- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
feature
Bontrager Flare Trek Factory RacingAre daytime bike lights a safety essential? Should you get daytime lights?
This article was originally published in August 2015
Should we ride with a rear light on during the daytime? Or perhaps we should go further and ride with both front and rear lights on even when the sun is shining?
We had a forum topic about this issue on road.cc a couple of years ago and what you might call a heated debate when Bontrager announced its Flare R rear light, designed specifically for daytime visibility, earlier in the year.
The reason we’re thinking about it again is that we went to visit Trek last week and the brand is really keen to promote the use of rear lights during the day. It even had the members of Trek Factory Racing ride the prologue of this year’s Tour de France on time trial bikes fitted with the Flare R “to promote awareness of the most important cycling accessory available today”.
Of course, your cynical side thinks that Trek wants to encourage the use of lights in the daytime because Bontrager, it’s sub-brand, produces that Flare R rear light. It’s simply a way of boosting sales.
Trek acknowledges that, of course, it has an interest in selling lights, but says that the key motivation for launching the Flare R was to keep cyclists safe.
“About two years ago, I was in San Diego, and I’m driving along during the day, and I see a biker, a road cyclist, and he’s got a blinking light on the back of his bike, and I thought, ‘That is a great idea,’” says Trek President John Burke. “The only problem is you could barely see his light.
“When I got back to Trek, I put together a team of engineers, and I said, ‘Listen, what I’d really like to see is a light on the back of a bike that can be seen during the day.’ If we could do that, I think it would significantly enhance the safety of cyclists everywhere.”
The result is the Flare R. Here’s John Burke’s short video presentation on the light.
Trek argues that using a light during the day makes sense because that’s when about 80% of cycling accidents occur.
Well, yeah, says your cynical side, but what percentage of cycling takes place during the day? Maybe that figure simply reflects the number of people on bikes during the daytime compared to the number who ride at night.
Trek also argues that, “Studies on accidents resulting in the fatality of a cyclist show that in 40% of all bicycle vs. car accidents, the victim was struck from behind.”
That statistic is from the US. Put a light on the back of your bike, the argument goes, and you’re less likely to be one of them.
“We think products like the Flare R allow a rider to have more control over their safety, putting us in both offensive and defensive positions on the road,” said Trek’s Chris Garrison. “We want to get people talking about increasing their visibility not just at night, but also during the day.”
Chris cites a recent AA-Populous poll as evidence that more cyclist visibility is required. In that poll 91% of drivers said that it’s sometimes hard to see cyclists while driving.
John Sullivan, an RAF pilot and keen cyclist, advised in his paper A Fighter Pilot’s Guide to Surviving on the Roads, “Aviation research shows that contrast is the single most important factor in determining the likelihood of acquiring an object visually – this is why military aircraft camouflage is designed to tone down their contrast.
"On the ground, dark coloured vehicles or clothing will result in reduced contrast against most usual backgrounds, and this is why high visibility clothing (for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists) and/or bright lights are so important, in the daytime as well as at night.”
Back at Trek, John Burke says, “People should be able to see you all the time. And when they do, you’re going to have a better riding experience. Get a new Flare R, or buy something else. What I care about is making sure you have a really safe cycling season.”
Of course, Trek didn’t invent riding with a rear light on during daylight. Some people have always done it and USE, for example, has been advocating it for years. The British lights brand says that its Exposure Flash front light and Flare rear light (yes, the same name as the Bontrager light) are designed specifically for both daytime and nighttime use (you could argue that USE, like Trek, has a vested interest in promoting more bike light use).
Our man Dave says, “I’ve used the Flare R rear light a lot and I’d say it makes a noticeable difference to the passes you get. Drivers tend to give you more space.”
Of course, that’s anecdotal evidence. If anyone knows of any scientific research that has been carried out, we’d be interested in hearing about it.
So, why do so few of us use lights during the daytime? We guess that most people don’t think it’s necessary, although some oppose the idea in principle.
“When a vehicle has lights on it makes any in front or behind without harder to see,” said Simon E in that road.cc thread mentioned earlier. “Every vehicle that runs with sidelights/LEDs/DRLs [daytime running lights] in the daytime is furthering the idea that you have to have lights on to be seen, so all the sheeple do the same. Baaaa! This means drivers to look only for lights, not other vehicles or people.
“Lights are NOT needed in daylight, whether on bikes, motorbikes or cars.”
In a comment under our story announcing the launch of the Flare R, McVittees said, “Whilst it is perfectly reasonable to want to run as bright a rear light as possible either during the day to warn cars or at night when riding on unlit country roads, I hate being stuck behind someone who is running a high output rear light at night during my urban commute. I find it distracting and obscures my vision of the road (and thus traffic) ahead.”
andyp said, “[Bontrager are] pouring money into something which will make them more money, not into solving a problem.”
What do you reckon? Do Trek’s arguments convince you that you should use a rear light during the day? Let us know what you think.
Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.
Latest Comments
- slc 1 hour 2 min ago
Joking aside, governments could require new cars to be fitted with smart ignition systems that operate only for a licensed driver. No doubt there...
- slc 1 hour 14 min ago
It sounds like a question from Ian Walker's motornormativity paper. Is it OK to dismember a (car|bike) when it is left in an inconvenient location?
- chrisonabike 8 hours 9 min ago
I have a visual memory from childhood of one of this species of bricks popping loose from a bracket on a downhill section and flying away to smash ...
- wtjs 8 hours 59 min ago
There is an increasing 'disconnect' between comments in this topic and reality. Cords are either all cotton or mostly cotton and are going to last...
- ktache 9 hours 30 min ago
There are people out there who will make you the belt out of your old tyre.
- chrisonabike 9 hours 31 min ago
Furry dice and an air freshener for your helmet.
- Simon E 10 hours 19 min ago
Ah yes, those are hopefully not the 'master craftsmen' that has constructed a wide range of shoddy Italian cars and motorbikes over the years with...
- Simon E 10 hours 41 min ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- chrisonabike 11 hours 33 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
Add new comment
212 comments
And pedestrians too, they should obviously be included in this line of thought. After all your odds of being run down while walking are about the same as when cycling. And the lights weigh hardly anything .....
Sounds like you need to battle your way through the Channel Tunnel and not come back if you feel so strongly negative about this country. Then just leave it for the rest of us who enjoy riding here with DRL's or not!
I'd agree. I'm fairly comfortable about the potential dangers in front of me because I can usually anticipate them and take avoiding action. It's the danger from behind that most concerns me because I won't see it coming.
I do think a flashing red light may help ... it might even penetrate the peripheral vision of a texting driver just in time for them to be alerted.
Again it is anecdotal but it does seem to me that most vehicles pass me with a significantly wider berth when I am running a flashing rear light in the daytime.
I think you and I have a different understanding of the words "evidence presented as to the effectiveness". I am looking for a reasonable statistical presentation which demonstrates that there is a measurable effect from running daytime rear lights.
I wonder how on earth your boss managed to see the bicycle with the puny light in the first place?
Sorry Surely, that was spell check on my iPad. God's honest!
Good point.
I'd say I have as many issues with pedestrians who just step out without looking as they don't hear an engine as I do with motorists.
Doesn't really matter how many lights we stick on - thick dozies will still be thick dozies. I had a near miss with one last night - assuming she's not blind the woman saw me, because she was looking straight at a 6'3" prop forward dressed as a banana, in broad daylight. She pulled out to overtake the car in front of her anyway, then pulled back in when it finally penetrated her brain that I was not riding at the 3 mph her small child is probably capable of on a pushbike. Frankly, no amount of additional lighting would have made the slightest difference.
I'd forgotten about that point, but thanks for reminding me. The difference I noticed after driving on foreign plates against UK plates is another thing altogether.
It was mentioned in the previous comment that we don't have a peer-reviewed study about this that we can reference. However, there's data about motorcycles that shows the use of lights during the day is effective.
That is an understandable comment but please also look at this. It gives a scientific explanation of why bikes may not "seen" by drivers in certain situations due to the way the human brain processes visual information. Even the best of us are at risk of of being "Dozies" when driving a vehicle.
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
I presume this was a reply to my comment about a 'dozy' pulling out to overtake when I was in the road space she would have needed to travel through to complete the manoeuvre. Yes, I have read the article you linked to - to believe it is in some way relevant requires me to believe that the woman was somehow not seeing properly the thing that was in the space she was about to enter. The implications of that are seriously scary, and if you really believe it you should be campaigning to remove drivers from the roads, not messing about with flashy lights.
We should wrap the pedestrians in some sort of protective layer as well. Perhaps they could be put in some sort of bubblewrap or polystyrene box, and the posted places instead of having to venture out unprotected. And then the box could be covered in lights. And everything would be okay!
Compulsory body armour within 30 months! The Highway Code's not changed at all since 2007. How much are you wagering?
Compulsory daytime lights on a car are IMHO as good a reason as you're gonna get not make them compulsory on a bike.
Smacks of "just because" rather than facts it reduces accidents.
It is not too many years since only Yankee visitors wore a cycle helmet in Britain.
Makes perfect sense, particularly on club runs (not flashing though)! I can't find any argument against having day lights.
On most days I won't bother if it's very sunny out, in fact, all the "incidents/near misses" I've had recently have been due to cars pulling right across in front of me at a junction. I cycle in the middle of the lane at junctions and have a high viz orange helmet, I highly doubt a little LED light (on the front) would stop this happening (sadly).
If a lack of blinking red lights were the secret to making the UKs roads safer, this would be the perfect solution...
Look at the places in the world where cycling is safest, then ask yourself what impact this is likely to have, and how much more 'safety' stuff cyclists will become obliged to use to avoid contributory negligence claims while we gaze across the Channel at a country where you are more likely to die drowning than on a bicycle.
In all the decades I've been riding, I've never been rear ended by a motor vehicle.
I've been side swiped by people being not aware that I'm still alongside them when they've turned in. I've had the usual dozy pillock pull out indicating right whilst looking left or with the phone over their eyes.... All the head-ons have been at night with relatively bright lights. But never had my back wheel driven onto.
I'm very sceptical at the usefullness of rear lights in daylight other than blind and annoy those behind.
Cue posting tomorrow morning ranting about the pillock that drove into the back of me.
I unfortunately have been rear ended while cycling. I, and the vehicle that hit me were stopped at traffic lights with a left filter. We were both going straight on. When the left filter lights changed to green the driver started forward, despite our light being red and me still sitting in primary in front. No amount of rear lighting will help against careless, un-observant drivers.
That's not really a reason not to have it though.
In generally I strongly believe that it's the cyclist's right to choose either to use light's during any time of the day. As long as it's motorist's responsibility to drive with caution and be aware of cyclists.
I would have to disagree with Trek, because this would cause to be a mandatory law on cyclists. I would rather leave it up to the cyclists to choose whether to have his lights on or off.
We ride with Cateye Rapid Mini Rears (USB rechargeable) on during the daylight, especially on the commute when the roads are busier and drivers a little more tense about getting from A-B. It's even more important to have them on some Sundays as well, as the weather is often typically sh*t and drivers seem hell bent on speeding around lanes at stupid speeds with even less consideration than on a week day. Just my experience. I recommend that light, it's very low weight and the rapid mode is very visible.
What is the world coming to when we feel the need to strap a flashy light to a 6ft tall lump of metal and meat in order for people nearby to be able to see it in the daytime?
QFT.
This should not be mandatory. But:
I always race TT with the rear flasher on.
I commute with powerful front and rear lights both set to strobe. Just to make doubly sure in traffic that I've made myself as visible as possible. Of course this will only really matter around drivers who were looking, but might have otherwise missed me in the grey blur of the world.
I think it's especially useful if it's raining though, visibility from a vehicle does suffer there, so making yourself stand out like a flashing Christmas tree might just save you.
It won't help me against the fecking ejits who don't care about my safety, but it might at least go some way to resolve myself of any contrib if I get taken out and their insurance tries to lay some blame on me.
It's a bit like the helmet debate. But lets not go there.
I run into a bit of the old dissonance here.
On the one hand, for numerous reasons I completely resist the notion that bicycles should essentially become cars:
http://singletrackworld.com/columns/2015/02/bez-the-wedge/
But on the other, I use a rear light most of the time. In fact, the overwhelming majority of my riding is done with dyno lighting which I leave it on all the time (front and rear).
There are a few reasons I use a rear light a lot:
- I never have to make a decision about when the conditions have deteriorated enough to warrant turning it on.
- If conditions suddenly deteriorate, such as going under full or dappled tree cover on a bright day, it's already on.
- I think I get fewer close passes when using a rear light (but this is hard to be objective about).
It's a pragmatic thing. I'm absolutely against the idea that people should be responsible for being seen, at the expense of the idea that people should avoid driving vehicles into things they failed to see, but equally I don't want to get hit.
Lights are one of the few things that, to my mind, do make a difference and don't unduly encumber me; unlike, say, hi-viz clothing. And I'm far more at ease with reasonable adaptations of the vehicle than I am with forcing the user to dress in a certain way.
Devil's advocate argument: "Making daytime lighting a legal requirement would trigger a sea change in bicycle lighting in the UK. You'd see more use of dynos, more bicycles sold with lighting, and fewer unlit bicycles at night." Discuss
The image that mrmo pointed out, though— http://www.bontrager.com/features/flare_r —can go and blow a goat. I think that's a pretty nasty piece of advertising.
No.
It transfers responsibility even further from the looker to the lookee.
I agree with the CTC's original position and reasoning when they actively campaigned against compulsory lights on cycles during the hours of darkness. At the time a cycle was only expected to have reflectors.
Why am I at 6'2" perfectly visible to motorists until I throw a leg over a cycle?
Yes I do use lights during the hours of darkness and times of reduced visibility. If there was less light pollution then cycle lights and reflectors would be more effective.
Have daytime running lights delivered the promised reduction in accidents?
As many above have said, speaking from experience driving my car, you can strike situations where combinations of sun angle, shade, and other factors combine to temporarily blind you. You can't always anticipate these, and in the time it takes to react you've gone 50+ yards.
*anything* that increases your visibility is A Good Thing. Making it mandatory, not so much.
Road bike has a SP dyno-hub and Exposure Revo/Redeye lioghts on. For commuting, they're on all the time. For epic multi-day rides, they're off in the day as GPS-charging takes priority. I'm not going to fit other lights for those situations.
As ever, its cyclist's choice. Yes, drivers need to be more aware, but it only takes one who isn't to crush you to death, so what harm can it take to prevent that one from missing seeing you?
http://www.bontrager.com/features/flare_r
I don't know if the image is on a carrousel I don't think so, just in case, the image of a car driver using a phone following a cyclist, now shall we change the image to a hooded man following a young woman in a short skirt. Where would you put the effort to solve the problem?
Pages