# Daytime running lights



## Thegreatthor (7 Dec 2019)

Does anyone use these? Does it make any difference.


----------



## hatler (7 Dec 2019)

Yes, they make everyone bar the vehicle driver less safe.

The height of selfishness.


----------



## classic33 (7 Dec 2019)

In poor light conditions I'll have the rear on, flash mode.


----------



## Vantage (7 Dec 2019)

I have them. But only because it costs me nothing as the lights are dynamo powered. 
Can't see why their use would be selfish.


----------



## Smudge (7 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> Yes, they make everyone bar the vehicle driver less safe.
> 
> The height of selfishness.



Hows that then ?
I have them on my motorcycles and they cant be turned off..... Should i pull the fuse ?


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> I have them. But only because it costs me nothing as the lights are dynamo powered.
> Can't see why their use would be selfish.


Same as i have.


----------



## Bazzer (7 Dec 2019)

Poor light conditions; but even with them on some dumb f*** managed to hit me.


----------



## hatler (7 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> Hows that then ?
> I have them on my motorcycles and they cant be turned off..... Should i pull the fuse ?


See top post on this page - https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/common-sense.254975/page-6#post-5795872


----------



## snorri (7 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> Can't see why their use would be selfish.


I find my eyes drawn to the light, dominating my visual senses and making it more difficult to spot other hazards which may well be closer to me than the **** with the lights on 200 metres away.


----------



## guitarpete247 (7 Dec 2019)

I use the Aldi version of the moon lights front and rear. I don't do any night riding but have an Aldi battery pack light set but never used it yet.



SWMBO'd won't let me out at night.
The moon, copy, lights are really bright and easily visible.


----------



## Smudge (7 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> See top post on this page - https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/common-sense.254975/page-6#post-5795872



I cant see the big deal about about cyclists having lights on in the daytime if they want them. Assuming they aren't stupidly bright ones angled too high.
That would be an issue day or night.


----------



## hatler (7 Dec 2019)

I was thinking of DRLs on a motor vehicle.


----------



## Smudge (7 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> I was thinking of DRLs on a motor vehicle.



I thought it was pretty obvious the OP was talking about using lights on a bicycle in the daytime.
Did you think the OP was talking about cars ?


----------



## hatler (7 Dec 2019)

Well, clearly not obvious to me.


----------



## Slick (7 Dec 2019)

Nah, it's a cycling forum so he is talking about cyclists.

I don't use them, don't feel the need.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Dec 2019)

I start my rides at this time of year in the dark. I leave the rear lights on because I can't be bothered to switch them off and they are very frugal on batteries. Front may or may not get switched off. Main concern is ensuring the batteries are ok when it gets dark again.


----------



## Use it or lose it (8 Dec 2019)

I’d feel naked without my drl’s.
I never ride without em..
As a motorist,a cyclist with daytime lights definitely comes into view earlier than the the ones without. ,who also quite often seem to favour wearing black clothing making them even less visible,.wether that’s some cycling traditional macho thing Im not sure?
i know this topic is a can of worms, with everyone entitled to their opinion..,just saying what I do.😉
I think in time the vast majority of cyclists will use daytime lights,similar to the crash helmet issue..what harm can they do after all.


----------



## Jimidh (8 Dec 2019)

No

I use lights when the conditions require them.


----------



## Blue Hills (8 Dec 2019)

guitarpete247 said:


> SWMBO'd won't let me out at night.


Can't she install a flap?


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Dec 2019)

It is a legal requirement on motorised vehicles in Denmark and It makes a big difference. When I come to the UK


guitarpete247 said:


> I use the Aldi version of the moon lights front and rear. I don't do any night riding but have an Aldi battery pack light set but never used it yet.
> View attachment 495779
> 
> SWMBO'd won't let me out at night.
> The moon, copy, lights are really bright and easily visible.


Do they do a red light for the rear?


----------



## ianrauk (8 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> Assuming they aren't stupidly bright ones angled too high.



Of which the majority usually are. It's like a lumins war out there.


----------



## swansonj (8 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> I was thinking of DRLs on a motor vehicle.


Me too. Because, on a motor vehicle, DLRs are something different from simply leaving your headlights on during the day, which would be the motoring equivalent of us cyclists leaving our normal front light on during the day. DLRs are a light specifically created for daytime conditions and are too bright to be legal after dark. The cycling equivalent would be turning the power setting of your lights down after dark, though even that is not an exact equivalent because the beam pattern of DLRs is different from headlights - put cynically, headlights still bear lip service to the idea that they are designed to illuminate the road surface ahead of you, DLRs are designed to dazzle oncoming motorists.

Edit in case I wasn't clear enough: DLRs are the work of the devil, or at least, the selfish, short-sighted, entitled, planet-destroying, motoring community.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

It's a cycling forum. It's blindingly obviously a post about bike lights being on during daylight.
I can't say I've ever been blinded by drl's on a motor vehicle as they're low powered designed to be seen, rather than seeing with. They're to make the vehicle using them more visible to other road users be they peds, cyclists, horse riders, drivers etc in order to reduce the likelyhood of them not being seen and causing an accident.
Not everyone is out to get you.


----------



## Smudge (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> It's a cycling forum. It's blindingly obviously a post about bike lights being on during daylight.
> I can't say I've ever been blinded by drl's on a motor vehicle as they're low powered designed to be seen, rather than seeing with. They're to make the vehicle using them more visible to other road users be they peds, cyclists, horse riders, drivers etc in order to reduce the likelyhood of them not being seen and causing an accident.
> Not everyone is out to get you.



I agree, its an extremely rare occurrence for me to be blinded by oncoming lights of any vehicle. The few times i have been, its usually at night where the oncoming driver hasn't dipped them.
When i was driving for a living and spent far more time on the roads, more of an issue to me was people using rear fog lights when it wasn't foggy. Even worse in wet weather, where the light from these bright red lights will refract and cause a starburst effect.


----------



## swansonj (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> It's a cycling forum. It's blindingly obviously a post about bike lights being on during daylight.
> I can't say I've ever been blinded by drl's on a motor vehicle as they're low powered designed to be seen, rather than seeing with. They're to make the vehicle using them more visible to other road users be they peds, cyclists, horse riders, drivers etc in order to reduce the likelyhood of them not being seen and causing an accident.
> Not everyone is out to get you.


"in order to reduce the likelyhood of them not being seen and causing an accident."
That is a very revealing way of putting it - revealing of the extent to which we have got safety on roads arse about face.
"Not everyone is out to get you."
No, but any cyclist or pedestrian who thinks that the collective operation of the motoring lobby is not largely detrimental to us is simply deluded.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Dec 2019)

The problem is that daytime running lights draw attention away from anyone not using them. No daytime running lights, you don't get noticed, the one with DRL behind you does. It also trains Drivers not to look properly, no DRL means no one is there. So they are a distraction reducing safety for the majority.

It's the law of unintended consequences


----------



## Sharky (8 Dec 2019)

Thegreatthor said:


> Does anyone use these? Does it make any difference.


Yes - A lot of roads round our way are single track roads with passing places. I have had lots of cars patiently waiting in the distance for me to approach and pass safely with room.


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

Use it or lose it said:


> I think in time the vast majority of cyclists will use daytime lights,similar to the crash helmet issue..what harm can they do after all.


"What harm can they do ?"
Condition vehicle drivers to assume that all cyclists will have a shiny bright light on and therefore not see the many cyclists who don't.
It will give shitty drivers yet another excuse.


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

Slick said:


> Nah, it's a cycling forum so he is talking about cyclists.
> 
> I don't use them, don't feel the need.


'cos us cyclists never talk about cars, oh no.


----------



## Slick (8 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> 'cos us cyclists never talk about cars, oh no.


That wasn't the question.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

snorri said:


> I find my eyes drawn to the light, dominating my visual senses and making it more difficult to spot other hazards which may well be closer to me than the **** with the lights on 200 metres away.


Yes, if they work, they're selfish because you are distracting people from other perfectly legal cyclists. If they don't work, they're selfish because you are creating a false perception that unlit cyclists are behaving negligently, which will eventually enable a new type of SMIDSYBYHNLO (...because you have no lights on).


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> I start my rides at this time of year in the dark. I leave the rear lights on because I can't be bothered to switch them off and they are very frugal on batteries. Front may or may not get switched off. Main concern is ensuring the batteries are ok when it gets dark again.


That's another way daytime lights are selfish, using a small amount of electricity and a larger amount of rare metals in batteries that have finite life (even rechargeables). Seems a bit of a waste of resources, although of course there are far worse on the roads, but the next guy being a murderer doesn't make it OK for you to punch children!


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

"Advocacy & Cycling Safety" board. (Which has quite a lot about cars in it.)

"Daytime running lights"

"Does anyone use them?"

No mention of either bike or car there.

I have them as an option on my car (I've turned that option off). I've only ever heard them referred to in a motorised vehicle (car and motorbike) context.


----------



## Blue Hills (8 Dec 2019)

On bikes during normal light i find them damn irritating and worse, particularly on london two way cycling lanes where you are very close to an oncoming rider with a quite often blinding front.
Totally unecessary.
And i am usually well lit for the conditions - a year or two ago was even complimented on it by a walking copper


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Use it or lose it said:


> I’d feel naked without my drl’s.
> I never ride without em..


What happens when your batteries go flat during an all-day ride?



> As a motorist,a cyclist with daytime lights definitely comes into view earlier than the the ones without. ,who also quite often seem to favour wearing black clothing making them even less visible,.wether that’s some cycling traditional macho thing Im not sure?


No, it's that some people look good in black and if your bike has the legal lights and reflctives then what you wear is basically irrelevant.



> i know this topic is a can of worms, with everyone entitled to their opinion..,just saying what I do.😉
> I think in time the vast majority of cyclists will use daytime lights,similar to the crash helmet issue..what harm can they do after all.


And similar to the plastic foam domes, I hope it never becomes a majority and starts to fall away!


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> That's another way daytime lights are selfish, using a small amount of electricity and a larger amount of rare metals in batteries that have finite life (even rechargeables). Seems a bit of a waste of resources, although of course there are far worse on the roads, but the next guy being a murderer doesn't make it OK for you to punch children!


I think you're getting a little over dramatic there.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> 'cos us cyclists never talk about cars, oh no.



And as such, there is a motoring section. 

https://www.cyclechat.net/forums/motoring.198/


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

Cars in relation to cycling safety ? Where should that go ?

Let's not deviate from the thrust of this thread and quibble about which board it should be on.

It's looking like a cycling safety issue to me.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> "Advocacy & Cycling Safety" board. (Which has quite a lot about cars in it.)
> 
> "Daytime running lights"
> 
> ...



As already pointed out numerous times, this is first and foremost a cycling forum. It can be assumed that unless stated otherwise, the majority of threads and posts relate to cycling in one way or another. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> As already pointed out numerous times, this is first and foremost a cycling forum. It can be assumed that unless stated otherwise, the majority of threads and posts relate to cycling in one way or another. It isn't a difficult concept to understand.


That specific assertion hasn't been pointed out numerous time (at least not on this thread).
I assume nothing. That can be dangerous.
DRLs on vehicles clearly do relate to cycling, and in particular, cycling safety.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Yes, if they work, they're selfish because you are distracting people from other perfectly legal cyclists. If they don't work, they're selfish because you are creating a false perception that unlit cyclists are behaving negligently, which will eventually enable a new type of SMIDSYBYHNLO (...because you have no lights on).



Unless I'm mistaken, new cars are required by law to have DRL's fitted. Drivers will be conditioned to look for them as time goes on and I honestly can't see that changing. They're already out there being used. As far as I'm concerned, all I'm doing is keeping up with that trend. 
There's nothing selfish about wanting to improve one's chances of surviving a ride. There's nothing stopping other cyclists from using their lights in this manner if they wish.


----------



## newfhouse (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> some people look good in black


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

hatler said:


> That specific assertion hasn't been pointed out numerous time (at least not on this thread)..



Posts 13, 15 and my first in relation to that point, 23. Numerous times. You're welcome.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, new cars are required by law to have DRL's fitted.


Fitted but so far you can switch most of them off.

They are annoying on cars, often masking indicators at a glance. They might work in less dense road systems with fewer side roads but they suck in England!



> There's nothing selfish about wanting to improve one's chances of surviving a ride.


It's improving your chances at the expense of others that makes this selfish... but there's little evidence that they improve your chances so it's only selfish. 



> There's nothing stopping other cyclists from using their lights in this manner if they wish.


And so the arms race is fuelled... an arms race that people cycling or walking will never win. Henry Ford wants you for a sunbeam (lightbeam?).


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> It's improving your chances at the expense of others that makes this selfish... but there's little evidence that they improve your chances so it's only selfish.



Yebbut, there's nothing stopping those other cyclists from using DRL's or other means of possibly improving their visability. 
That's like saying I'm selfish for using studded tyres and disc brakes on an icy road because the cyclist behind is using slicks and rod brakes.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> That's like saying I'm selfish for using studded tyres and disc brakes on an icy road because the cyclist behind is using slicks and rod brakes.


Please explain how those could lead to another cyclist being injured through no fault of their own.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

If I out brake someone and they crash into me?


----------



## hatler (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> Posts 13, 15 and my first in relation to that point, 23. Numerous times. You're welcome.


Post 13 does nothing of the sort.

Twice ≠ 'numerous times'.

I'd far rather discuss the core issue, not the meta-issue.


----------



## classic33 (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Yes, if they work, they're selfish because you are distracting people from other perfectly legal cyclists. If they don't work, they're selfish because you are creating a false perception that unlit cyclists are behaving negligently, which will eventually enable a new type of SMIDSYBYHNLO (...because you have no lights on).


As someone said


mjr said:


> mjr said:
> 
> 
> > I think the "drivers shouldn't be expected to see ordinary people" idea implied by all the lights and unproven clothes suggestions is far more unhelpful -* and it seems not true because unlit ninja cyclists always seem to get seen enough to generate comments on social media!*


----------



## DaveReading (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Fitted but so far you can switch most of them off.



Though not, it would seem, on my Toyota.


----------



## swansonj (8 Dec 2019)

There are a number of issues in society where the optimum course for any one individual is counter to the best interests of society as a whole. Taking antibiotics is one; having your children vaccinated is another; and what we are discussing here, the arms race in lighting on roads, is another. If you view it purely from the perspective of your own best interest (we could say "selfishly", but that could be considered emotive), you'll do one thing - take antibiotics at the drop of a hat, not let your children be vaccinated, and buy, and use more often, bigger and better lights. If you view it from the perspective of society as whole, you'll think twice.

Ever since Thatcher and Reagan, we've been taught to behave selfishly, and asked to believe that this will automatically benefit society as well - but it ain't true.


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

Hmm, OK.
No lights = drivers hits me because s/he failed to notice me.
Crash means police and ambulance crew to start with.
Ambulance to hospital where the A&E staff need to assess me. Then a bed needs to be found. Nursing staff to look after me. Cooking staff to feed me. Doctors to treat me. Physiotherapist to get me moving again and other healthcare workers to ensure I recover properly.
Police officers start a case against the driver. Prosecution service needs to make a case. Drivers solicitor needs to defend him/her. Court makes a ruling. Driver gets a fine and/or public service/prison time. Drivers family pays a price also.

I use lights = driver sees me and avoids causing a crash and none of the above takes place. Society as a whole gets saved a truckload of work, time and money.

I'll keep my lights on thanks.


----------



## swansonj (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> Hmm, OK.
> No lights = drivers hits me because s/he failed to notice me.
> Crash means police and ambulance crew to start with.
> Ambulance to hospital where the A&E staff need to assess me. Then a bed needs to be found. Nursing staff to look after me. Cooking staff to feed me. Doctors to treat me. Physiotherapist to get me moving again and other healthcare workers to ensure I recover properly.
> ...


Your analysis is largely right at a functional level and on the timescale you are analysing, that is, one specific RTI occurring here and now, given the current context, attitudes, and norms. What some of us seek is to move beyond just considering individual RTIs, and start considering how we change those cultures, attitudes, and norms.

And, as I said, your choice to keep your lights on in daytime is perfectly justifiable as a choice for you as an individual.


----------



## DCBassman (8 Dec 2019)

I use lights at all times. I largely don't ride on roads at all. But I often go through tunnels, and other tunnel users, on foot and two wheels, mainly do not, which is there prerogative, but stupid all the same.
My lights are not at all blinding, but are on flash mode always. I tend to use a separate, higher power front in the tunnels to actually give ME a clue where I am, but otherwise that is off.
DRLs on motor vehicles are far too bright, and dazzle me even in daylight. HIDs and LED headlights are also part of a brightness arms race that was out of control even before LED headlights were a thing. DRLs should be half the power they are, and I agree with a comment above that they often mask indicators.


----------



## newfhouse (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> I use lights = driver sees me


If only life was this simple...


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2019)

If its day time and visibility is good or better - do not use them. There is some evidence that inappropriate use of lighting during the day can actually make you more prone to being had off. I shan't go into the mechanisms behind this as I've done so many times before.

If its day time and visibility is murky (ie, not merely a dull day) , or even night time, then do indeed light up.

It ain't difficult, I don't understand why people insist on making it so.



Vantage said:


> Unless I'm mistaken, new cars are required by law to have DRL's fitted.


Yes, this is so, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that they contribute to lower collision rates anywhere other than a sub-actic climate of the type found in the very furthest reaches of northern europe. Just because something is the law it doesn't automatically follow there is any observable benefit to it.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (8 Dec 2019)

Mod Note:
@Thegreatthor (OP) did you mean bike lights or car lights?
I think the advocacy board is fine for both discussions, but if the OP wants I can move this thread to motoring.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Dec 2019)

I remain unconvinced that it's a big deal either way. I will continue to leave my rear lights on for my all day rides through the gloomy sunken lanes of Kent. Not because I think it's going to save my life or anything dramatic like that but because at this time of year the days are so short it's two extra faffing stops I can avoid.

I've seen the "selfishness" argument before and it doesn't convince me.


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Vantage said:


> If I out brake someone and they crash into me?


Then it would be their fault for not leaving enough stopping distance, wouldn't it?


----------



## mjr (8 Dec 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> [...] but because at this time of year the days are so short it's two extra faffing stops I can avoid.


No light switch on the handlebars? Stopping to put lights on and off is so 1970s. 



> I've seen the "selfishness" argument before and it doesn't convince me.


Which step do you disagree with?


----------



## Vantage (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Then it would be their fault for not leaving enough stopping distance, wouldn't it?



Indeed it would and would have nothing to do with my choice. Bit like running drl's.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (8 Dec 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> I remain unconvinced that it's a big deal either way. I will continue to leave my rear lights on for my all day rides through the gloomy sunken lanes of Kent. Not because I think it's going to save my life or anything dramatic like that but because at this time of year the days are so short it's two extra faffing stops I can avoid.
> 
> I've seen the "selfishness" argument before and it doesn't convince me.



You need to start your rides before 3:30pm😂


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Dec 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> I remain unconvinced that it's a big deal either way. I will continue to leave my rear lights on for my all day rides through the gloomy sunken lanes of Kent. Not because I think it's going to save my life or anything dramatic like that but because at this time of year the days are so short it's two extra faffing stops I can avoid.
> 
> I've seen the "selfishness" argument before and it doesn't convince me.


Have to say, I agree totally.
Any data kicking around?


----------



## Thegreatthor (8 Dec 2019)

#mod

i definitely meant on my cycle!

thank you to everyone who’s offered some thoughts. I don’t think they are a miracle but they are becoming prominent on many vehicle. I think I’m going to get a set.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> No light switch on the handlebars? Stopping to put lights on and off is so 1970s.
> 
> 
> Which step do you disagree with?


I did have a bar mounted switch for a while but it was an overcomplicated setup that I didn't like. It's now in a box in my garage.

I don't specifically disagree with the selfishness hypothesis. It seems not impossible. What I've never seen is any quantified assessment of the incremental risk to non-DLR-ing cyclists as a result of selfish DLR-ing cyclists. My suspicion is that any signal would be lost in lots and lots of noise.


----------



## Slick (8 Dec 2019)

Thegreatthor said:


> #mod
> 
> i definitely meant on my cycle!
> 
> thank you to everyone who’s offered some thoughts. I don’t think they are a miracle but they are becoming prominent on many vehicle. I think I’m going to get a set.


Most of us knew what you meant. 

If you fancy a set, get yourself a set. We've all got to do what we think is best to keep ourselves safe.


----------



## rogerzilla (9 Dec 2019)

DRLs on cars are a curse. I have a small grey car made before DRLs were mandatory on new models. It now feels dangerous driving it without the headlights on in the daytime.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2019)

rogerzilla said:


> DRLs on cars are a curse. I have a small grey car made before DRLs were mandatory on new models. It now feels dangerous driving it without the headlights on in the daytime.


Don’t you have a man walking in front of it waving a lamp?


----------



## Wobblers (9 Dec 2019)

I must confess I on seeing the title I thought that this would be on car DRLs, so it seems a bit unfair to castigate those who thought the same. After all, that is the standard industry term for them!

It is difficult to see DRLs on vehicles as a good thing. It's already been mentioned that they make seeing indicators considerably more difficult. I've also seen a good many motorists drive around at night just on DRLs - they've been fooled into thinking that they've got their headlights on with all the light they put out. Unfortunately that's not the case: the tail lights are not illuminated, and it's surprising just how well some cars blend into the background at night without tail lights.

But the worst aspect is how DRLs condition motorists to look for lighted vehicles. This is obviously to the detriment to pedestrians and unlit cyclists. But even cyclists with lights are at a serious disadvantage as DRLs are significantly brighter than even the best cyclist lights, which are thus likely to be lost in the ever more brightly lit clutter. This is a "safety" innovation that I fear will materially worsen the safety of vulnerable road users.

As to the original question, I can't blame @Thegreatthor for thinking about using lights during the day. If you feel safer using them, then by all means, light up. It's not cyclists that are the problem here.


----------



## mustang1 (10 Dec 2019)

When I'm riding, I have lights on. Regardless of time of day.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

My rear light is always on, I will use a flashing front on days where I feel necessesary (like really dull overcast days) or at dusk before changing to solid beam.


They are an annoyance on cars (inc mine) that seems to have drivers believing their headlights are on, and a blinding annoyance on motorbikes (esp BMW adventure types)*

*I also have a DRL on motorbike, fork leg mounted, aimed properly and not overly bright, not a 6million lumen chinese example


----------



## Drago (10 Dec 2019)

The big Beemers have the right idea though. The optimum layout is a triangle, and they often have one on each crash bar and then the dim-dip headlamp. The observer can then see the triangle increasing in size, and their brain has the necessary datum to accurately calculate speed. A single light source cannot do that.


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> My rear light is always on, I will use a flashing front on days where I feel necessesary (like really dull overcast days) or at dusk before changing to solid beam.
> 
> 
> They are an annoyance on cars (inc mine) that seems to have drivers believing their headlights are on, and a blinding annoyance on motorbikes (esp BMW adventure types)*
> ...



Doesn't your Tracer also have DRL LED headlights.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> Doesn't your Tracer also have DRL LED headlights.


Yeah, a winky one sided job, as effective as the main headlight (also winky in low beam)


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Yeah, a winky one sided job, as effective as the main headlight (also winky in low beam)



I thought the LED strips were along the top on both headlights, but only one of the headlights has the incandescent bulb on. 
I thought this was how it was on my 15 tracer.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> I thought the LED strips were along the top on both headlights, but only one of the headlights has the incandescent bulb on.
> I thought this was how it was on my 15 tracer.


Could be 😂



Drago said:


> The big Beemers have the right idea though. The optimum layout is a triangle, and they often have one on each crash bar and then the dim-dip headlamp. The observer can then see the triangle increasing in size, and their brain has the necessary datum to accurately calculate speed. A single light source cannot do that.


They do but often executed poorly, as in they're either a fog lamp and used when not foggy, or a DRL that's retina searing bright and poorly positioned.

So badly you can't see their Polite vest 😂


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

From what i've seen of BMW motorcycles, they just have LED DRL's the same as any other motorcycle with LED DRL's. The only difference is the shape of them. BMW's have them shaped like a backwards C.
Personally i like LED DRL's, one of my motorcycles has them and one doesn't.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

It's the lamps of varying brightness added to crashbars are my issue 👌 Great example as they're clearly brighter than the BMW DRL


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> It's the lamps of varying brightness added to crashbars are my issue 👌
> 
> View attachment 496010



Yes, but they're not standard are they. Owners have them fitted as an optional extra and they often dont have them angled right. Or there is slight movement in the brackets that can put them out of alignment.
People fit all sorts of different supplementary lights to motorcycles, some OE, some aftermarket. Personally i dont need extra lights for the riding i do.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> Yes, but they're not standard are they. Owners have them fitted as an optional extra and they often dont have them angled right. Or there is slight movement in the brackets that can put them out of alignment.
> People fit all sorts of different supplementary lights to motorcycles, some OE, some aftermarket. Personally i dont need extra lights for the riding i do.


Thats what Im saying 😂


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Thats what Im saying 😂



Yes but the conversation started about LED DRL's. BMW's are no different to your Tracer in that respect.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (10 Dec 2019)

Smudge said:


> Yes but the conversation started about LED DRL's. BMW's are no different to your Tracer in that respect.


Aux/fog lights are used like DRLs which is what I should have said


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2019)

mustang1 said:


> When I'm riding, I have lights on. Regardless of time of day.


I thought you once told me your other bike has bells on!


----------



## Smudge (10 Dec 2019)

Soon all lights on all vehicles will be LED and they will all have DRL's as well.
A bike i bought this year has almost all its lights LED. The DRL headlight, stop/tail rear light, and indicators are all LED. Only the full beam is incandescent bulb.


----------



## Electric_Andy (10 Dec 2019)

Sidelights on my car and my DRLs on my motorbike were traditionally a bulb, but I bought a pack of 10 LED ones for £4, they are not necessarily brighter but I think are easier to see due to their more spotty and sharper appearance. On a bicycle, I always used small LED lights front and rear to be seen; in fact I used to have my brighter lights on in the day as well


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2019)

It's no good, I'm going to have to fit a light house to the front of my bike, to compete with all of this.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2019)

So I did some research into research and it turns out that there doesn't seem to be an awful lot.
Most articles point back to a single Canadian study which found that rather than the 10-20% reduction in angled crashes anticipated, the reduction was in order of 5% and to head on collisions.

Couldn't find any evidence pro or con as far as cyclists or motorcyclists are concerned. Motorcyclists seem to have a beef that as they used to be the only ones with DRLs they are now less safe, but I could find no actual research to back this up.

Historically it seems to be a policy that started quite sensibly and has been rolled out across multiple countries without much additional thought.
It started in Scandinavia due to the fact that light levels are often very poor, particularly in winter months. Because it was mandatory, car manufactures started making cars with mandatory running lights. Those then start getting exported and suddenly it becomes a requirement on the basis that it doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2019)

An addendum - one of the things that really annoys me about car lights is the tendency to replace light bulbs with ULTRA BRITE / NEON / Retina burning replacements that seem to be all the fashion at Halfords. 

Don't replace the bulb with what the manufacturer of the car thought you should be using, go for this third party brand which has built in destructo-beams - even though you never drive down any road that doesn't have streetlights.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2019)

We also ought to ask what is the reasoning behind daylight running lights, and is it sound? Is the standard of driver's eyesight is so bad they can't see a bike and person sized object in broad daylight?


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2019)

See my post above. The reasoning seems to be encapsulated on the wikipedia page:

_



DRLs were first mandated in the Nordic countries, where ambient light levels in the winter are generally low even during the day. Sweden was the first country to require widespread DRLs in 1977. At the time, the function was known as varselljus ("perception light" or "notice light"). The initial regulations in these countries favored devices incorporating 21 W signal bulbs identical to those used in brake lamps and turn signals, producing yellow or white light of approximately 400 to 600 cd on axis, mounted at the outer left and right edges of the front of the vehicle. Finland adopted a daytime-light requirement in 1972 on rural roads in wintertime, and in 1982 on rural roads in summertime and 1997 on all roads all year long; Norway in 1986, Iceland in 1988, and Denmark in 1990. To increase manufacturer flexibility in complying with the requirement for DRLs, the daytime illumination of low beam headlights was added as an optional implementation. Given the headlamp specifications in use in those countries, such an implementation would produce approximately 450 cd axially.

Click to expand...

_
We got DRLs due to an EC directive that brought them in in Europe. Canada adopted the policy for similar reasons to Scandinavia. Then US manufacturers started adding them to all cars to reduce costs and the USA decided to adopt them universally too.


----------



## Jody (10 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> An addendum - one of the things that really annoys me about car lights is the tendency to replace light bulbs with ULTRA BRITE / NEON / Retina burning replacements that seem to be all the fashion at Halfords.



Most of the retina burners you see now are Chinese aftermarket retro fit LED. Everyone jumped ship to LED when the government tightened the MOT regulations on retro fit Xenon. OEM Xenon/LED are bad enough but aftermarket needs curbing.


----------



## snorri (10 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> We also ought to ask what is the reasoning behind daylight running lights, and is it sound?


Perfectly sound from the motor vehicle construction and repair industries point of view.
The more non essential components attached to a car the more you can charge the buyer, and every added component increases the liklihood of a failure at some point which keeps the car repair and spare parts industry in business.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> See my post above. The reasoning seems to be encapsulated on the wikipedia page:
> 
> 
> 
> We got DRLs due to an EC directive that brought them in in Europe. Canada adopted the policy for similar reasons to Scandinavia. Then US manufacturers started adding them to all cars to reduce costs and the USA decided to adopt them universally too.



The thing is they are being introduced in the days of good LED lights and sensors that detect ambient light levels and come on only if the light us poor. So they could have mandated that lights only need to automatically come on if light levels are poor. Bit like bike dynamos with senso mode.


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2019)

But why did the Nordic countries get them? It reads to me like they made them mandatory because motorists were too stupid to switch lights on in winter on very dark days. What a reason to set us all on this road!


----------



## mjr (10 Dec 2019)

snorri said:


> Perfectly sound from the motor vehicle construction and repair industries point of view.
> The more non essential components attached to a car the more you can charge the buyer, and every added component increases the liklihood of a failure at some point which keeps the car repair and spare parts industry in business.


Is there a similar reason why headlight aiming is made so difficult? My car's not too bad, but aiming is still done by turning four 11mm plastic nuts in places that would be much easier to reach if your wrist bent backwards! It seems like most drivers simply fit new bulbs and don't bother to aim.


----------



## icowden (10 Dec 2019)

Found a nice paper here that goes into some of the rationale and research...

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:674618/FULLTEXT01.pdf


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> But why did the Nordic countries get them? It reads to me like they made them mandatory because motorists were too stupid to switch lights on in winter on very dark days. What a reason to set us all on this road!




My old 1978 Volvo 244 had them as standard, and I believe all Volvos were built this way back then. When you switched the lamps on at night, the extra bright DRLs dimmed about 50% and the next setting over was headlamps. At least with Volvo the rear lights were always on too so there was none of this running around with front DRLs only at night.


----------



## Shearwater Missile (10 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> My old 1978 Volvo 244 had them as standard, and I believe all Volvos were built this way back then. When you switched the lamps on at night, the extra bright DRLs dimmed about 50% and the next setting over was headlamps. At least with Volvo the rear lights were always on too so there was none of this running around with front DRLs only at night.


The problem with having only front DRLs is that people forget to switch their lights on in poor visibility, lots of days at this time of year. Why don`t they have rear DRLs on as well ?
I do have my lights on, on the bike but they are not bright enough to use at night especially the front. I would hate it if they dazzled anybody. If it makes me more visible by a few seconds then it is worth it. Each to their own view.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2019)

Shearwater Missile said:


> Each to their own view.


I should have added that I feckin' hate them!


----------



## Shearwater Missile (11 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I should have added that I feckin' hate them!


Why do you hate them on bikes, cars or both ? I don`t like the ones that blind you as I have seen on both bikes and cars.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2019)

Shearwater Missile said:


> Why do you hate them on bikes, cars or both ? I don`t like the ones that blind you as I have seen on both bikes and cars.



Both.

They're unnecessary and another abdication of responsibility by people who should be taking care to look and see what's around them.
On my car I've turned them off.


----------



## mjr (11 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> On my car I've turned them off.


OMG!!!!!1! aren't you dead yet driving around in an invisible car?????/?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> OMG!!!!!1! aren't you dead yet driving around in an invisible car?????/?




I hope you're sitting down because I don't use headlamps at night on 30mph roads with street lighting either!


----------



## Drago (11 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I hope you're sitting down because I don't use headlamps at night on 30mph roads with street lighting either!


You're not required to do so. A 30 road will almost certainly be properly lit, so you need to be seen rather than see where you are going.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2019)

Drago said:


> You're not required to do so. A 30 road will almost certainly be properly lit, so you need to be seen rather than see where you are going.



I know, yet I’m repeatedly told by other drivers and even passengers that I need to put headlamps on. It’s crazy.

I remember one guy getting out of his car while stopped ahead of me at some lights claiming he couldn’t see me with only my sidelights on. I asked him how he knew my sidelights were on and as he began to answer you could see the penny drop so he just said, “oh, fcuk off” and went back to his car. I proper guffawed at that one.


----------



## Drago (11 Dec 2019)

It's a long story and not for here, but I once wound a Buddhist monk up so much that he too told me to foxtrot oscar.

It's the twits who drive through the village at night and dont dip their headlamps that foxtrot me off. Its blummen painful when I'm out walking the dog, but a quick dose of LED Lenser usually gives them the hint. I had one geezer stop and ask why I was shining my torch in his face and I replied because he was shining his main beams in my face. Thick as porcine faeces some people, and proof if ever there was that the driving test should include and IQ test.


----------



## icowden (12 Dec 2019)

To be fair, I doubt that many people know that the highway code says that you don't need to have your headlights on if there is street lighting.
I know I didn't. For most people it's a simple "lights on when it is dark" rule. Although these days most vehicles turn the lights on themselves.


----------



## confusedcyclist (13 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> To be fair, I doubt that many people know that the highway code says that you don't need to have your headlights on if there is street lighting.
> I know I didn't. For most people it's a simple "lights on when it is dark" rule. Although these days most vehicles turn the lights on themselves.


I had to look that up because I couldn't believe it. I was always taught that after dusk, lights are mandatory! I'll not be flashing (headlights, you smutty bugger you) at anyone who is driving without lights on lit streets anymore


----------



## Jody (13 Dec 2019)

confusedcyclist said:


> I had to look that up because I couldn't believe it. I was always taught that after dusk, lights are mandatory! I'll not be flashing (headlights, you smutty bugger you) at anyone who is driving without lights on lit streets anymore



As I read it, lights are mandatory but the use of headlights in a lit 30 road is not. Can anyone offer clarification on this? Can driving round without your dipped beam not be used as a mitigating factor in the event of an accident?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Dec 2019)

Jody said:


> As I read it, lights are mandatory but the use of headlights in a lit 30 road is not. Can anyone offer clarification on this? Can driving round without your dipped beam not be used as a mitigating factor in the event of an accident?



You can just use your side lights, unless it's been changed? That use to be the first setting on the light switch before you reach headlight.


----------



## confusedcyclist (16 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> You can just use your side lights, unless it's been changed? That use to be the first setting on the light switch before you reach headlight.


That would appear to be correct.


----------



## icowden (16 Dec 2019)

The problem is that what is "correct" doesn't necessarily correlate with what is expected. Or - just because you can, doesn't mean you should...
For example around me there are numerous "dark spots" regardless of the street lighting, and also some roads that are unlit. 
Of course, if you have a newer car, it will be doing the lights for you anyway...


----------



## gbb (16 Dec 2019)

Keeping to DRLs, I struggle to see the problem. 
Side lights are 5w, DRLs are 21w headlamps are I believe 50w.
If I turn on sides (front and of course rear), fronts revert to 5w.
Ditto headlights.
My SIL is a truck driver and he says give him the choice of sides or DRLs in his rear view mirrors in any borderline wet weather....he can see DRLs waaay before sides. If for no other reason, they're good in those circumstances...and perhaps we need to remember, it may be those kind of circumstances that made legislators consider them worthwhile, the rest of the time they are perhaps irrelevant.. 
Cost ? It's a £4 bulb so the manufacturers aren't making anything, on my type at least.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> Keeping to DRLs, I struggle to see the problem.
> Side lights are 5w, DRLs are 21w headlamps are I believe 50w.
> If I turn on sides (front and of course rear), fronts revert to 5w.
> Ditto headlights.
> ...



That’s an example of reduced visibility. I’d like to think any competent driver would have the sense to switch on lights as required by the circumstances.

One of the problems with DRLs is that they are on even in perfect conditions, where they serve no purpose, and can obscure the presence of other road users.


----------



## Drago (16 Dec 2019)

Think of it this way. If DRLs are so clever, why do audi dim theirs to enable other road users to be able to see the indicators? What else are they obscuring from view?


----------



## gbb (17 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That’s an example of reduced visibility. I’d like to think any competent driver would have the sense to switch on lights as required by the circumstances.
> 
> One of the problems with DRLs is that they are on even in perfect conditions, where they serve no purpose, and can obscure the presence of other road users.


Competent drivers ? Mistakes are made all the time, some unwitting, unintentional, some more deliberate but even within this discussion by cyclists, theres been confusion as when to use lights and what to use...so perhaps automating it with DRL s can have some benefit.
Your second point, obscures the presence of other road users, I honestly have seen no evidence of it (while accepting that's just me so there MAY be some circumstances in which they may) ...but given I'm a careful driver, I have NO problem seeing everything and everyone and DRLs on other vehicles have presented me with NO known hinderance whatsoever.

I'd buy the arguement in general if the evidence supported it but I'm yet to be convinced.


----------



## gbb (17 Dec 2019)

I'd extend the above thoughts...I have NO problems seeing everything and everyone and I think it's because I dont rush around. The one thing I keep impressing on my DIL who is a new driver...the more you rush around, the higher your speed, the LESS time you have to make decisions, the more likely you are to have an accident. Personally I'd like to see that ...and observation, observation, observation...heavily impressed on learner drivers...for everyone's sake.


----------



## Drago (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> Competent drivers ? Mistakes are made all the time, some unwitting, unintentional, some more deliberate but even within this discussion by cyclists, theres been confusion as when to use lights and what to use...so perhaps automating it with DRL s can have some benefit.
> Your second point, obscures the presence of other road users, I honestly have seen no evidence of it (while accepting that's just me so there MAY be some circumstances in which they may) ...but given I'm a careful driver, I have NO problem seeing everything and everyone and DRLs on other vehicles have presented me with NO known hinderance whatsoever.
> 
> I'd buy the arguement in general if the evidence supported it but I'm yet to be convinced.


Next time a modern Audi is coming towards you, watch it closely.

In the early 80's Honda did a lot of research into daytime lighting. At the time they owned the worlds largest searchlight manufacturer. so had a lot of expertise on optics to call upon.

They discovered that over-bright lighting during daytime conditions increased the chances of certain types of collision, mainly T bone incidents. The human brain calculates the speed of an oncoming object by the rate at which it increases in size in relation to the surroundings. Over bright lighting breaks up the outline of the vehicle, thus depriving the observer of this datum, making it harder to accurately calculate speed. Something as innocuous as normal dip-beam headlamps being illuminated on an otherwise good visibility day was enough to trigger this phenomenon.

Suzuki were later to do similar testing and research, albeit smaller in scale, and repeated Hondas findings.

The human brain has not adapted to benefit from lighting in good conditions because such lighting does not exist in nature, where lighting is provided by a point source at a separate position to both observer and observed. 

So when you're next able to do so, take a moment to watch that Audi. With an awareness of the above phenomenon in your mind you can actually see how it deprives the observer of a proper view of the outline of the vehicle as it approaches. The effect is visible to anyone with eyes and an awareness of the effect. Because you're a careful driver like me who takes their time the impact upon you is minimal, but for the average road user who flies about the place and leaves little room for error something as small as that can be enough to trip them up.

As an aside, I'm sure you meant no Ill, but could I ask you not to emphasis words with caps like that please? I'm dyslexic, and that really makes text difficult for me to read, which is doubtless the opposite effect to that which you intended


----------



## winjim (17 Dec 2019)

Drago said:


> Think of it this way. If DRLs are so clever, why do audi dim theirs to enable other road users to be able to see the indicators? What else are they obscuring from view?


I find that overcomplicated and confusing. The lights are on but then switch off to allow the indicator to be seen. The indicator is no longer a simple flash but a chase sequence. Other lights go on on just one side when the car is going round a corner. Honestly, there are so many lights going on and off in weird combinations it's way too much information to decode and process.


----------



## Mark pallister (17 Dec 2019)

I have a garmin varia radar so always have a rear light on 
if I didn’t I would still have a rear flashing light ,might do no good but certainly does no harm


----------



## winjim (17 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I have a garmin varia radar so always have a rear light on
> if I didn’t I would still have a rear flashing light ,might do no good but certainly does no harm


Certainly does no harm? Did you read the thread? There are suggestions that it may well do harm, which you need to address if you're claiming certainty.


----------



## Drago (17 Dec 2019)

Indeed, one cannot take "at worst it does not harm" as gospel when it comes to safety, because there are so many unintended consequences to consider. If it doesn't have a proven safety benefit, don't do it in the name of safety.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> Keeping to DRLs, I struggle to see the problem.
> Side lights are 5w, DRLs are 21w headlamps are I believe 50w.


Do car DRLs have to have their beam shaped like headlights? It seems like they're indiscriminate wide beams but I don't remember the regs and it could be bad maintenance like all the wonky headlights but it seems like dazzling DRLs are even more common.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> even within this discussion by cyclists, theres been confusion as when to use lights and what to use



I've taken the time to read through this whole thread again and can't find any posts to support that, do you have examples? There is mention of a complaint regarding drivers who fail to switch off rear fog lights when no longer required, and there are those who were unaware that headlamps were unneccessary on roads with a 30mph limit and street lighting.




gbb said:


> given I'm a careful driver, I have NO problem seeing everything and everyone



That rather suggests that DRLs are unnecessary.

But within your reply lies the real answer. Instead of compensating for the general poor standard of driving by compelling the use of DRLs, let's improve driving standards and the driving test regime so that that people treat driving as something that requires focus, concentration and attention.

We also need to get rid of the attitude that once the driving test is passed the Highway Code book gets chucked in the bin and no further training is required. Driving licences should be much harder to get and far easier to lose.


----------



## Jody (17 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Do car DRLs have to have their beam shaped like headlights? It seems like they're indiscriminate wide beams but I don't remember the regs and it could be bad maintenance like all the wonky headlights but it seems like dazzling DRLs are even more common.



They are only a marker light so don't need a beam pattern


----------



## gbb (17 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Do car DRLs have to have their beam shaped like headlights? It seems like they're indiscriminate wide beams but I don't remember the regs and it could be bad maintenance like all the wonky headlights but it seems like dazzling DRLs are even more common.



There's obviously differing quality or types of DRLs. Mine are simply 21w bulbs instead of 5w, and while the light emitted is of course brighter....its not bright bright or dazzling, simply based on the fact its still only 21w. 
Audis etc obviously have a different system, it'd be interesting to see what wattage they're putting out, focused / beam directed etc or not.



glasgowcyclist said:


> I've taken the time to read through this whole thread again and can't find any posts to support that, do you have examples? There is mention of a complaint regarding drivers who fail to switch off rear fog lights when no longer required, and there are those who were unaware that headlamps were unneccessary on roads with a 30mph limit and street lighting.
> 
> That rather suggests that DRLs are unnecessary.
> 
> ...


They're the examples i'm thinking of. I guess the point is there are millions of drivers out there, many 'doing their own thing'. Could you argue that DRLs give some essense of standardisation ?
I'd agree, DRLs in normal circumstances are unneccessary, but agree with my SIL, as a lorry driver, DRLs are a whole different, positive thing in some conditions. Its maybe impossible to have one positive without a negative...or vice versa.

Improve driving standards, quite agree, concentration, concentration, concentration is my byeword to my DIL.


----------



## icowden (17 Dec 2019)

Drago said:


> Indeed, one cannot take "at worst it does not harm" as gospel when it comes to safety, because there are so many unintended consequences to consider. If it doesn't have a proven safety benefit, don't do it in the name of safety.



So it's better to not be safer by accident and only be safer deliberately if you know that the thing you think will make you safer has been proven not to make things more dangerous in the way that you don't think that they will be, but only due to unintended consequences that you couldn't anticipate or test for? 

So, if you inadvertently save yourself from injury using equipment that hasn't been proven to make you safer in every situation, but which also hasn't been proven to make things more dangerous in any situation, is that a bad thing... or is it a good thing?

To be honest, whenever I have seen testing it tends to be focused on testing whether the thing you are testing does what you want it to do in the way that you want it to do it, and very little peripheral testing is done to make sure that it doesn't do other stuff. Things often get re-tested when discoveries are made that might weaken or invalidate that first set of testing, so at least for the scenarios that were tested you are likely to be safer than in those scenarios that couldn't be anticipated and therefore weren't tested.


----------



## Jody (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> There's obviously differing quality or types of DRLs. Mine are simply 21w bulbs instead of 5w, and while the light emitted is of course brighter....its not bright bright or dazzling, simply based on the fact its still only 21w.
> Audis etc obviously have a different system, it'd be interesting to see what wattage they're putting out, focused / beam directed etc or not




Surely wattage is irrelevant. Xenon headlights (1st gen) were only 35 watt. My Cree LED bike light is only 10 watt and the output is still enough to dazzle people


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> They're the examples i'm thinking of.


Those are examples where people have used more lighting than was required, not a tendency to go around unlit when lights really were needed, and therefore not a problem that is alleviated by the use of DRLs.



gbb said:


> DRLs are a whole different, positive thing in some conditions.



Exactly, in some conditions, so we should be ensuring that drivers are capable of recognising those conditions and acting appropriately. Why impose blanket use of a device that isn't needed all of the time? Isn't it saying that drivers are too poorly trained to realise when lights would be useful other than in the hours of darkness?


----------



## gbb (17 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Exactly, in some conditions, so we should be ensuring that drivers are capable of recognising those conditions and acting appropriately. Why impose blanket use of a device that isn't needed all of the time? *Isn't it saying that drivers are too poorly trained to realise when lights would be useful other than in the hours of darkness?*


I think we can all agree with that one...and perhaps there lies the crux of the matter, authorites trying to 'automate or engineer out stupid'. Is that taking the easy route ? its what we do at work, there's a problem with educating people not to do something specific, its easier to engineer out the problem than educate people over and over again


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> I think we can all agree with that one...and perhaps there lies the crux of the matter, authorites trying to 'automate or engineer out stupid'. Is that taking the easy route ? its what we do at work, there's a problem with educating people not to do something specific, its easier to engineer out the problem than educate people over and over again



It probably is but it's only tinkering with the edges and, to some degree, making certain situations worse.

If governments were serious about reducing road harm by engineering out stupid, they could introduce telematics for all motor vehicles and a 70mph speed governor. I suspect either of those would have a far greater effect on road safety than DRLs but that's a whole thread of its own.


----------



## Mark pallister (17 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> Certainly does no harm? Did you read the thread? There are suggestions that it may well do harm, which you need to address if you're claiming certainty.


I don’t believe them


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I don’t believe them


Because...?


----------



## Drago (17 Dec 2019)

Don't worry about it MJR. There are those that think about what they're doing, and those that do it for the sake of doing it. We know which camp we fall into.


----------



## Mark pallister (17 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Because...?


I don’t want to


----------



## winjim (17 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I don’t want to


You don't have to be contrary, nobody's trying to catch you out.


----------



## Mark pallister (17 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> You don't have to be contrary, nobody's trying to catch you out.


I’m not 
I have a rear flashing light on every bike I ride all year round 
I think it helps the car behind see me and no one can prove any different
and as for people who turn there car lights out in a 30 mph zone there are just plain stupid and I hope to god for there sake it’s not one of my family they end up running over


----------



## Mark pallister (17 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> Certainly does no harm? Did you read the thread? There are suggestions that it may well do harm, which you need to address if you're claiming certainty.


😂


----------



## Drago (17 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I’m not
> I have a rear flashing light on every bike I ride all year round
> I think it helps the car behind see me and no one can prove any different


Can you prove it makes you any safer?

No you can't, yet still you do so. Inconsistent.


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

Not really. Can you prove that it makes you less safe?

In the absence of any concrete proof either way, we cannot demonstrate a difference. However we can demonstrate that as far as human perception is concerned a flashing light draws attention. There are numerous studies and applications of flashing lights as beacons to draw attention (although contrast is important).

So whilst we cannot prove whether or not it makes a difference to safety, we can say with some confidence that people are more likely to have their attention drawn to a flashing light whether it is day or night.

Most of us see this effect regularly. WHilst driving home from tesco tonight down an unlit road, I saw strange lights. Couldn't make out whether they were coming toward me or away from me. Couldn't make out whether they were on the road or pavement. What I could do though was see them and reduce my speed substantially (this is a 60mph road) because I couldn't work out what they were. As I drew closer, I saw a cyclist on the pavement with a motley collection of lights. 

Do I think they were over the top? Yes. Did I think they were unclear? Yes. Did they achieve the effect of making the cyclist seen and of making me reduce my speed - absolutely. So silly as they were, they massively achieved the aim of making that cyclist seen, and therefore safer (cars regularly travel across the pavement and into the reservoir fences!).


----------



## DRHysted (18 Dec 2019)

Drago said:


> Can you prove it makes you any safer?
> 
> No you can't, yet still you do so. Inconsistent.



Yet flashing lights have been used for centuries to alert a danger. I do believe that lighthouses have had some effect.


----------



## winjim (18 Dec 2019)

DRHysted said:


> Yet flashing lights have been used for centuries to alert a danger. I do believe that lighthouses have had some effect.


The flash sequence of a lighthouse is designed to convey extra information about the type of lighthouse and its position etc.

Edit: and they don't switch them on during the day which is what this thread's about.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> as for people who turn there car lights out in a 30 mph zone there are just plain stupid



Lazy misrepresentation of the situation. Have you actually read the thread?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Dec 2019)

That doesn't mean that I have no lights on, does it?


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That doesn't mean that I have no lights on, does it?


It means you have no headlamps on ,explain your reasoning for that to the parents of a child when you hit one


----------



## winjim (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> It means you have no headlamps on ,explain your reasoning for that to the parents of a child when you hit one


The child is perfectly well lit by the streetlamps. Car headlights are arguably distracting and draw attention away from other hazards. Sidelights afford sufficient visibility to the vehicle.


----------



## winjim (18 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> The flash sequence of a lighthouse is designed to convey extra information about the type of lighthouse and its position etc.
> 
> Edit: and they don't switch them on during the day which is what this thread's about.


Sorry to labour the maritime point but it's worth pointing out that when navigating into port, which I would say is more analogous to the close manoeuvres one performs around a cyclist, fixed lights are used as they are more suitable for judging position, speed and distance.


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> The child is perfectly well lit by the streetlamps. Car headlights are arguably distracting and draw attention away from other hazards. Sidelights afford sufficient visibility to the vehicle.


Why to you even bother to argue about these things ?
your very sad 
the whole word over knows your more likely to be seen if you’ve got lights on


----------



## winjim (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> Why to you even bother to argue about these things ?
> your very sad
> the whole word over knows your more likely to be seen if you’ve got lights on


You think the child should have lights on?


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

winjim said:


> You think the child should have lights on?


If it’s on the road yes
there really is something wrong with you 
arguing over child safety


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> It means you have no headlamps on ,explain your reasoning for that to the parents of a child when you hit one



Why would I hit a child?


----------



## winjim (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> If it’s on the road yes


So all this explaining to the parents if I hit a child has got nothing to do with me as a driver having headlights on or not, but the kid needs to be lit up like a Christmas tree?


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Dec 2019)

Interestingly there was a program on telly at the weekend about the brain. One point made was the fact that all decisions are made on a fundamentally emotional basis. We may like to think that we are swayed by evidence but this is generally just window dressing, or adopted after the fact as justification.

In this case we have two fundamentally emotional points of view.

One is a gut reaction against the safety-fication of cycling and consequent victim blaming, and a yearning for a utility cycling utopia where everyone from children to grandparents sedately meet their transport needs on two wheels wearing just their every day clothes. To the tune of the New World Symphony possibly.

On the other hand there is the gut reaction to the feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness on the road in the face of dangerous motor vehicles and their operators, and a desire to redress this balance by the use of any safety equipment available.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about the physicicst Niels Bohr who had a lucky horseshoe on the wall in his office. Someone said "Surely you don't believe in that superstitious nonsense". Bohr replied "No, no of course I don't. But they do say that it works even if you don't believe in it."

As to whether you should drive on a lit street with a 30 mph limit with sidelights or full lights. Meh. I doubt it makes a ha'porth of difference either way. As long as you are not using full beams and are observing the limit and generally driving responsibly. But no, I don't have any evidence for that.


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

I have to agree with @glasgowcyclist here. His POV is perfectly valid.
Even in the hypothetical situation that he hit someone whilst driving without headlights on as the street was lit with streetlights, it would be almost impossible to use that as an argument for prosecution as the highway code states that that behaviour is perfectly acceptable. It might stray into that area however, dependent on the type of street lighting.

For example there are many residential streets now that use much lower spread, lower emission lighting. if an expert were to back up the point of view that the street lighting was insufficient and the driver was thus driving carelessly by not using his headlights, this would alter the perspective.

In any event, as I stated previously it goes back to - just because you can, it doesn't follow that you should. BUT it also follows that if @glasgowcyclist is driving down a perfectly well lit main road, then lights on or off doesn't form part of the issue. One could argue that it is better to have lights on at night because that is what other road users expect. But... it also follows that by not having them on, his car draws attention through the absence of headlights and is thus more visible than if he had them on.

Visibility and protection are both emotive topics and there are strong opinions on both sides. But we need to try to back up those opinions with validation. Oh yes it is / Oh no it isn't is great for pantomime but not for discussion. I have stated a few times that I haven't seen studies suggesting that it is more dangerous to do something. That doesn't mean that it isn't It just means that there are no studies, or that I haven't seen them. We all want to be safer and treated nicely on the roads, so lets try to treat each other nicely in here too.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2019)

TBF, on the subject of using only sidelights, not headlamps in a 30mph zone, i can immediately think of a situation where i absolutely wouldnt use just side lights...on a day to day (or night to night to be precise) basis.
My street has footpaths between houses that are 4ft away from the road and at 90 degrees to the road. You have to watch especially for kids running out, even in the daytime. Sidelights only will give any pedestrians less notice you're incoming, headlight will give them more warning (bearing in mind they cannot see the road or whats approaching until they are 4 ft away...2 steps and they're in the road if theyre not concentrating, as many people don't, as we all know.
So its not a concrete scenario (sidelights in 30mph roads), there are situations where i'd consider it more dangerous to do so.....and there lies the problem again, different scenarios, different locations, different peoples view on things, etc etc etc. You'll never get consistency in each scenario.

I'm a realist, for ever set of rules, there are going to be situations where the rule won't neccessarily fit.


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

And then of course there is the ever growing group of people who seem unable to change the bulb in their headlights. Down a darker (but streetlit) road near me, I nearly got taken out by a transit van doing an impression of a motorcycle. That's how dim some of those streetlights are on a rainy winter night.


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> And then of course there is the ever growing group of people who seem unable to change the bulb in their headlights. Down a darker (but streetlit) road near me, I nearly got taken out by a transit van doing an impression of a motorcycle. That's how dim some of those streetlights are on a rainy winter night.


Shouldn't you have seen him in your headlights? Or have slowed down so you could stop within what you could see? You might want to think before answering that lights misled you into riding or driving blind...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> TBF, on the subject of using only sidelights, not headlamps in a 30mph zone, i can immediately think of a situation where i absolutely wouldnt use just side lights...on a day to day (or night to night to be precise) basis. [example snipped]



I do adapt my lighting to suit the situation. It's not a fixed policy approach.


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Shouldn't you have seen him in your headlights? Or have slowed down so you could stop within what you could see? You might want to think before answering that lights misled you into riding or driving blind...



My bicycle has lights, but I wouldn't describe them as headlights. Also from 10mph there isn't much to slow down from, when you have what appears to be a motorbike zooming towards you. I was positioned as for a motorbike, it just turned out that there was a Tw*t in a white transit van there rather than a bike, and thus no space for me to go between the parked cars and his non-illuminated van.

I have said this before. This is why visibility for cyclists is important. A cyclist is going slower. A motorist is going faster and thus has less time to react. The white van man saw me, he just assumed that I would be able to turn into flat stanley to go past him. I was riding prime-ish due to a terrible road surface and the tendency for morons to try and overtake me on that particular road, and having seen him as a motorbike left plenty of room for a motor bike without compromising my position.


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> My bicycle has lights, but I wouldn't describe them as headlights. Also from 10mph there isn't much to slow down from, when you have what appears to be a motorbike zooming towards you. I was positioned as for a motorbike, it just turned out that there was a Tw*t in a white transit van there rather than a bike, and thus no space for me to go between the parked cars and his non-illuminated van.


Sorry but I think your headlights sound a bit shoot if you cannot distinguish a white van from a motorbike with them, whether it has two lights on or not!



icowden said:


> I have said this before. This is why visibility for cyclists is important. A cyclist is going slower. A motorist is going faster and thus has less time to react. The white van man saw me, he just assumed that I would be able to turn into flat stanley to go past him. I was riding prime-ish due to a terrible road surface and the tendency for morons to try and overtake me on that particular road, and having seen him as a motorbike left plenty of room for a motor bike without compromising my position.


I really don't understand the logic above. How does this near-miss show that visibility for cyclists is important? The white van man saw you but was a crap driver. I think it shows more that lights to see by (proper headlights/front lights) are far more important than be-seen lights (like DRLs) because some motorists will see a cyclist and still put them in danger; and that we must not rely on identifying things from what marker lights they're showing, which is a big danger of DRLs and their encouragement to only look for the lights.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Dec 2019)

Lots of idiots out there using lights when they really shouldn't and not using then when they should. Also a number who mistake lights being on with visibility, and not being on, being invisible. Some seem to think if their lights are on, then safety is taken care of. That is clearly bollocks.


----------



## DCBassman (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Yes, I do wonder about how some of the cars I've hired have gotten approval from the regulators. I've been fussy about what we've owned - which has had other drawbacks, of course.


Some of these regs are certainly pushed to the limits, no doubt about it...


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Sorry but I think your headlights sound a bit shoot if you cannot distinguish a white van from a motorbike with them, whether it has two lights on or not!
> I really don't understand the logic above. How does this near-miss show that visibility for cyclists is important? The white van man saw you but was a crap driver.



As I said, I don't have headlights. I have a single Cateye Volt 400. It's quite bright. However, try as I might, I can't get it to illuminate things coming round bends, nor to light up the road through parked cars. For that which the beam cannot illumine I am dependent on ambient lighting and the lights of the oncoming vehicle, as is everyone else. As I keep trying to explain, real life doesn't equate to the binary armchair in which you seem to live.

Further, when confronted with a very bright oncoming single headlight, that light tends to eliminate my ability to see anything else other than the oncoming headlight, particularly as I am now slightly myopic. In the dark, it is almost impossible to see what is behind a headlight until right at the last minute.

As you mentioned - the white van man saw me but was a crap driver. The reason that he saw me:-

Volt 400 light on the front of the bike
Reflective rucksack straps.
Reflective pedals.
I have absolutely no doubt that if I did not have a light and reflectives, I would not now be typing this post. Thus my conclusions that visibility for cyclists is important, and also that people should drive with working headlights.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (18 Dec 2019)

Mod Note:
35!! Personal attacks, OT posts, quotes of them, various bickering, have been deleted.
This is the Advocacy section, not the Politics.
Please behave  or thread ban will be forthcoming


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Dec 2019)

gbb said:


> TBF, on the subject of using only sidelights, not headlamps in a 30mph zone, i can immediately think of a situation where i absolutely wouldnt use just side lights...on a day to day (or night to night to be precise) basis.
> My street has footpaths between houses that are 4ft away from the road and at 90 degrees to the road. You have to watch especially for kids running out, even in the daytime.



Kids running out in front of vehicles has nothing to do with the visibility of the car. The kid just isn't paying attention to traffic, most of the time they haven't even looked sideways when running across the road. Headlights / sidelights makes no difference. In fact kids running out in front of cars , has the same cause as drivers pulling out in front of cyclists, their attention is elsewhere. Visibility doesn't come in to it.

This is why much lower speed limits on residential roads should be promoted and rolled out. You can't stop kids running out into the road when playing on a residential street.


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Kids running out in front of vehicles has nothing to do with the visibility of the car. The kid just isn't paying attention to traffic, most of the time they haven't even looked sideways when running across the road. Headlights / sidelights makes no difference. In fact kids running out in front of cars , has the same cause as drivers pulling out in front of cyclists, their attention is elsewhere. Visibility doesn't come in to it.
> 
> This is why much lower speed limits on residential roads should be promoted and rolled out. You can't stop kids running out into the road when playing on a residential street.


I think most kids parents and school teachers will be drumming it into there heads to look before they run out so therefore making your car a visible as possible seems to me should be very drivers top priority 
especially in 30mph built up zones


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> As I keep trying to explain, real life doesn't equate to the binary armchair in which you seem to live.


There's 10  things wrong with that argument: firstly, I was out cycling with friends last night while you were posting here, so which of us is the armchair warrior; and secondly, the logical disconnect between your anecdote and the conclusions exist in the real world.



icowden said:


> Further, when confronted with a very bright oncoming single headlight, that light tends to eliminate my ability to see anything else other than the oncoming headlight, particularly as I am now slightly myopic. In the dark, it is almost impossible to see what is behind a headlight until right at the last minute.


Which is similar to what I posted earlier about DRLs: lights can make it harder for some people to see unlit things. Sympathies on the myopia, but I'm myopic too, although with a side order of contrast detection abnormalities which actually seems to make it slightly easier to see at night.

I'm sorry to be harsh about changing your cycling practices based on a medical condition, but Highway Code Rule 115 says that if you cannot see beyond an oncoming headlight, then you should slow (possibly stop) until you can see unlit surfaces (whether or not you believe you've identified their vehicle type correctly from the lights).



icowden said:


> As you mentioned - the white van man saw me but was a crap driver. The reason that he saw me:-
> 
> Volt 400 light on the front of the bike
> Reflective rucksack straps.
> Reflective pedals.


What, no front reflector? 



> I have absolutely no doubt that if I did not have a light and reflectives, I would not now be typing this post. Thus my conclusions that visibility for cyclists is important, and also that people should drive with working headlights.


Sorry but there's surely plenty of doubt in that. A rider without lights and reflectives would not necessarily get wiped out by crap drivers, because most of them survive every night, often to the irritation of legally-lit-and-reflectored riders and drivers. Various reasons are suggested, including risk compensation meaning that if someone doesn't have lights and reflectives, maybe they don't assume that anyone sees them and so don't rely on the likes of white van motorcycle-impersonating man to give them any room.

And I still don't get how you draw any logical conclusion supporting the failed be-safe-be-seen campaigns from an incident where a motorist saw you and still didn't give you proper room! It seems like "cyclists should be armed with motor-disabling devices" would be a more valid conclusion from that...


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I think most kids parents and school teachers will be drumming it into there heads to look before they run out so therefore making your car a visible as possible seems to me should be very drivers top priority
> especially in 30mph built up zones


I hate to break it to you, but kids make mistakes and making such a widespread mistake should not result in death. A driver's top priority should be dropping their speed so they can stop within what they can see to be definitely clear (and not only what's unoccupied right now). Twenty's Plenty where children play.

Also, as mentioned, lights break up outlines and make it more difficult to judge distances, making it more likely that a kid will misjudge the time available to get out of the way of a car if it has stupidly bright DRLs on it. DRLs have been introduced by motorists to help motorists, not children, walkers or cyclists.


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> I hate to break it to you, but kids make mistakes and making such a widespread mistake should not result in death. A driver's top priority should be dropping their speed so they can stop within what they can see to be definitely clear (and not only what's unoccupied right now). Twenty's Plenty where children play.
> 
> Also, as mentioned, lights break up outlines and make it more difficult to judge distances, making it more likely that a kid will misjudge the time available to get out of the way of a car if it has stupidly bright DRLs on it. DRLs have been introduced by motorists to help motorists, not children, walkers or cyclists.


So your saying a pedestrian can spot a unlit car easier than a car with drls on ?


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> So your saying a pedestrian can spot a unlit car easier than a car with drls on ?


No, it's not only me saying this. See @Drago in post #118 https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/daytime-running-lights.255567/post-5823732

It's a big problem in road danger reduction that so-called "common sense" is so often common nonsense.


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

Ahh well if there’s two of you it must be true
It’s funny how the government and the car industry managed to get it so wrong
Never mind there here to stay now 👍


----------



## icowden (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> I'm sorry to be harsh about changing your cycling practices based on a medical condition, but Highway Code Rule 115 says that if you cannot see beyond an oncoming headlight, then you should slow (possibly stop) until you can see unlit surfaces (whether or not you believe you've identified their vehicle type correctly from the lights).



But highway code rule 115 is an advisory rule (should not must) and seems to be aimed predominantly at car drivers as a cyclist slowing from around 10mph to 5mph isn't going to make any real difference - and slowing down in the face of an oncoming transit van isn't going to help if you don't know it is a transit van. If I hit the van, the van isn't going to care. I will. It is more important therefore that the driver of the van can see me rather than the other way around. It's helpful if the van is operating with legal headlights so that I can see the thing and get out of the way of it.

I'm interested as to why you evaluate "be safe be seen" as a failure and look forward to your citation of the research that supports your evaluation.


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> Ahh well if there’s two of you it must be true
> It’s funny how the government and the car industry managed to get it so wrong


Who said they got it wrong? It helps motorists and the car industry and that was more important to them than helping children.



> Never mind there here to stay now 👍


Nothing is forever. Except the loss of the Cathedral of Chalesm.


----------



## mjr (18 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> But highway code rule 115 is an advisory rule (should not must) and seems to be aimed predominantly at car drivers as a cyclist slowing from around 10mph to 5mph isn't going to make any real difference - and slowing down in the face of an oncoming transit van isn't going to help if you don't know it is a transit van. If I hit the van, the van isn't going to care. I will. It is more important therefore that the driver of the van can see me rather than the other way around. It's helpful if the van is operating with legal headlights so that I can see the thing and get out of the way of it.


 But why was it more important that that driver of that van could see you? They didn't seem to give a toss whether they hit you or not. That's why the anecdote contradicts your conclusion: it was far more important that you could see them - and not only their incorrect lights.



> I'm interested as to why you evaluate "be safe be seen" as a failure and look forward to your citation of the research that supports your evaluation.


I'll leave it to someone far smarter than me: https://rdrf.org.uk/2016/09/28/on-formula-one-drivers-telling-children-to-wear-hi-viz/ - please read it before you hurt someone you love.


----------



## Mark pallister (18 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> But why was it more important that that driver of that van could see you? They didn't seem to give a toss whether they hit you or not. That's why the anecdote contradicts your conclusion: it was far more important that you could see them - and not only their incorrect lights.
> 
> 
> I'll leave it to someone far smarter than me: https://rdrf.org.uk/2016/09/28/on-formula-one-drivers-telling-children-to-wear-hi-viz/ - please read it before you hurt someone you love.


What’s that supposed to mean ?
Are you saying that by having a light on his bike he’s putting his loved ones in danger ?


----------



## snorri (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> making your car a visible as possible seems to me should be very drivers top priority
> especially in 30mph built up zones


A lowering of the 30mph limit to 20mph would be more beneficial than any visibility enhancing measures.


----------



## Drago (18 Dec 2019)

snorri said:


> A lowering of the 30mph limit to 20mph would be more beneficial than any visibility enhancing measures.


Even more so if it were ruthlessly enforced.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Kids running out in front of vehicles has nothing to do with the visibility of the car. The kid just isn't paying attention to traffic, most of the time they haven't even looked sideways when running across the road. Headlights / sidelights makes no difference. In fact kids running out in front of cars , has the same cause as drivers pulling out in front of cyclists, their attention is elsewhere. Visibility doesn't come in to it.
> 
> This is why much lower speed limits on residential roads should be promoted and rolled out. You can't stop kids running out into the road when playing on a residential street.


In the dark (I did say at night...ie dark) anyone, a kid or adult, absolutely would have a better chance of knowing a car was incoming, the light throw from my side lights, 5 watts is virtually nil, or 55 watt (iirc) dipped beam, light throw several 10s of metres, they'd see the lights of a dipped headlight way way before 5w sidelights. (Remember, they cant see a car until they're 4ft from the road)
Speed limit is 30, personally I probably travel at a max of 20 because of these hidden paths, but at 30, you're travelling at what ? 40 ft per second....you're on those hidden paths in a second....I choose to give myself and any ped or kid every, I mean every, chance of not getting hit because they're distracted, not looking, whatever.
It's a rare occurence tbf, but I did once have to emergency brake (probably 20 years ago) .
IIf God himself told me using sidelights was the right thing to do, I'd still use headlights in those circumstances, nothing will convince me otherwise.
I cant find my emojis, but a thumbs up to portray a good discussion, no angst intended.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2019)

Drago said:


> Even more so if it were ruthlessly enforced.


I'd agree, but I'm a realist, that will never, ever, ever happen.


----------



## gbb (18 Dec 2019)

In the interests of the discussion, can we positively define just what we actually mean by DRLs.
My Astra has 5w tungsten sides, 21w tungsten DRLs, 55w halogen headlights, I guess like many 'lower end / standard ' cars. I watched an Audi today, but couldn't figure if his LED DRLs and his headlights were on., I really need to see one in the daylight, fat chance, dark when I go to work, darkish when I go home.
My 21 w DRLs throw not much light and certainly dont seem to me to be dazzling.
Are there legal limits for DRLs wattage, if so why or how are some manufacturers apparently engaging in an arms race that shouldn't even get type approval ?
Or are some drivers simply using far too much lighting for the circumstances..are they actually using DRLs and headlights thus annoying,folk, dazzling everyone unnecessarily. Genuinely interested to break it down because DRLs on my car simply cannot be seen as invasive, brighter yes but theres still no real light throw from them...and I've stood several metres in front to check. 
What I'm saying is, are we demonising DRLs when it actually may (underlined) be some drivers of high end cars are using high output headslights at the same time, in daylight. I'm rambling a bit, I'm ready for bed.


----------



## classic33 (18 Dec 2019)

https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/daytime-running-lights


----------



## Ming the Merciless (18 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> I think most kids parents and school teachers will be drumming it into there heads to look before they run out so therefore making your car a visible as possible seems to me should be very drivers top priority
> especially in 30mph built up zones



You're missing the point, visibility of vehicles is not the problem to be solved. Drivers top priority should be to slow the fark down and look out for kids.


----------



## Mark pallister (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> You're missing the point, visibility of vehicles is not the problem to be solved. Drivers top priority should be to slow the fark down and look out for kids.


Obviously I totally agree with that but can making your car as vi


YukonBoy said:


> You're missing the point, visibility of vehicles is not the problem to be solved. Drivers top priority should be to slow the fark down and look out for kids.


im t


snorri said:


> A lowering of the 30mph limit to 20mph would be more beneficial than any visibility enhancing measures.


i totally agree I meant as well as driving slowly ect


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

classic33 said:


> https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/safety/daytime-running-lights


Motoring lobbyists in "promoting arms race that motorists will win" shock!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> Obviously I totally agree with that but can making your car as vi
> 
> im t
> 
> i totally agree I meant as well as driving slowly ect



Not sure what you were trying to say but how can you say a vehicle approx 1.8 m wide X 4.7 m long X 1.4m high is not already visible? You'd have to have really poor eyesight not to see something that large.

Vehicles are already perfectly visible in daylight ; but the kids attention is elsewhere.


----------



## icowden (19 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> I'll leave it to someone far smarter than me: https://rdrf.org.uk/2016/09/28/on-formula-one-drivers-telling-children-to-wear-hi-viz/ - please read it before you hurt someone you love.



So, this is an opinion piece written by Robert Davies which references as the only source of data a book by Robert Davies which is out of print. It is full of lines like


> . Mikael rightly reports the lack of evidence to show actual reductions in casualty rates as a result of this kind of programme.


 but neglects to mention that Mikael is very quiet on the subject of whether there is a lack of evidence to show actual increases in casualty rates as a result of this kind of programme.

In other words, lack of evidence of improvement doesn't mean it does or doesn't work. The whole article is based on an assumption which the author offers no evidence for, namely that an increase in people using safety equipment may create danger by increasing the incidence of victim blaming. 

CyclingUK have a similar article - they are concerned that there is a public health issue in that it may dissuade people from cycling because they feel the need to buy helmets, clothing etc. But most of their stats are over 20 years old, and even they shy away from the topic of whether or not safety equipment actually works in favour of arguing that by discouraging people from cycling you could create a public health issue.

It is clear that more research is needed, but of the research that exists, and a basic understanding of forces, physics etc, it suggests that protection is likely, on balance, to be better than not protection. This can be demonstrated with a simple experiment. You need your hand, a cheese grater and a glove. Put the glove on your hand. Rub the cheese grater on your hand. Note down what happened in terms of abrasion, damage to your hand, pain etc. Now take the glove off and do the same. You will prove, fairly conclusively that the glove offered protection to your hand by interposing itself between the cheese grater and your hand. From this, we can extrapolate that when falling off a bike onto the ground, if your body, hands etc are protected by something, that you are likely to have reduced the chance of bleeding, abrasion, damage to the skin etc. 

You can do a similar experiment which involves wearing a cycle helmet and getting someone to punch you on the head. I wouldn't recommend it though.

Yes, it may not save your life. It may have absolutely no effect due to the speeds involved and the type of impact. Is it on balance better than nothing? I personally believe so, and can find medical research studies that suggest this is true. I have found a study which showed that a reflective jacket seemed to provide some benefit over not wearing a reflective jacket. I have still not found a single decent quality study which suggests the reverse. I have seen only once study which suggested the opposite and the authors of that study recommended caution when interpreting the results as the sample size was extremely small.

Yes, there may be a public health issue if say helmets or high viz were mandated and it might dissuade people. However I think that is likely to be countered by the growing interest in using healthier forms of transport and the effect of travelling in numbers. In that there London for example, where cyclists used to be a rare sight, they now often fill the roads, and there is quite a degree of safety in numbers.


----------



## Mark pallister (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Not sure what you were trying to say but how can you say a vehicle approx 1.8 m wide X 4.7 m long X 1.4m high is not already visible? You'd have to have really poor eyesight not to see something that large.
> 
> Vehicles are already perfectly visible in daylight ; but the kids attention is elsewhere.


But does it really hurt to try and make them just a little bit easier to see 
It may just make the difference between a child getting hit or not


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Dec 2019)

@icowden Nice to see a thoughtful contribution to this thread. I'm not sure I necessarily agree or disagree with all of it, but it's coherently written and ... well ... not stupid. So bravo!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> But does it really hurt to try and make them just a little bit easier to see
> It may just make the difference between a child getting hit or not



Again, visibility of vehicles isn't the problem. The car driver is not hitting the child because their vehicle wasn't visible.

The harm in thinking DRL solves the problem of children being hit, is that it doesn't lead to a change in driver behaviour that is required.


----------



## Mark pallister (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Again, visibility of vehicles isn't the problem. The car driver is not hitting the child because their vehicle wasn't visible.
> 
> The harm in thinking DRL solves the problem of children being hit, is that it doesn't lead to a change in driver behaviour that is required.


That didn’t answer the question?
No one is saying that they will solve the problem but just as with having a rear light on your bike during the day 
Do you not think it might just possibly increase your chances of being seen ?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> That didn’t answer the question?
> No one is saying that they will solve the problem but just as with having a rear light on your bike during the day
> Do you not think it might just possibly increase your chances of being seen ?



Nope, an inattentive driver is an inattentive driver. those who look see, those who don't, don't . The issue is people who can cause serious harm not adjusting their behaviour and not paying attention to what they should. 

If you are drawing attention to someone or something then you are taking someone's attention away from something or someone else. So what is the something or someone else you are taking their attention away from?


----------



## icowden (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> The car driver is not hitting the child because their vehicle wasn't visible.The harm in thinking DRL solves the problem of children being hit, is that it doesn't lead to a change in driver behaviour that is required.



I'm not sure that your first statement is a given. If we re-word it as "the child is potentially putting themselves in danger if they do not see a car. Will DRLs make the car a little more visible and therefore help the child not to put themselves in danger?" then indeed DRLs might help that situation. It is hard to see that a child (or an adult) would be less likely to be able to see a car if they have DRLs. DRLs are not in and of themselves, camouflage and it can be reasonably demonstrated that in many situations, a car with DRLs is more visible than one without.

I also think there is some false equivalence here. I don't think that DRL solves the problem of children being hit. That's never been the intention of DRLs and isn't the sole point of them. The original intention as I mentioned some pages back, was to reduce the incidence of certain types of crashes in Scandinavian countries which have a lot of "dark" daylight hours.

I do however agree with you that DRLs or not DRLs has no bearing on driver behaviour, which would, for this scenario, achieve a much better outcome. This is why in the UK, many residential areas, areas near schools etc are set at 20mph instead of 30mph. The point remains however that I don't think there any much evidence to suggest that having DRLs is creating a problem.


----------



## icowden (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Nope, an inattentive driver is an inattentive driver. those who look see, those who don't, don't .



Now a truism. Most drivers have moments of inattention. It is very common when you are driving down roads that you are most familiar with. Therefore doing something that draws attention interrupts that inattention. It does not follow that because someone is inattentive that their attention is focused on something else more important, only that their attention has not been drawn to something which they might need to pay attention to.


----------



## Mark pallister (19 Dec 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Nope, an inattentive driver is an inattentive driver. those who look see, those who don't, don't . The issue is people who can cause serious harm not adjusting their behaviour and not paying attention to what they should.
> 
> If you are drawing attention to someone or something then you are taking someone's attention away from something or someone else. So what is the something or someone else you are taking their attention away from?


Oh well I’ll just bin my bike lights and wear all black at night ,I don’t want to be guilty of distracting any car drivers


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> So, this is an opinion piece written by Robert Davies which references as the only source of data a book by Robert Davies which is out of print.


The book may be out of print, but it's available as a free ebook download containing copious references. The main accusation you can level at it is its age, but be-seen campaigns aren't new and there's been no stunning new research recently, which is itself suspicious given how hard the myth has been sold at regular intervals.



icowden said:


> It is full of lines like but neglects to mention that Mikael is very quiet on the subject of whether there is a lack of evidence to show actual increases in casualty rates as a result of this kind of programme.
> 
> In other words, lack of evidence of improvement doesn't mean it does or doesn't work. The whole article is based on an assumption which the author offers no evidence for, namely that an increase in people using safety equipment may create danger by increasing the incidence of victim blaming.


Meanwhile, in the real world, we should require evidence that health interventions work and don't do harm, not merely a lack of evidence that they do no good!

And is there really any doubt that creating an expectation that all cyclists should wear particular items leads to criticism of any that are not? I would be astonished if any survey of mainstream news reports didn't identify a clear strand of this.



icowden said:


> CyclingUK have a similar article - they are concerned that there is a public health issue in that it may dissuade people from cycling because they feel the need to buy helmets, clothing etc. But most of their stats are over 20 years old, and even they shy away from the topic of whether or not safety equipment actually works in favour of arguing that by discouraging people from cycling you could create a public health issue.


I don't know what article you mean but is it really that they "shy away" or that they concentrate on the biggest argument first: that the discouragement of physical activity makes irrelevant the whole controversy about whether or not something is protective in practice.



> It is clear that more research is needed, but of the research that exists, and a basic understanding of forces, physics etc, it suggests that protection is likely, on balance, to be better than not protection. This can be demonstrated with a simple experiment. You need your hand, a cheese grater and a glove. Put the glove on your hand. Rub the cheese grater on your hand.


Oh blimey is this old fallacy a typical argument in favour of be-seen now?  Obviously, the best approach to avoid injury with a cheese grater is not to rub it on your hand even if an evil experimenter tells you to!

I also think that protection being better than no protection is disproved by a similar but far more natural example: wearing gauntlets while pruning rose bushes. I don't do it because the increased size of gauntlets greatly increases the risk of snagging and then being stabbed by thorns. Instead, I watch carefully where I'm putting my arm and use long-handled cutters for the branches further into the bush - and if I get it wrong, the scratchy feeling of a thorn tip is an early warning which allows me to withdraw before becoming caught on it, which is something gauntlets don't allow. By the time you feel the tip of a thorn on your skin through a gauntlet, your hand is stuck. Maybe you could cut the gauntlet off without moving at all and impaling your hand but I couldn't.

Now, returning to cycling protection, the question is whether the harm it does from increasing various risks (of crashing, of people giving up cycling) outweighs the benefit. Attempts to reframe it as a simple physics question that looks only at benefits are misleading and should be considered harmful.



> I have found a study which showed that a reflective jacket seemed to provide some benefit over not wearing a reflective jacket. I have still not found a single decent quality study which suggests the reverse. I have seen only once study which suggested the opposite and the authors of that study recommended caution when interpreting the results as the sample size was extremely small.


And yet, it seems like you're not confident enough in either study to cite them. I've never seen a single decent quality study which suggests conspicuity aids have any significant effect good or bad, which means they are a distraction from doing things which are more likely to have benefits.



> Yes, there may be a public health issue if say helmets or high viz were mandated and it might dissuade people. However I think that is likely to be countered by the growing interest in using healthier forms of transport and the effect of travelling in numbers. In that there London for example, where cyclists used to be a rare sight, they now often fill the roads, and there is quite a degree of safety in numbers.


Who cares if the discouragement of that safety theatre is countered? Without it, there would be even more cycling and so even greater benefits. Cyclists advocating be-seen measures seems like an act of mostly communal self-harm.


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> Oh well I’ll just bin my bike lights and wear all black at night ,I don’t want to be guilty of distracting any car drivers


On a similar note, I do actually turn my lights off or down in fog when I'm riding on a certain bi-directional cycle track to the right of a bendy road because I don't want a motorist travelling in the same direction to be misled into following my back light and thereby straying into the oncoming traffic lane between us. I try to avoid that one in that direction at night because the law says to use lights regardless of such concerns and the standlights only last a few minutes.


----------



## icowden (19 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> And yet, it seems like you're not confident enough in either study to cite them. I've never seen a single decent quality study which suggests conspicuity aids have any significant effect good or bad, which means they are a distraction from doing things which are more likely to have benefits.



I have cited them multiple times on this site. I didn't want to repeat myself. But, this is the copenhagan study of 7000 cyclists:-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

There is a newer study by University of Nottingham but the sample was just 76 cyclists and the researchers warn not to draw inferences from the study because of the small sample size.

Incidentally I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from your premise. It doesn't follow that because something does or doesn't have a significant effect that it becomes a distraction. Also the Copenhagan study does demonstrate what could be considered a significant effect.


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> I'm not sure that your first statement is a given. If we re-word it as "the child is potentially putting themselves in danger if they do not see a car. Will DRLs make the car a little more visible and therefore help the child not to put themselves in danger?" then indeed DRLs might help that situation. It is hard to see that a child (or an adult) would be less likely to be able to see a car if they have DRLs. DRLs are not in and of themselves, camouflage and it can be reasonably demonstrated that in many situations, a car with DRLs is more visible than one without.


1. It can also be reasonably demonstrated that in many situations, it is more difficult to judge the approach speed of a car with DRLs.
2. Do we really want to go down the road of blaming children for "putting themselves in danger"? This smacks of blaming people who get stabbed for daring to go into certain parts of town and other dodgy things. It's the bad drivers who put such children in danger. Maybe with a side order of blame for government failing to regulate this well for decades.


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> I have cited them multiple times on this site. I didn't want to repeat myself. But, this is the copenhagan study of 7000 cyclists:-
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528


That's 6800 self-selected cyclists self-reporting accidents, with the tested jacket having "TEST PILOT" emblazoned across it which I suspect will have had more effect on other road users than the colour or small reflective stripes. Also, the paper doesn't include a parallel analysis of the single-party "personal injury accidents" which seems a bit odd given its potential to sanity-check the similarity of the test and control groups.

In short, even without me spending the time getting into the numbers, I think we disagree about whether that's a "decent quality study".



icowden said:


> It doesn't follow that because something does or doesn't have a significant effect that it becomes a distraction.


How can people promoting a measure that doesn't work not be a distraction from the real issues?


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, we should require evidence that health interventions work and don't do harm, not merely a lack of evidence that they do no good!


This really important. And it's also important not to use the "well it stands to reason ... it must work" argument. "It's bright and shiny, it must save loads of kiddies' lives! Stands to reason." That's like (to continue the health care analogy) the doctrine of signatures. "But it's lungwort - of course it's good for the lungs. Stands to reason."

Personally I find myself somewhere in the middle. I'm happily susceptible to the St Christopher effect myself, as mentioned in another thread about carrying extra tools to ward off the pixies. 

A bit like my dentist who admitted to taking some quack remedy or other for knee pain even though he really knew it was worthless. I wanted say to him "but you're medically trained, don't be such a plonker" but as he had a drill in his hand I kept quiet.


----------



## icowden (19 Dec 2019)

mjr said:


> That's 6800 self-selected cyclists self-reporting accidents, with the tested jacket having "TEST PILOT" emblazoned across it which I suspect will have had more effect on other road users than the colour or small reflective stripes. Also, the paper doesn't include a parallel analysis of the single-party "personal injury accidents" which seems a bit odd given its potential to sanity-check the similarity of the test and control groups.
> 
> In short, even without me spending the time getting into the numbers, I think we disagree about whether that's a "decent quality study".
> 
> ...



It doesn't include single party as obviously if you fall off your bike and no one else is involved, the jacket you are wearing is somewhat irrelevant.
Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work, so your last sentence is nonsensical. You have also provided no research as to what these "real issues" are that you are so keen on.


----------



## Dogtrousers (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work,


Just an aside , but isn't that attempting to prove a negative? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that jazz.

The thing that needs to be tested is whether a measure works. Not whether it doesn't.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> I don't think there any much evidence to suggest that having DRLs is creating a problem.



If you've ever looked directly at a bright light, then the iris contracts, and it reduces the amount of light hitting the retina. This is the temporary blinding effects the lights have on the viewer. DRLs are bright lights and they are reducing the ability of those who see them of seeing other stuff they really should be able to see. We should be allowing people's eyes to be correctly adjusted to the ambient light so they can see everything going on, with appropriate contrast, not just a few sources where bright lights are.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (19 Dec 2019)

Mark pallister said:


> Oh well I’ll just bin my bike lights and wear all black at night ,I don’t want to be guilty of distracting any car drivers



Wear what you like, it makes no difference to whether a numpty hits you. But please have your lights on at night. Unlike daytime a car driver will not see you in plenty of time at night, if you don't have lights.


----------



## hatler (19 Dec 2019)

Ref kids running out without looking and DRL covered cars and the likelihood of there being a collision, with respect, this isn't the point.

The point is that it is hard to judge the speed of a DRL clad car. The danger comes therefore when the pedestrian/cyclist/other road user sees the car, misjudges its speed, crosses in front of it thinking there's plenty of time and then finding out (painfully) that there wasn't.


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2019)

icowden said:


> It doesn't include single party as obviously if you fall off your bike and no one else is involved, the jacket you are wearing is somewhat irrelevant.


Exactly My point! It should show no effect across the board, shouldn't it? I wonder why it's missing.



> Again you cannot and have not demonstrated that as a measure it doesn't work, so your last sentence is nonsensical. You have also provided no research as to what these "real issues" are that you are so keen on.


The failure of proponents over decades to prove it works is sufficient proof that it doesn't work.

I've pointed you at the book "Death on the Streets" which would be a good start.


----------



## Randomnerd (19 Dec 2019)

The OP wanted to know about day lights for his bike. You’ve had a good OT tussle, but what’s the verdict on lights on bikes in the day? 

Did I miss the conclusion?

FWIW IME they’re a fad becoming a thing becoming the thing becoming why-don’t-you-run-‘em-weirdo. I’m only a chopper, meandering along for utility and pleasure; no road rat. Faced with bike day lights I’ve met, I see two camps. One lit-up tribe come out of the woods at me with retina searing beams on full suspension MTBs. Happened a fair bit over the last three years, but rare before. The other sparkly tribe I can hear coming as I spot the pupil bursting dots in the verge a mile off: the blinking castanet cassette crew are approaching, their on off search beams warning all who have eyes that they’re not to be violated.

It’s only my view, but lights all the time, particularly really bright flashing lights, seems a waste of time. I rely on road craft and craning my neck a lot to keep safe. All drivers are killers when I’m on a bike, and anything which might give me a sense of “safety” could undermine that attitude. 

As for lights on cars in full sun and mountains of hi vis, it’s bonkers. I’m of the Tufty and Green Cross Code era - safety was drummed into us. Cars were bright green and orange and daffodil yellow in the seventies and could be seen on Mars. My school pal at primary still got killed by a carefully driven turquoise Datsun while crossing the road outside school. Accident.


----------



## Drago (20 Dec 2019)

Mr Spoons, the verdict depends on who you ask.

I say no in good daylight conditions, and yes in murky daylight, poor visibility, and at night. 

Others prefer to do different for no more reason than they feel it must make them safer, but seem unable to evidence that point.


----------



## icowden (21 Dec 2019)

Dogtrousers said:


> The thing that needs to be tested is whether a measure works. Not whether it doesn't.



Yes - I may have badly explained my point. I have found studies that suggest the measure works despite @mjr's assertion that no-one has proved it works.

@FWIW i agree with @Drago , some common sense needs to be used. If the light is poor, it is better to be cautious and lit, than less visible.
As for DRLs on cars - frankly they annoy me  (but I understand why they are present, and don't begrudge their existence)...


----------

