All bikes should be fitted with lights!

[ufkacbln]

Daytime lights are an excellent idea and reduce accidents, so why not make always-on lights compulsory? (See German, Danish, French, Netherlands, etc. research)

Be careful as this is not entirely true, i depends on the accident type

The studies as a whole are varied, some types of accidents such as rearend collisions actually increased by 20% in one study(1) and a 16% pedstrian / vehicle accident increase (2)



1. Elvik, R.: The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accid Anal Prev 25: 383-398 (1993).

2. Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights in Denmark--Evaluation of the safety effect. Danish Council of Road Safety Research, Copenhagen, 1993; Hansen, L. K.: Daytime running lights: Experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Fersi Conference, Lille, 1994.



2.

 

[MadoneRider1991]

im sorry but how the hell can aways on light be a good idea :s

this just means that the dam things will have run out off battery when you actually need them shorly

 

[ufkacbln]

Of course the whole point being missed is that lights are totally ineffective!

For example

A 720 lumen off road cycle light on full beam and I still cannot be seen. What would be the point of a frame mounted LED?

 

[ufkacbln]

Funnily enough if you read the 2005 Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations:

The only case of exemption from regulations is for cycles which are used ONLY in good visibility during daytime. These cycles are not required to be fitted with lights.

Department for Transport Guidance about lights on pedal cycles

 

[Davidc]

im sorry but how the hell can aways on light be a good idea :s

this just means that the dam things will have run out off battery when you actually need them shorly

If they run from any form of dynamo they won't run out, if on batteries then they need changing. If the batteries are rechargeables then they cost half of b***** all to run.

German regulations require bikes to be ftted with a dynamo. No reason why ours shouldn't.

 

[Davidc]

Of course the whole point being missed is that lights are totally ineffective!

For example

A 720 lumen off road cycle light on full beam and I still cannot be seen. What would be the point of a frame mounted LED?

That one idiot drives backwards without looking doesn't mean that lights are totally ineffective. It means they are only 99.99% effective rather than 100%. We all know that there are drivers around who are clinically blind. In the case of that driver it's unlikely that a football ground floodlight would have any effect. A large fine and a long driving ban for lack of due care and attention might be more useful if he/ she took any notice of it.

The point of the OP, before getting into the pros and cons of daytime lights, was that if movement powered lights were compulsory as original equipment on standard bikes, at a basic level, there would be less unlit bikes around, and less night time problems. Of course it isn't a cure all for night time cycling issues, but it would help with overall cycling safety.

In all this it's easy to lose sight of the fact that cycling has probably never been safer than it is now - but that shouldn't stop measures to improve it further.

 

[Cab]

The point of the OP, before getting into the pros and cons of daytime lights, was that if movement powered lights were compulsory as original equipment on standard bikes, at a basic level, there would be less unlit bikes around, and less night time problems. Of course it isn't a cure all for night time cycling issues, but it would help with overall cycling safety.

Lack of lights is a tiny contributory factor in cycling casualties. 2%.

Of all of the things that could be done to improve cycle safety... I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying that the amount effort and discussion concentrating on this is way out of proprotion. If anything, we're getting to the point where further discussion on this among cyclists lends a disproportionate credibility to the false claim that its all our own fault.

 

[chap]

I notice that there seems to be a certain amount to repetition going on, primarily because people either have not read the original post, or have ignored several illuminating posts by others. So hopefully with the use of colour - this one shall stand out.

• The post recommends non-battery lighting i.e. pedal-powered
• Always on lighting by definition cannot feasibly be battery powered
• There would be exceptions (e.g. racers or those who insist on batteries)
• It would not be extremely expensive (currently with little demand a set of Reelights cost £2030-40 )
• If they proved popular, then the price of these electromagnetic lights would be driven down.
• Popular public cycle schemes e.g. Vélib use always on lighting
• Londons public cycle scheme shall use always-on-lights (unfortunately in true TfL fashion, the website reveals precious little)
• Germany already has these laws
• Generally, Cycling is more popular and widespread in Germany than here

From that font of knowledge, Wikipedia:

Under the International Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) of the United Nations, a bicycle is a vehicle. Article 44 of the Convention stipulates that: "Cycles without an engine in international traffic shall: (c) Be equipped with a red reflecting device at the rear and with devices such that the cycle can show a white or selective-yellow light to the front and a red light to the rear." In some countries, for example France, it may be an offence to even sell a bicycle not fitted with legally compliant lighting system. Germany requires that all bikes over 11 kg are fitted with compliant dynamo lighting systems, but even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing.

 

[GrasB]

There seems to be a common theme, not just here, but all through the campaigning to get new laws on the statute book or increase to reinforce or enhance laws/restrictions that already aren't properly enforced. So how about we just add in a simple, relatively easy to enforce law that gives no one an excuse not to have road legal lights as they're supplied with a set when they get their bike?

 

[Cab]

The law would neither be enforced nor make things measurably better for cyclists, and it would be another institutionalised insistence that cycle accidents are caused by cyclists, an insidious, ever more pervasive myth.

Hire bikes in Cambridge (and there are a lot of them) from the biggest supplier have dynamos. And they're easy enough to use, as we all know. Yet you look at them on the streets (they're easy to spot, distinctive bikes) and they're just not used. Unless you're going to put massive effort into enforcing the use of such things (which cannot be justified based on safety data) then a rule like that is meaningless; it just becomes another stick for the petrolhead media to beat cyclists with.

 

[snorri]

Wot Cab said.

 

[Davidc]

That's easy Cab, if they're hub dynamos just take off the switches.

You are very very wrong Cab, a compulsory lights measure would greatly REDUCE the excuse for claiming that cyclists cause cycle accidents (unlike helmet propaganda which increases it) by decreasing the number of unlit bikes around.

Can't do any more but agree with Chap and GrasB

 

[MacB]

there is the difference between leisure and utility riding here, as keen hobbyists, cycle forum users are unlikely to fall strictly into the one category. Whether it should be a legal requirement or not is one argument. But making dynohubs, lights, guards and a rack, standard, rather than optional extras, on new commute/utility style bikes, makes sense to me. If you need to add all of these to a bike you're not getting any change out of £250. Even taking the cheapest options will still set you back £50+ to kit a bike out.

The only bikes I conceivably wouldn't want these options on would be proper racers and MTB's. Neither of which I consider particularly versatile for alternate use, though they can be modified, slicks on MTB's, seatpost racks on racers, etc.

 

[Davidc]

If you need to add all of these to a bike you're not getting any change out of £250. Even taking the cheapest options will still set you back £50+ to kit a bike out.

I think there's an important issue with this.

If you look at the lowest web pricing for all the components on a bike, bought separately, they add up to much more than the web price of the bike. It's cheaper to buy a new bike now than to replace a few standard components.

If a set of always on lights is £30 including VAT (as quoted above) it's reasonable to assume that they'd be £0.30 or less OEM price, and add less than £1.00 to the final cost of the bike.

Because the market would be small you'd then be paying £50 to replace broken ones though.

 

[MacB]

I think there's an important issue with this.

If you look at the lowest web pricing for all the components on a bike, bought separately, they add up to much more than the web price of the bike. It's cheaper to buy a new bike now than to replace a few standard components.

If a set of always on lights is £30 including VAT (as quoted above) it's reasonable to assume that they'd be £0.30 or less OEM price, and add less than £1.00 to the final cost of the bike.

Because the market would be small you'd then be paying £50 to replace broken ones though.

It's a good point and I've tried this out re a Fahrrad T900 Rohloff from Bikefix, which costs you £2k. This comes with Rohloff rear hub, SON front hub, lights, guards, rack, kickstand and Brooks saddle. It's a semi compact steel frame and probably not the lightest complete bike in the world. But just to buy a Rohloff/Son wheelset is going to hit you for £1600. Even going cheap and nasty, I can't build similar for less than £2400.