lighting up time

[bonj2]

unnecessary electricity use.
do you leave all your lights on in your house aswell, so as not to get burgled?

 

[bonj2]

yeah but you cna't prove it either way, nor can they. Unless there's a witness, but if there's a witness they'll say whose fault it was anyway.

 

[tdr1nka]

unnecessary electricity use.
do you leave all your lights on in your house aswell, so as not to get burgled?

No I don't leave all the house lights on, but as I don't run a TV and many other appliances, dishwasher, microwave, etc.
We use a sight less power than the average household.

FWIW, When I run my lights in the day I find that when in secondary, most drivers can see me in their near side and rear view mirrors and actually pull out further to give me room. This gives extra safety when I have Miss tdr1nka on the tandem.

 

[shimano]

here's my tuppence worth - lights on a bike are (predominately) for others to see you and not for you to see where you're going. Therefore consider lights as a defensive measure and use whenever you personally deem appropriate. If you're still not sure, light up when the cars, lorries and streetlights do - as long as it's not too late!

 

[bonj2]

Deary me.

Picture the court scene-

Court: "Mr Bonj, at the time of the accident the claimant said it was dark and you had no lights on. What do you say to this?"

Bonj: "It wasn't dark. So I didn't need my lights on."

Court: "Do you have anything to justify this claim?"

Bonj: "No. Because I don't have the ability to listen to anyone but myself. But mudguards are rubbish"

Court: "Fine -£500 for riding in the dark with no lights, as we don't have any national guidance available on times when you should use them, and £500 for talking rubbish about mudguards"

er... no. It would go more like this:
Court: "Mr Bonj, at the time of the accident the claimant said it was dark and you had no lights on. What do you say to this?"

Bonj: "I did have lights on. Have you got any evidence that I didn't?"

Court: "Er... no."

 

[anweledig]

When I am in my car I put the lights on whenever conditions seem to warrant it. This is not restricted to the hours of darkness. A few years ago I drove a volvo which had its lights on all the time. The whole point, outside pitch darkness when you want to see where you are going, is to be seen by others, if this means putting a light on during the day then do it. On the bike it doesn't really matter whose fault an accident is, the cyclist is the one who is going to end up in hospital or worse. So I would suggest that you don't worry about the legal position and maintain high visibility. I cover a few thousands of miles every year and have lost count of the number of cyclists I have just missed or only seen at the last minute. Last night I passed 3 in the space of about 15 minutes who were almost invisible at dusk. They may have been legal but if I didn't see them they would still be dead or injured. As a result I adopt the same policy when I am on my bike and light up whenever it will help me be seen.

cheers

Anweledig

 

[tdr1nka]

here's my tuppence worth - lights on a bike are (predominately) for others to see you and not for you to see where you're going. Therefore consider lights as a defensive measure and use whenever you personally deem appropriate. If you're still not sure, light up when the cars, lorries and streetlights do - as long as it's not too late!

With, IMO, the spectacular Ay-Up lights I get both, two independant lamps one points ahead to keep me visible while the other points at the road ahead.

I wanted lights that would both show me the road and make me visable to motorists.

Now I just want a DiNotte rear light to complete the set.

I ride in London and believe me all the more visible you are, a damn sight safer you are.

OK, both light sets are pretty pricey and together cost more than the bike I'm putting them on(nearly £300), but both sets come with good guarantees, are robust(not cheap plasticky things), I can easily switch them between bikes and they really do the job!

 

[ufkacbln]

I have a colleague who commutes on the Hayling Island Ferry.

She uses lights on one side, but not on the other as it saves her batteries, and the crossing coincided with "lighting up" time.

She was stopped by a Policeman for not having lights - she replied - "I don't need them - its after sunrise."

She ended up in a situation where the Policeman stated that thee was "decreased visibility" and there fore lights were required. Try proving "how bright" it was on a particular morning?

My personal "measure" is to look at lights in the environment - if they contribute to visibility I put mine on!

 

[Dayvo]

My personal "measure" is to look at lights in the environment - if they contribute to visibility I put mine on!

If you swop 'lights' for 'helmet' and 'visibility' for 'safety, then it sounds like a good argument for wearing a helmet!

 

[bonj2]

And what if you didn't have lights on because it wasn't dark enough, but the driver claimed that it was?

Aha! you didn't think about that did you?

you'd say you did have them on.
The world's full of people just going into rooms and saying things. We've been over this.

 

[CopperBrompton]

If visibility is in any doubt at all, I put my lights on. As has been pointed out, it doesn't cost anything, and I hate hospitals.

 

[ufkacbln]

If you swop 'lights' for 'helmet' and 'visibility' for 'safety, then it sounds like a good argument for wearing a helmet!

Except that lights are proven to work and do the job they were designed for?

 

[ufkacbln]

There is an interesting quote in Davis' "Death on the Roads" from a Sussex traffic officer who stated that in his career he had never seen a bicycle accident where lights (or lack of them) was a major factor!

The DfT has also stated that there is actually no data collected that allows a true image of the effect of conspicuity aids and lighting on accident rates in cyclists.

 

[tdr1nka]

There is an interesting quote in Davis' "Death on the Roads" from a Sussex traffic officer who stated that in his career he had never seen a bicycle accident where lights (or lack of them) was a major factor!

The DfT has also stated that there is actually no data collected that allows a true image of the effect of conspicuity aids and lighting on accident rates in cyclists.

So you could say some light needs to be shed on the matter?

 

[CopperBrompton]

'Death on the roads' is now decades old, so I'm not sure it can tell us much about today's roads.

It does seem crazy that no DfT study has been carried out, especially as there have been studies on the impact of car and motorcycle lights, including daylight running lights (which suggest a 15% reduction in collisions).

Ben