Visibility

[classic33]

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?

Amended a few times since then.

Is it not now "when the sun is below the horizon" when lights are required, not between "sunrise and sunset".

 

[Baldy]

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

I think it was a requirement for cars and bikes to have light long before anyone had even thought about forming the EU.

 

[Mo1959]

I think it was a requirement for cars and bikes to have light long before anyone had even thought about forming the EU.

Do you remember as a kid if your parents had a car that sat parked in the street, they had to affix a light to the side that stayed on all night.

 

[mjr]

Amended a few times since then.

Is it not now "when the sun is below the horizon" when lights are required, not between "sunrise and sunset".

I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.

Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.

 

[winjim]

I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.

Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.

I think that due to light refraction the sun is already 'below' the horizon before we perceive it to be. I'll leave it for someone else to argue that in court. Might be the other way round even.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

I we had SEEN the cyclist, we would not have crossed in front of him. This was on the way TO the pub, not FROM the pub, incidentally.

 

[BoldonLad]

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


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

Couldn't the same be said of drivers?

 

[presta]

please tell me how to be invisible

Like this. Evolution wouldn't have produced camouflage if it didn't work.

The national average reaction time for a stimulus that you’re poised waiting for is 300ms, and the Highway Code allows 667ms (because not all drivers are average), but the two second rule recognises that hazards occur unexpectedly when people are not expecting them. This is what would happen to the stopping distances in the Highway Code if it took 5s to spot a well camouflaged hazard:

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518309871
Conclusion
"The attentional selection of a cyclist in the road environment during car driving depends partly on bottom-up processing (such as saliency related to colour contrast). However, the yellow cyclist jacket proved to be insufficient as a visibility aid."

 

[winjim]

Couldn't the same be said of drivers?

Well... I guess everybody should be following the guidance in the highway code which isn't law, but as a cyclist I don't necessarily do that so I can't expect it of drivers.

 

[Dolorous Edd]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925753518309871
Conclusion
"The attentional selection of a cyclist in the road environment during car driving depends partly on bottom-up processing (such as saliency related to colour contrast). However, the yellow cyclist jacket proved to be insufficient as a visibility aid."

The authors' conclusion - but one that is, like their use of the word "insufficient", a tortured representation of the actual results of the study:

Motorists detected cyclists wearing jackets at a greater distance, but only in those situations previously identified as being of high cyclist visibility.

In other words, it helps. Sometimes, but not always.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

A conclusion, and use of the word "insufficient", that is a tortured representation of the actual results of the study:

It was written by the authors of the study.

They also observed: " Motorists were able to estimate cyclist visibility correctly based on the type of situation, but were unable to evaluate the jacket’s effect on cyclist visibility. "

 

[Dolorous Edd]

It was written by the authors of the study.

I did not mean to imply otherwise - have edited my comment.

 

[classic33]

I think you mean "between sunset and sunrise" but not as far as I can tell. None of the amendments have changed that, but "sunset" and "sunrise" are not defined in the regulations. It might be that the courts define it as something to do with the sun and horizon, but I suspect they might just take whatever the Met Office publishes and, really, if you're in a situation where you're arguing about the few minutes between the sun touching the horizon and going below it, you're probably in trouble already.

Much of the time, I can't see the exact horizon for buildings, hedges, woods or sometimes hills, so I don't cut it too fine. I usually want the headlight to see before the sun is completely down anyway.

No, I meant "when the sun is below the horizon". The last change/amendment to the regulations.

And if your bike was built before 1985, it doesn't require pedal reflectors, under the current regulations. I've one such bike.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well... I guess everybody should be following the guidance in the highway code which isn't law, but as a cyclist I don't necessarily do that so I can't expect it of drivers.

Hmm. Are you selective in which sections you choose to not follow, or, accept that drivers do not follow? For example, the sections on overtaking cyclists.