"
Great - so everyone will notice cars more. Safer for everyone."
At the expense of noticing other things ...
"
No, they solely and exclusively make the cars more noticeable. Zero effect on everything else. You ar e talking absolute nonesense."
Ahhh, so the nub of your argument is that people's attention is infinite: Causing people to take more notice of one thing does not detract from their ability to notice other important items. This contradicts my experience (try listening to birdsong whilst someone plays rock music in the next garden. Notice that car indicator lights are not noticeable if you are in the direct line of the headlights - this is called ‘visual darkening').
The extension of this of course is that mobile 'phone use whilst driving is not dangerous: After all, people can divide their attention between infinite number of things and still pay attention to them all. Wrong David, they can't. People will look for car-bright lights and ignore dimmer or unlit bikes.
"
It's a part of the process by which our roads have become safer for all, including cyclits. We kill and injure less people now than at any time in the past 65 years, that includes cyclists. Still far too many but less than in the past."
We'd kill and injure even less people if no-one ever went out except in brightly-lit cars but the increased deaths caused by lack of exercise would more than compensate;
this is exactly what has been happening over the past 65 years.
"
Is lighting us up like Christmas Trees laughed at by non-cyclists? Not to any extent. You are wrong."
WaaaHAHaHA!!!!
No David, you are wrong. From my personal experience, many do laugh at cycle wear. Perhaps I mix a bit more than you do in non-cycling circles but it is certainly seen as ridiculous by many.
"
Does this ridicule discourage people from cycling? No, not to any significant extent. Any disouragement is from the (incorrect) perception that cyling is dangerous and from the culture where cars are seen as 'cool'."
Wrong again (and highlighted by your admission that cars are "cool" - a.o.t. dressing like a Christmas Tree).
First the two issues are directly linked: It is believed that we need to dress ridiculously because cycling is unsafe.
Second many of my colleagues over the years have wished they dared to cycle, but "couldn't bring myself to dress like that, I'd look like an idiot". People are very image-conscious you know!
"
Does the extra cost of all this hi-tech lighting put people off cycling? No, not in the slightest. The cost of effective daytime lighting for a bike, as fitted to my round town bike, is no more than £20. For that you get lighting which gets complaints about its brighness (2 x 1/2 watt Smarts at the back at £5 each, Electron 4 LED front at £7.50 which gives high intensity low illumination. No use for seeing the way in the dark but shows up like a lighthouse). "
Oh! These:
http://www.google.co...ed=0CDAQ8wIwAw# and
http://www.bikeradar...ar-light-29688?
Sorry David but merely compliant (are they even compliant?) lighting is not enough to get noticed in a complex and brightly lit environment. I cycled for over 20 years in London, occasionally returning since and whilst noticeable in a shop or an office and perhaps "annoyingly bright" from directly behind, those lights don't spread their high intensity wide enough to be noticed out of the corner of a driver's eye when you are at the wrong angle. I've cycled and driven past many such and they are effectively invisible from inside a car (especially in the rain) unless you are directly behind them.
"
Will motor vehicles always be able to generate more light than non-motorised? But they won't, they'll operate with the legal minimum finding the cheapest way to meet the rules. Power, using LEDs, is a marginal issue."
LEDs are good but not magic. More LEDs for wider spread of bright lights require more power. If it's such a marginal issue why do decent LED lights like Hope Vision warn only to use top quality batteries and that these will die suddenly? It's because they use power David and to get longer run-times or brighter lights you need more batteries. This is why they have dimmer options on high power cycle lights - but those on cars will be set to the maximum brightness that multiple (more) LEDs can give.
They won't need " the cheapest way to meet the rules" because unlike cyclists they won't have to buy batteries (disposable or high-quality rechargeable).
"
You are wrong, the experience in other countries demonstrates that I am right, thats why it's being introduced Europe-wide. I can find no logic, sense or reason in your arguments. I am absolutely in favour of DRL. I'm not expecting to persuade you - only the positive results of their introduction will do that."
"No logic, sense or reason" really!
Honestly I can find none of those in your denial that human attention is infinite.
Experience in other European countries is mixed. No study in Europe has shown DRLs to save lives, only to reduce collisions for those vehicles fitted. I'm sure you realise that the Scandinavian countries (where there is a positive effect from DRLs) have significant areas which are permanently dark in winter. They also have more large wild animals and most of the decrease in collisions is accounted for by collisions with animals. The side effects of this legislation have simply been ignored.
"
OK, I'll put my comments in. I think you are wrong, and that DRLs will inprove road safety. So do those who've studied the issue for Europe (AFAIK it's not the EU it's the roads body which includes other states as well"
So we should put our trust in the Eurocrats: Uncle knows best because he has "studied the issue for Europe"! You do know the studies that 'proved' cycles were more noticeable, were done using photographs of roads? Of course Uncle is not influenced by any business considerations, nor can there be anything else than our safety in his collective mind.
David, you trust them therefore I am wrong, as is the CTC
http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?TabID=4681 and other organisations who have studied the evidence with less input from business concerns (e.g.
http://www.dadrl.org...DRLstudies.html). I am certainly not going to dissuade you from your trust in the honourable and trustworthy nature of central government (in this case European) bureaucrats, but I hope you won't continue to trust those little 'safety lights'.
