Should cyclists use daytime running lights? Plus the best front and rear daytime cycling lights

tendecimalplaces wrote:

This is a classic example of partial evidence. The Danish study showed 19% lower incident rate between the two groups of cyclists. However, that only tells part of the story;

I should point out that I haven't read the particular study

<< Snip >>

 

Why not read the study before proposing a list of questions of what's wrong with it?

BarryBianchi wrote:

Having read these comments, I'm going to stop using lights.  Ain't no way anyone is calling ME a victim if I get run over by someone who didn't see me....

Good work: you'll feel better for it.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

My point is that we should not allow society to continually decrease the level of driver competence and responsibilities placed on the motorist. we should not base safety standards on the lowest current standard of legal driving, and readdress this further downwards every time a driver stoops to an ever lower low. We need to stand up and demand better education of all road users and a higher standard of testing / regulation. 

Totally agree, as do the current regulations, by and large. The 'cover yourself in flashing plastic' campaign was largely driven by organisations with a vested interest in peddling flashing plastic, and, unfortunately, has taken hold to such an extent that flashing plastic coverage is referred to in court cases, where it is irrelevant.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

 

The other day, I was driving my car at night, and some dude on his bike came towards me on his bike, with no lights, drressed head to foot in black. "what an idiot" i said to myself, "he's going to get himself killed" I said. Then I realised, I had had no problem at all seeing him, my lights did their job and he was clearly visible. 

 

True, however I was riding my bike recently and the same yoof (or one of millions like him - shit mountain bike, smoking weed etc.) jumped off the curb right in front of me.

My lights aren't set up to illuminate the pavement, cars probably have a better field, but still if something approaches side on then you're less likely to picke them out.

On the other hand, I'd be quite happy if Darwinism kicked in occasionally...

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

The other day, I was driving my car at night, and some dude on his bike came towards me on his bike, with no lights, drressed head to foot in black. "what an idiot" i said to myself, "he's going to get himself killed" I said. Then I realised, I had had no problem at all seeing him, my lights did their job and he was clearly visible. 

I had exactly the same experience on Saturday night driving home; two yoofs on mountain bikes, dressed in blacks and greys, hoodies, no lights.

My first thought was numbskulls without lights but then I too realised I had seen them in plenty of time.

alg wrote:

..... if you can’t see a car in daylight what are you doing on the road?.....

If you can't see someone riding a bicycle in daylight what are you doing on the road ?

dreamlx10 wrote:

alg wrote:

..... if you can’t see a car in daylight what are you doing on the road?.....

 

If you can't see someone riding a bicycle in daylight what are you doing on the road ?

Perhaps they should change the driving test, not can you read a number plate but can you see a bike.

alg wrote:

I am dead against daytime lights on cars because if you can’t see a car in daylight what are you doing on the road?  But against rows and rows of dazzling leds we now have no chance with our 1.5 volts.

It's not so much "can you see the car?" but more "is the car likely to be occupied / moving / about to move?"

Sometimes, it can be quite difficult to determine if a car that looks parked has just stopped momentarily or perhaps is about to move off or any number of "what if..." scenarios. DRLs make a lot of sense in distinguishing between parked (sometimes badly parked) vehicles, moving vehicles etc especially in very slow moving urban traffic where there are a lot of distractions, a lot of people stop/starting, pulling out, pulling in. DRLs give other people an idea of what might be moving off and help with judging speed/distance.

crazy-legs wrote:

alg wrote:

I am dead against daytime lights on cars because if you can’t see a car in daylight what are you doing on the road?  But against rows and rows of dazzling leds we now have no chance with our 1.5 volts.

It's not so much "can you see the car?" but more "is the car likely to be occupied / moving / about to move?"

Sometimes, it can be quite difficult to determine if a car that looks parked has just stopped momentarily or perhaps is about to move off or any number of "what if..." scenarios. DRLs make a lot of sense in distinguishing between parked (sometimes badly parked) vehicles, moving vehicles etc especially in very slow moving urban traffic where there are a lot of distractions, a lot of people stop/starting, pulling out, pulling in. DRLs give other people an idea of what might be moving off and help with judging speed/distance.

This makes sense. What doesn't, to me, is that the regs only apply to headlamps.

(I still wonder how much extra light 'noise' it creates - alg's point.)

Ush wrote:

Michael Mason (RIP) had both a flashing red rear light and a reflector and was noticed by many witnesses. But apparently the driver Gail Purcell was unable to see him... "there are none so blind as those who will not see". There is a safety-scare coupled with unproved-yet-costly-remedies marketing move afoot in bicycling circles for quite some time. It started with freds wearing helmets and is now extending into the foolishness of daytime running lights, head-mounted lazer lights and other gimmicks. Wear and carry them if you want, but there is a distinct absence of evidence that they are pgoing to do anything except empty your wallet.

So because one woman, who really ought not to be driving, failed to see Mason, daytime lights are pointless?

oldstrath wrote:

So because one woman, who really ought not to be driving, failed to see Mason, daytime lights are pointless?

Fair enough. A single anecdote certainly proves little. However if daytime lights are as effective as many in this thread and the >50% in the poll seem to believe it certainly is odd that they did not work in this known incident.

As with helmets, hi-viz and other bolloxology which is now being marketed they are all claimed "treatments" on a population. A claim that they have a particular effect needs to be demonstrated, otherwise it's all "I feel that I am safer" and "my mate would have been run down if he hadn't had an argon laser mounted on his pedals".

For vehicles in the USA the effects of Daytime Running Lights (DRLs) seem unclear at best: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811029

Miller wrote:

Not a fan of daytime lights for cyclists, as a cyclist I find them annoying, especially front lights. Certainly overkill on a bright day. On a dull day, or when starting early or finishing late, then yes of course.

Disagree. Many times in bright sunshine on open roads, moorland etc you can then drop into heavily wooded areas and it's the change from light to dark or going through dappled light where riders can be very difficult to spot, even hi-vis doesn't work. Lights cut through all of that.

I've worked on numerous long-distance charity events and we always point out to riders that although they may be starting in bright sunshine, they're travelling 100 miles point to point and the weather when they are arriving at point B in 7hrs time may be very different to the weather as they leave point A.

I'm in the always-on camp, a mate commented just yesterday about how good my Exposure TraceR is on Daybright mode (which has a built-in brake light as well, it's very cool - works off an accelerometer.)

Miller wrote:

As an aside, this conversation has already happened in the time-triallng world. TTing is of course done (mostly) in the daytime. Many testers are vocal about the desirability of a really bright rear light, Scorpion or similar, others less keen, but visit any TT and 90% of testers will have a rear light even though they are not mandated by the governing body.

Most TT events mandate them now even if CTT doesn't.

crazy-legs wrote:

Most TT events mandate them now even if CTT doesn't.

Most events advise their use, only South DC as far as I'm aware tries to mandate them and this is controversial, technically they are not able to overrule CTT.

Miller wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

Most TT events mandate them now even if CTT doesn't.

Most events advise their use, only South DC as far as I'm aware tries to mandate them and this is controversial, technically they are not able to overrule CTT.

Our local club (KLCC) mandates them for all club events. Open CTT events are run with CTT rules (so no light required). 

It's all very well saying that it ought to be the motorists' responsibility to look properly for bicycles, but we all know they don't always, and there's no reason why we shouldn't try to help ourselves. Having an extra attention grabbing light on my bike is helpful. I do a lot of riding on NSL roads, and high vis isn't that visible from a distance during the day time. But a flashing or pulsing rear light is, and given no other vehicle displays a flashing rear light it helps warn motorists that they're approaching something with a likely much lower speed than them. Same thing at night - a pulsing rear light gives a motorist advance warning that the red dot in the distance is likely travelling more slowly than they expect.

Miller wrote:

Not a fan of daytime lights for cyclists, as a cyclist I find them annoying, especially front lights. Certainly overkill on a bright day. On a dull day, or when starting early or finishing late, then yes of course.

As an aside, this conversation has already happened in the time-triallng world. TTing is of course done (mostly) in the daytime. Many testers are vocal about the desirability of a really bright rear light, Scorpion or similar, others less keen, but visit any TT and 90% of testers will have a rear light even though they are not mandated by the governing body.

 

I've got to agree to a certain extent.  As a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist in urban environment a day time pulse front light is very distracting and probably negates the safety benefits.  Although on more open roads maybe there is more benefit.

Also cyclist should stop using the day time pulse at night, you just get blinded and can't see the rider.

tugglesthegreat wrote:

Also cyclist should stop using the day time pulse at night, you just get blinded and can't see the rider.

Can't win can you?!

Use lights and they're too bright, too flashy, blinding, it's dangerous.
Don't use lights (or have ones that aren't bright/flashy enough according to the random scale of whoever is deciding what constitutes "too bright") and you're a reckless idiot who will be blamed by police/media etc when you're run over.

Same as the bell argument. Ring a bell and the pedestrian angrily tells you that they've seen you thanks and don't be so bloody rude with that ding ding. Don't use a bell and the pedestrian jumps a mile in the air as you safely bimble past at 8mph and screams  "USE A BELL!" at you.