I meant actually preventing collisions with other road users, rather than being a legal requirement or avoiding accusations of contributory negligence. AIUI what data there is (at least in the UK) is inconclusive, with the rate of KSIs being independent of darkness.
It's a hard one to test for. I wonder what data is available?
The way I see it, irrespective of any safety benefit, front lights are beneficial for helping you to go faster without crashing into things (which may be subject to risk compensation and therefore not appear in the stats). On the basis I've got lighting at the front I'm happy to comply with the legal requirement for a rear light too, if only for the contributory negligence angle, and in doing so I might as well make an effort to have a decent one. Reflectors are like rear lights but lighter and lower maintenance - so you might as well have them - and drifting back on topic - rear mudguards are a good place to put one.
I only use a mudguard if I don't have my saddle bag on there. It's one of the bike packing style, so acts as a pretty good thing for keeping the mud and water off my arse. Mudguards drive me nuts, they rattle, they get blown around in cross winds, and they eventually self destruct... Adding a weight to them seems... sub optimal.
I'm not a fan of it either (I'm happy to dress the bike up like something from Tron, but I don't want to look like a railway worker just to ride a bike). I have donned a yellow Altura-alike for its hi-vis (rather than weather-protective) properties on a couple of occasions, chiefly during dense fog in daylight, and when directing traffic at the scene of an accident.
Yeah, I'm much happier with policies around the bike being lit up, covered in reflecty stuff etc..., rather than the rider.
Agreed. I've got the B&M dynamo light for normal riding (particularly in groups) and the obnoxious blinky for scary roads and really foul weather. I have been known to adorn my bicycle with actual christmas lights, but that didn't stop an impatient Brummie trying to drive their car at me.
Would anything? I have a B&M Secular Dynamo on the left, Secular Perminant on the right, and a cat eye with built in reflector on the seat post.
Apart from autobahns, what other roads in Germany would motorists not expect to see a cyclist?
Being legally allowed to cycle there, vs expecting a bike to be there are two separate things. You can legally cycle down the A14, I wouldn't expect anyone to be that crazy... At 8pm, on Xmas day, in the middle of nowhere on a 70kph road, a cyclist is not something you really expect...
AIUI the German rule depends on whether the cyclepath is signposted or not - without the blue sign, it's not compulsory to use it.
Correct, and because of the extra maintenance requirements of having the blue sign there, and it being an official bike path, many local authorities have removed the blue bike sign from the cycle path that goes along side a road, making it optional. Mandatory or not, many drivers think you should be using it, I've had many drivers slow down and shout stuff at me through open windows when cycling on German roads. I had one driver slow down to tell me I should be cycling on the road the other side of the armco barrier, neglecting to realise that I'd quite like to be there, but there hasn't be a way for me to get over the armco, and across the ditch between me and said road for the last 5km, otherwise I would... On the xmas day example listed above, there was no cycle path along the road. If there was, I'd have used it.
In Belgium recently I had a lot of people beeping at me and shouting at me for not using the cycle path, ignorant to the fact that the cycle path was basically a sheet of ice, and thus it was too dangerous to cycle there (I did try). Other times it's been too pot holed, too full of broken glass, etc... And yet still entitled wankers in metal death boxes shout and beep and hurl abuse.
Drivers never seem to think about the reason the cyclist might choose to dice with death in the main road, rather than use the cycle path. Could it be because this is the safer choice?
I have come very, very close (by a bum squeak) to crashing into someone who didn't have rear lights. Several occasions. These are when I was cycling, my lights pointing at road and ahead, I was travelling fast, they were moving slowly, in dark clothing and weaving a bit. Didn't see them until very very close.
Not had same experience with people who had red lights on their bike.
Based on that, I think red rear lights assist safety on the road.
I've had this when cycling in Amsterdam. Random stealth cyclists decloak out of nowhere, dressed all in black and with no lights. You get used to it...
One thing I find infuriating is the people who don't understand that fluorescent clothing doesn't work in the dark. One evening cycling through Vondelpark I saw a dark void, with a very tiny green LED glow in entirely the wrong place. I slowed down, and as I got closer, the 2 police horses became visible in the gloom. They had fluorescent stuff on them to make them visible in sunlight, but in the dark, it did nothing. The only indication it was there was the Power LED of their radios. It's a shared use path, you expect tourists, zombies, drunks, morons, kamikaze stealth cyclists, and occasionally all of the above as one unit. But that was the first time I'd seen horses there... I've added them to the things to expect when cycling home from the office...
In Poland (and possibly other countries) pedestrians are required by law to wear hivis, after dark outside built-up areas. Although there aren't any fines or other legal penalties for not complying, presumably it could be held to be a contributory factor in a collision. I've also seen many pedestrians doing the same in UK, though there's no talk of it becoming compulsory.
Ditto Finland, and I believe one of the Baltic states (can't remember which one). Personally I feel that having to wear a hivi vest to use the roads, is a bit like mandating bullet proof vests to prevent shooting deaths in countries with poor gun control. It would be better for those in the position of power aka the drivers, slowed down a bit, and gave more space to other road uses. It would also be better if the roads were designed with this in mind. Walking home from the pub shouldn't require me to dress like I'm working on a railway line...
When it comes to the reflectors being enough to be seen by thing...
So my suspicion from that is that the visibility created by a rear reflector returning the light emitted from a following vehicle is dependent on:
The height of the reflector
The height and aim of the light expected to light it up
The road profile.
And therefore as the light beam arrives from below on the flat, it's probably better to have a reflector low down than high up.
The best reflector for being seen by is the one on the pedals, because it moves. The rear reflector is just yet another red dot in the sea of lights.
I'm very impressed by the reflective properties of the side wall reflectors on tyres. I wish they were available on more tyres. Conti seems to not do them on their GP 4 Seasons, but do on their GP4000s ii (and not on their GP5000...)
I'm tempted to take the car and bike along to the flattest, straightest, darkest, quietest road round here and try out some tests.
I'd be interested in your results.
Then I looked at a photo I took on Yorkshire Grit, just before sunset of a trike with two Cateye lights at rear axle level flashing away, maybe 1km away up the top of a rise.
I could see the lights at that distance where there was no way a headlight would ever reach the reflectors.
THere's also a few more:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AlB7bV6RdTovhso1LbKI0b28p52L6Q
I had my light on all day, you can see two rear lights in this one, one near and one far away, can't tell if the bike in front of me had a reflector.
First thing I notice in that picture is the white reflective bits on the calf of the riders tights...
Also something to remember is only a few weeks ago a fatal accident was directly attributed to the rear reflector being the only and inadequate warning of presences on a dark country road.
Not the driver going perhaps faster than necessary? not paying enough attention?
At the inquest of Mike Hall, they tried to suggest the height of Mikes rear light was too close to the height of the reflectors on the side of the road, obscuring him...
As for pedestrians; I'm sure there's something in the Highway code about groups carrying a torch at the front and a red position lamp at the back, but nothing for individual pedestrians. Though walking along country roads in the dark without a torch is a rather interesting challenge if there isn't any ambient light any way...
You'd be surprised, Human night vision is surprisingly good, once you let it adjust. Unfortunately it gets completely buggered the moment some wanker comes round the corner on main beam and blinds you all...
In terms of cycling there are a few things to take away;
1) when cycling you are unlikely to spot prismatic reflectors other vehicles at close distances using a short-range bike light, set low, with a sharp cutoff; those reflectors are not meant for you to see that way.
2) if you want to be seen at great distance then carrying high-efficiency low angle prismatic type retroreflectives is a very good idea.
3) if you want to be seen at much shorter distances then carrying high angle beaded retroreflectives is a really good idea; typically these light up (from a car driver's perspective ) very strongly within the range of their dipped beams and this might make the difference between a collision and not.
So if you want the best of both worlds, the prismatic reflector that is typically built into bike lights, or sold as bike reflectors, coupled with the glass bead reflective tape that you can get, provides you with long and short range respectively?
4) There is enough 'spill' from most car lights to allow retroreflectives to be clearly visible even when they are above the cutoff of the dipped beam; however this is the first thing that wil be lost to a viewer whenever there is any dazzle.
There is certainly enough spill on my Edelux II to light up reflective road signs and road markings considerably beyond the reach of what would normally be considered the beam of the light... which can make things... interesting...
Cycling through Flevopolder the other day I saw a weird shape of reflector a few hundred meters up the road, I couldn't work out what it was, it didn't look right for being a sign, or for being a marker post. and it wasn't really moving... Then as I got close it did move, as did it's friend, and their friend, and a couple of other deer... Their eyes make very weird reflectors... and having half a dozen deer charging across the road at you when you're trying to navigate in the dark between the ice patches is... an interesting experience... Turning the next corner and finding the road was a sheet of Ice, I turned round and went to find the nearest station...
Yes I guess the law is often largely the same as safety. My thinking was that safety is over and above the law, ie you can be legal, but I want to also be safe on top of that.
I was thinking mainly France but also USA.
Oh you'd be surprised. Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it's the safest option... See discussion of blinky lights...
Dutch law says you're allowed 1 light at the front, and 1 at the back, no more, not less! You can have more reflectors, but they have to be red to the rear, white to the front, and orange to the side. You'll never get done by the police for having a few lights in each direction, as long as you're not taking the piss, but technically, they could... But then if you actually read the law, most Dutch bikes could incur a fine for something.
In London at least, maybe half the cyclists on the road at night have either no rear light or a light so feeble that (when driving) you've seen their silhouette and/or their pedal reflectors flashing long before you can see whatever red light is emanating from the dead watch battery on their seatpost. And yet cyclists being hit from behind at night doesn't seem to be A Thing.
It's an urban vs rural thing I think. In an urban area the shape/shadow of the cyclist with all the street lights can be enough to make a cyclist visible to the usually slower speeds of the motorists. On country lanes and main roads, drivers don't expect cyclists, so aren't looking for them so if you don't have lights, they may not see you before hitting you. I believe that some of the ultra racers that have been hit by cars when racing have been hit from behind. The solution here is of course for the motorists to slow the fuck down and pay more attention... but hey...
J