Visibility

[ianrauk]

I don't ever really advocate punching the terminally stupid, but he'd push me close....

Something like that did cross my mind.

 

[BoldonLad]

Some car manufacturer has decided that cars need to put on inappropriately bright lights on unnecessary occasions so now as a cyclist I need to put on inappropriately bright and flashing lights?

Under streetlights they're not needed and without streetlights, reflectors do a fine job. Bright lights are dazzling and distracting, I'd happily take a sledgehammer to the lot of them. Bike lights should be calibrated to the brightness of a single 1980s Ever Ready and no more.

I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.

I feel like Volvo (maybe others) were offering DRLs at this point already, however it was an Eu directive from Feb 2011

 

[Alex321]

Again I'm not sure we are entirely in disagreement but your op came across as extremely combative, boldly telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

Sorry about that. I was continuing a discussion from another thread which wasn't really appropriate for that thread.

Possibly because I have autistic sensory issues but I find bright and flashing lights overwhelming at times which obviously doesn't improve the safety of my riding or driving so I have very strong opinions on this subject.

I can see that could be an issue for you. But what studies there have been show a definite reduction in collisions when lights are showing. So overall, it is safer, even though for some people it may not be.

I mention pedal reflectors as you brought up illegality. They are a legal requirement at night, however lights in poor visibility due to foul weather are not, which is a situation in which automatic vehicle lights will activate.

True. I believe that they should be a legal requirement in poor visibility conditions, but the issue then is how you define "poor visibility". Night has a definition (from 30 minutes after sunset) which is simple, but poor visibility is more a case of "I can recognise it when I am in it" than having an easy way to define it.

 

[BoldonLad]

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.

 

[Alex321]

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.

Absolutely.

It shouldn't be car v cyclist, or anything v anything else. As I have already said in this thread, we ALL have a responsibility to give ourselves the best chance of being seen. That is true whether you are a pedestrian, a cyclist, a horse rider, a car drive, or any other road user I have missed.

I believe a large number of road collisions occur because somebody didn't see/notice something in time to react appropriately. This may well have been down to poor observational skills on their part, but that doesn't help you much if you are dead or injured as a result. Anything we can reaonsably do to increase the chance of being seen early enough is beneficial IMV. Regardless of what type of road user you are.

 

[mjr]

True. I believe that they should be a legal requirement in poor visibility conditions, but the issue then is how you define "poor visibility". Night has a definition (from 30 minutes after sunset) which is simple, [...]

Yes, but that definition has not been used for the lighting requirement for at least 31 years and the requirement is to be lit "between sunset and sunrise" as well as "in seriously reduced visibility", in part (1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24/made

Are you sure you know the vehicle lighting laws?

 

[cougie uk]

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.

Cyclist definitely should have had lights on. You still get drivers not putting lights on at night or in bad weather in daytime.

Personally as a cyclist - I'd not want to get mown down by a car either - so lights for me.

 

[mjr]

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.

Yes, of course, cyclists have a responsibility to other road users, but how exactly would seeing them coming help if they knock you over? It sounds like the problem is the cyclist failing to yield to other road users, not whether the walker could see them and dive out of the way.

Also, I don't think anyone much is arguing against headlights so much as noting the drawbacks of the lighting arms race and how it's still unfolding just as CTC and others predicted.

 

[mjr]

The other is not blaming anybody. It is merely saying that for the sake of safety, we should all do whatever we reasonably can to increase the chances of being seen.

How is that not putting the responsibility on the potential victim in a similar way?

This is not a "cyclists v motorists" thing. We should ALL take reasonable steps to improve the chances of being seen. It is a [b[requirement[/b] after dark to have lights on both cars and bicycles. It is common sense to do so in situations where visibility is poor, even when maybe not absolutely legally required..

As I mentioned in another post, it is absolutely legally required in poor visibility.

I agree it's not a cyclists v motorists thing. I believe the law is unjust, but it's reasonable to comply with it. What's unreasonable is all the extra guff put on cyclists about wearing bright/reflective clothing that won't provoke potential attackers because it will allow incompetent or defective ones to see you a few milliseconds earlier.

If you are wearing dark clothing, with no skin or reflective items exposed, in the dark, then you are very nearly invisible.

"very nearly invisible" still means visible. Tell me how to be invisible.

Can you cite the part of the licence which says that?

Sure. Why can't you? Do you hold such a licence?

The old full paper licence said "The person named is hereby licensed to drive motor vehicles of groups [TYPEWRITTEN] all subject to reaching the minimum ages for driving specified overleaf and in accordance with the law." I'm not sure what the current equivalent is because I'm at work and only have my current photocard with me. I expect it's in amongst the paperwork that was sent with it, on file at home.

The law currently require drivers to meet the National Standard for Driving Cars and Light Vans (Category B), element 4.2.2 of which requires "you must be able to" "drive at such a speed that you can always stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear"

While I am sure there is some truth in that, it would be far more dangerous overall to not have those lights.

Prove it. Or even show much evidence for it.

We have to live in the world as it is. Getting ourselves killed for a point of principle will not change driving habits, nor will it change the law in this respect - unless it gets changed to require lights at all times.

"Utter rubbish" as you say. We do not have to meekly accept the car-dominated world. We can work to change driving habits and the laws. No, not by getting ourselves killed — even though as I mentioned, unlit riders are vastly underrepresented in casualty reports — but by campaigning and pushing back against this unreasonable blame-shifting.

I do not believe for one moment that you are stupid enough to ride after dark in dark unreflective clothing with no lights. So why are you suggesting it is Ok for others to be that stupid?

I do have lights mainly because I live in a village with some unlit streets (some gravel) and I like to see where I'm going, and partly because I don't like being delayed and fined by the police once in a blue moon (which is deeply ironic because local police cyclists use Cateye shoot instead of legal lights)... but I suggest it's OK for others to be that stupid because they generally don't hurt anyone and we should all be looking out for unlit objects in our path anyway.

Sometimes I ride in dark clothing because I may be going to a business or government event where sober business dress is most appropriate, or maybe I'm wearing my big black trenchcoat. None of my suits have reflective bits: do yours?

Incorrect. The other thing we can do is increase the chance of being seen by making ourselves more obvious.

What is more obvious? Over on another site, someone proudly posted a picture of themselves in hi-vis, but the reflectives on their back and the backs of their legs made an outlined white rectangle on top of two posts, accidentally making them look pretty much like a temporary road sign. The main thing that would alert a hurrying driver to them being a cyclist would be the movement. That's not obvious.

Also, I suggest that if we're going to ignore what should be and deal with the world as it is, then making ourselves look like obvious cyclists by using flashing lights and wearing too much reflective clothing makes us more likely to be ignored/dismissed and it's far better to make our bikes look more like motorcycles with a single nice big steady back light and maybe a yellow reflective square beneath it. All motorists are scared of hitting motorcycles if only because they damage their precious vehicles in a collision, whereas some simply don't care about cyclists.

 

[Alex321]

Yes, but that definition has not been used for the lighting requirement for at least 31 years and the requirement is to be lit "between sunset and sunrise" as well as "in seriously reduced visibility", in part (1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/regulation/24/made

Are you sure you know the vehicle lighting laws?

Not completely. There are rather a lot of provisions

That definition is actually still used for when you need to use headlights though, as that is defined as "during the hours of darkness" (and in conditions of severely reduced visibility) in regulation 25. And "the hours of darkness" is defined in regulation 3 as being half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise.

I accept I had forgotten that only applies to the use of headlights though, and that the rest of your lights must be illuminated between sunset and sunrise. Which is still an easy definition.

"Seriously reduced visibility" has not been defined in the legislation. Though the highway code suggests it is when you cannot see more than 100 metres.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hig...adverse-weather-conditions-226-to-237#rule226

And it does annoy me how many drivers ignore (or don't know) that it is illegal to have fog lights on except in conditions of severely reduced visibility.

As pointed out in this thread, over bright lights can be just as problematic as not enough lighting.

 

[mjr]

Either there is a correlation between taking measures to ensure (or improve) your visibility and the likelihood of being hit in a SMIDSY, or there isn't.

Can anyone point to a rigorous study that illuminates (sorry!) the debate?

The famous Dr Ian Walker included hi-vis outfits in his study of clothing versus close-passing: http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/index.html "Bicyclists probably cannot prevent close overtakes by manipulating their appearance."

There is also a study by Phil Miller of the University of Nottingham "The use of conspicuity aids by cyclists and the risk of crashes involving other road users: a population based case-control study" which had the surprising conclusion "The results of this study show a non-significant increase in the odds of a crash for users compared to non-users of conspicuity aids" http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/

This was then echoed by Tin et al in 2015 looking at NZ (not great cycling country but it should at least remove any helmet effect...) "The role of conspicuity in preventing bicycle crashes involving a motor vehicle" which concluded "Conspicuity aids may not be effective in preventing bicycle–motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440447/

These and other studies were summarised in 2018 by Cycling UK at https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2018/06/1806_cyclinguk_hi-viz_brf.pdf and CamCycle at https://www.camcycle.org.uk/magazine/newsletter140/article23/

In the words of the last article's conclusion "Hi-viz is doing a lot of harm whenever it distracts politicians from supporting safer infrastructure." IMO any cyclists supporting this shoot need to rethink what they're doing.

 

[mjr]

That definition is actually still used for when you need to use headlights though, as that is defined as "during the hours of darkness" (and in conditions of severely reduced visibility) in regulation 25. And "the hours of darkness" is defined in regulation 3 as being half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise.

Which is all irrelevant to us because pedal cycles are not required to use headlights in the legal sense at all, but merely a "front position lamp", "rear position lamp", "rear retro reflector" and "pedal retro reflectors". (Schedule 1, Table III)

And it does annoy me how many drivers ignore (or don't know) that it is illegal to have fog lights on except in conditions of severely reduced visibility.

As pointed out in this thread, over bright lights can be just as problematic as not enough lighting.

Indeed, but the few nobbers with unnecessary foglights on annoy me far less than the dozens of them every trip with incorrect lights (what looks like a wide approach from a motorcycle turns out to be a close pass by a car driver) or no lights (because the bright streetlights mean they don't notice they haven't moved the stalk enough, or they're driving in fog only on daytime running lights).

 

[winjim]

I don’t think it was a car manufacturer who decided to have lights on, more a Government ((or EU) directive.

I feel like Volvo (maybe others) were offering DRLs at this point already, however it was an Eu directive from Feb 2011

I'm not talking about DRLs, which in any case have a special place in hell, I'm talking about automatic dim-dips.

The main thrust so far, appears to be the popular car vs cyclist line. Don’t cyclists have a responsibility to other vulnerable road / path users?, ie other cyclists a pedestrians. Last week, my 72 year old pal was knocked over by a black clad cyclist, no lights. It was 19:00, dark and raining, in a town centre side street. There were a group of four of us, walking, none of us saw the cyclist, as we crossed the road. Fortunately, no injuries, except dented pride.

Cyclists have a responsibility to obey the law and nothing more should be expected or demanded of them.

 

[winjim]

Which is all irrelevant to use because pedal cycles are not legally required to use headlights in the legal sense at all, but merely a "front position lamp", "rear position lamp", "rear retro reflector" and "pedal retro reflectors"

Much of the time when cars have headlamps lit the legal requirement is only for position lamps. Built up areas with a 30 limit IIRC.

Personally I drive most of the time with sidelights on. In daytime to dowse the DRLs and in the evening usually until I see the streetlamps are lit.

Walking to work today most cars had dim-dips on in the rain, some with sidelights but again there's no legal requirement for bikes to be lit at that point.