All bikes should be fitted with lights!

[Cab]

Well, what I wanted to express is that I don´t think this statistics is really revealing much, even if it is quotes correctly. BTW just tonight I almost crashed into an unlighted biker.

The stats are hugely revealing; they show unequivocally that riding without lights is not a major cause of cyclist injury or death. The more we concentrate on these red-herrings, the more we take our eye off the major causes of cycling accidents.

 

[Ian H]

Now, I agree that an unlit cyclist may well be visible under streetlights, but only if the driver happens to be looking in that direction.

Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.

My experience from behind a steering wheel is that, in a visually 'busy' environment (loads of bright objects as in a typical city street), lots of lights and reflectives can actually make a cyclist less visible, acting rather like dazzle camouflage.

 

[Norm]

Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.

Not necessarily, as a flashing light will be picked up in peripheral vision.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Um...yes, as with any obstacle ahead, lit or not.

My experience from behind a steering wheel is that, in a visually 'busy' environment (loads of bright objects as in a typical city street), lots of lights and reflectives can actually make a cyclist less visible, acting rather like dazzle camouflage.

That's utter codswallop, I'm afraid. I certainly won't be dilligently turning off my bicycle lights every time I enter an area with streetlights.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Not necessarily, as a flashing light will be picked up in peripheral vision.

Quite, that's my point. A cyclist (or a car driver: cars using only sidelights are no good either) needs to grab a driver's attention, wherever the driver is looking.

 

[Ian H]

That's utter codswallop, I'm afraid. I certainly won't be dilligently turning off my bicycle lights every time I enter an area with streetlights.

I'm not suggesting riding lightless. I am suggesting choosing carefully what illumination you use. Also trying to ensure that your overall shape is not broken up by too much random reflective stuff.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I'm not suggesting riding lightless. I am suggesting choosing carefully what illumination you use. Also trying to ensure that your overall shape is not broken up by too much random reflective stuff.

Right, OK. Your point about not breaking up shapes is a good one - the essence of camouflage is in disguising familiar shapes, after all - and it's why I use a roadworker's hi vis tabard. Well, the other reason is that I get them free from work. As for illumination, anything good and bright is better than nothing, but a constant light backed up by a flasher front and back would be my minimum.
Incidentally, I read somewhere that replica team kit, or highly patterned cycle clothing, can act as camouflage in daylight because it breaks up the outline of the rider. It was in C+, I think, a few years back.

 

[redfalo]

The stats are hugely revealing; they show unequivocally that riding without lights is not a major cause of cyclist injury or death. The more we concentrate on these red-herrings, the more we take our eye off the major causes of cycling accidents.

Can anyone email me the TLR report? [o dot storbeck at vhb dot de] Unfortunately they charge 20 quid for it.

I doubt that it is really possible to attribute the cause of an accident/fatality to one single source. When you´re run over by a car which takes your right of way, it's definetly the drivers fault even when you ride without lights. Such a crash will probably enter the statistics as "run over by motorized vehicle" or something like that. However, when you´re not run over because the driver sees you, you won´t appear in the death statistics.

 

[tyred]

I just don't see why anyone would have a problem with fitting lights to new bikes. Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment, I would consider it incredibly selfish for anyone to not try and make themselves as visible as is reasonably possible while using a public road. I have both dynamo lights and battery lights on the two bikes I normally ride. The battery lights will be removed for the summer but the dynamo lights will stay, always ready should I ride somewhere in the evening and find myself held up (and I carry spare bulbs for these lights inside the headlight casing). I always carry spare bulbs in my car and have stopped at the roadside to replace a fused bulb. If I'm walking on an unlit road (living in the countryside, I do this quite a bit), I will always wear reflectives so motorists can see me. I just consider it common courtesy and I consider it reasonable to expect others to do the same.

 

[thomas]

Rhythm Thief, you raise some good points. This would in fact show why blinking lights are in fact very useful to have from the perspective of being seen, since they demand ones attention.

Another thing with blinking, or flashing lights for cyclists is that if there's a flashing red light on the road it's nearly bound to be a cyclist, so drivers may subconsioucly see a flashing light and be aware they'll need to slow down/overtake with some space as there's a cyclist ahead.

Can anyone email me the TLR report? [o dot storbeck at vhb dot de] Unfortunately they charge 20 quid for it.

I believe there's an article in The Guardian that uses the statistics. Try and find that.

 

[Cab]

Leaving the accident statistics aside for a moment,

Why?

Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?

I'm in favour of using lights when its dark. I always do so. But when discussing the value of changing rules to make it mandatory for bikes to be sold with lights, why would we, even for a second, leave accident statistics aside?

We're going ever more towards a culture where the most vulnerable party in any incident is the one to blame. We're seeing children encouraged to wear hi-viz as pedestrians, we're seeing ever greater emphasis on cyclists to be visible. And while I accept that its wise and courteous to be well lit, its easy to lose all sense of perspective here unless we bear in mind the simple reality that there is not that great an improvement in safety from using lights.

 

[tyred]

Why?

Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?

I'm in favour of using lights when its dark. I always do so. But when discussing the value of changing rules to make it mandatory for bikes to be sold with lights, why would we, even for a second, leave accident statistics aside?

We're going ever more towards a culture where the most vulnerable party in any incident is the one to blame. We're seeing children encouraged to wear hi-viz as pedestrians, we're seeing ever greater emphasis on cyclists to be visible. And while I accept that its wise and courteous to be well lit, its easy to lose all sense of perspective here unless we bear in mind the simple reality that there is not that great an improvement in safety from using lights.

I 100% agree with people wearing hi viz as pedestrians. If you are only walking around town, where it is street lit and you will be on the pavement 99% of the time, it isn't needed. But to walk on an unlit road without making yourself visible, is inconsiderate, stupid and dangerous. Yes, the amount of incidents are probably small in the great scheme of things as the driver or cyclist will usually see the pedestrian, but only at the last minute. Is it not better to be visible well in advance? If people are stupid enough to wear dark clothes while walking on an unlit narrow road and expect people to see them, if people are stupid enough to ride bikes without lights and expect others to see them, I think reasonable steps need to be taken to protect them from themselves more than anything else.

 

[redfalo]

and I carry spare bulbs for these lights inside the headlight casing).

I´d strongly suggest to LED lights. They are much brighter and last forever

I believe there's an article in The Guardian that uses the statistics. Try and find that.

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

It really mentions the 2% figure.

Interestingly, CTC says that 80% of all bike crashs happen in daylight (http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/Cycling_Statistics.pdf) This means that the failure-of-using-light cause only relates to 20% of all bike accidents. If both numbers are true (and one makes the simplying assumption that the probabilities of dying in a crash which happens in daytime and at night are the same) that means that at night the failure to use lights is the cause for 10% of all fatalities.

Why?

Really, even for a moment, why would we do that?

My impression is that some use these statistics (which we do not know in detail) as an evidence for the weird argument that lights do not enhance safety and therefore should not be made mandatory.

 

[MadoneRider1991]

I´d strongly suggest to LED lights. They are much brighter and last forever

i would like to see some LED lights that last forever!!

 

[redfalo]

i would like to see some LED lights that last forever!!

http://www.nabendynamo.de/produkte/Edelux.html (website is only available in German, I´m afraid)

http://www.bumm.de/index-e.html?docu/175q-e.htm

Admittedly, I had a problem with one LED headlight from the first Generation after probably 3 years, right after warranty had expired. BUMM sent me a new one without any further question