterix (13 Dec 2010)

From October 1, 2008, French cyclists have been required to wear high vis at night or when visibility is poor else they will incur a fine.

It's also the case that motorists must carry high vis for use when broken down. Ironically IME it very rare to see a gendarme wearing one!


----------



## Jezston (13 Dec 2010)

By 'hivis' do they mean luminous or reflectives?


----------



## BentMikey (13 Dec 2010)

Hiviz has always meant both together. They are supposed to counter each others' weaknesses.


----------



## Glow worm (13 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I'm also very sceptical of being seen as a cyclist, especially at night. It's an invitation for drivers to be less careful than they would otherwise be.



Drivers always bang on about us lot being inconspicuous through lack of lights/ high-viz, yet today, travelling by car down from Fakenham to Newmarket through dense freezing fog this morning, it was just incredible the number of cars driving without any lights on at all. They were almost completely invisible in the gloom.


----------



## gaz (13 Dec 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Hiviz has always meant both together. They are supposed to counter each others' weaknesses.



And cycling specific clothing, like jackets, rarely come with enough reflective material


----------



## Debian (14 Dec 2010)

summerdays said:


> *I think you have to look yourself at how you spot cyclists* and remember that we as cyclists are probably better at it than non-cyclists. Look at your route/conditions - it will differ depending on whether you are riding in town with lots of lights and conflicting bits of information, to in the countryside which I don't tend to do as a townie. It also probably varies whether you are cycling in a place with lots of cyclists verses being the only one for miles around. I prefer them to realise I'm a cyclist as I'm not the fastest of cyclists and they will quickly catch up from behind and so use the not fully hi-vis coat - pink rather than yellow and add the reflective ankle straps which I think are really good at catching the attention with the movement. But in the same way that I don't want to see a helmet law, I don't want to see a law saying we must wear hi-vis.



This is what I said in my summary a couple of pages back.

I've been in the car much more than usual recently and I too have been analysing what helps me spot cyclists best which resulted in my previous summary. This works for me.


----------

