Do urban cyclists *actually* need lights?

[mike]

most horse riders have no idea about being seen; we regularly see people round here at dusk or in crappy weather wearing dark colours, on a dark horse. Then they get shouty when you explain that they'd get people going past them slower if they could be seen more than 20 yards away.

I fitted a blinky red light to the back of mrs mikes riding hat, as well as plastering her & the horse in high viz, she's in a minority....

[why1040]

Horse riders that don't wear hi-viz ALL THE TIME if they're on the road drive me insane!  I've stopped and spoken to lots, wondering whether they actually love their animals.

Horses are designed to blend in, to disappear into the background.  That's how they stay alive as prey.  And for some reason, much of the horsey gear sold is navy, brown or forest green.  Presumably because it doesn't show the dirt??

On my horse, if I leave the yard, I work on the principle "if you didn't see me, you should let your seeing-eye-dog drive".

I tend to work on the same principle with my bike.  The earlier a driver can see me, the greater the chance they'll take appropriate action.  But I ride a lot on rural roads as opposed to urban and I'm pretty sure it's different.  And doesn't always work, as evidenced by my off last night!

[zoxed]

I used to think that spoke reflectors were next to useless as they are designed to be seen side on: either you are gone by the time the car gets close, or the car is already too close and could not react to seeing your reflector.

However I realised they *are* useful for *other* cyclists: e.g. car is approaching junction and sees rotating spoke reflectors in front (crossing his path). Hopefully this triggers them to be more likely look out for *other* cyclists when the actually do get to the junction.

[phil d]

Well, with running lights on all new cars, the lighting war is here to stay, sadly.

It might be a good outcome if owners of these things don't bother turning their ... er ... 'primary' lights on under streetlights.

[I don't know the power outputs of all the different options.]

Possibly a good outcome in terms of surplus photons. but not actually legal.  The lesser lights are "parking" lights.  But that opens up a whole new can of worms not particularly relevant here.

[mattc]

The lesser lights are "parking" lights.

that depends on the age of the car. Surely you're old enough to remember "sidelights", Phil ?

EDIT: OK, I should look this up. Here we go - this is all relevant to various things in this thread, so I'll quote the lot (my bold):


Lighting requirements (113-116)
113

You MUST

    * ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise
    * use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting. These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified
    * use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226)

Night (the hours of darkness) is defined as the period between half an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise).

[Laws RVLR regs 3, 24, & 25, (In Scotland - RTRA 1984 sect 82 (as amended by NRSWA, para 59 of sched )]

    * Driving in adverse weather conditions (226-237)

114

You MUST NOT

    * use any lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
    * use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves to avoid dazzling other road users (see Rule 226)

In stationary queues of traffic, drivers should apply the parking brake and, once the following traffic has stopped, take their foot off the footbrake to deactivate the vehicle brake lights. This will minimise glare to road users behind until the traffic moves again.

[Law RVLR reg 27]

    * Driving in adverse weather conditions (226-237)

115

You should also

    * use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen
    * keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users
    * slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights

[clarion]

That's interesting.  I hadn't noticed before that 115 contradicts 113.

[mattc]

Not sure which bit you mean, but note that 115 is a SHOULD, 113 is MUST.

(but it is odd).

[phil d]

The lesser lights are "parking" lights.

that depends on the age of the car. Surely you're old enough to remember "sidelights", Phil ?

I'm staggered that the HC still refers to "sidelights" - those little pinprick lights that were absolutely pointless (and yes, I am old enough....).  So I was wrong.  Sort of.

I don't often find myself agreeing with Clarion ( ) but I share his surprise at the contradiction between 113 and 115.

Interestingly, if I put my side/parking lights on, if I start the engine the headlights come on.  It is quite impossible to drive with the lesser lights.  Same with Mrs D's car.  Which I believe is a Good Thing, but recognise that your view is probably different.

[phil d]

If this thread has now widened out into general vehicular lighting comment, my pet hates are

• drivers who drive on anything other than proper headlights when conditions require lighting
• Drivers who have foglights on when visibility is not poor
• Any vehicle with flashing orange lights when not stationary.  I thought it was illegal, but the AA, council vehicles and many others clearly see it differently

[Cudzoziemiec]

Well, with running lights on all new cars, the lighting war is here to stay, sadly.

It might be a good outcome if owners of these things don't bother turning their ... er ... 'primary' lights on under streetlights.

[I don't know the power outputs of all the different options.]

Possibly a good outcome in terms of surplus photons. but not actually legal.  The lesser lights are "parking" lights.  But that opens up a whole new can of worms not particularly relevant here.

The running lights on new vehicles are not "parking" lights or "sidelights". Those things are still fitted too. The running lights come on automatically with the ignition. They are at the front only, there is (usually) no rear lighting when running lights are on. They can be turned off by switching on the sidelights/parking lights/position lights or the headlights or turning off the engine. I'm not sure what happens to them if you stall though!

More to the point, they are brighter than sidelights. To look at they are about as bright as headlights, but they don't give out as much light. I'm sure you could drive on them at night perfectly well, certainly in a built up area, but it wouldn't be legal.

[Crumbling Nick]

That's interesting.  I hadn't noticed before that 115 contradicts 113.

I don't read it that way. Paragraph 113 doesn't say "You MUST NOT".

However the wording is evidently ambiguous. RVLR regulation 25 states: -

Requirements about the use of headlamps and front fog lamps
25.—(1) Save as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall use, or cause or permit to be used, on a road a vehicle which is fitted with obligatory dipped-beam headlamps unless every such lamp is kept lit–

(a)during the hours of darkness, except on a road which is a restricted road for the purposes of section 81 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 by virtue of a system of street lighting when it is lit;


which is unambiguous, but has a high fog index.

Always remember that the Highway Code is a dumbed-down version of the legislation: readability is sometimes achieved at the expense of precision, or even accuracy.

Nevertheless it is a good (albeit imperfect) guide to best practice for all road users. Paragraph 115 is surely about best practice.

[Crumbling Nick]

The lesser lights are "parking" lights.

that depends on the age of the car. Surely you're old enough to remember "sidelights", Phil ?

I'm staggered that the HC still refers to "sidelights" - those little pinprick lights that were absolutely pointless (and yes, I am old enough....). 
<snip>

Predictably, RVLR doesn't refer to "sidelights", but to "front" or "rear" "position marker lamp"s.

As I said in my previous post, HC is dumbed-down.
"sidelights" is very much part of English (I hesitate to use British) motoring vernacular. Its use seems fairly harmless.

[nuttycyclist]

I noticed something interesting yesterday.

Car behind was an '11' plate and had those pathetic over-bright front running lights that it seems the drivers cannot turn off.  It gave the usual aggressive "look at me I'm trying to get past" attitude that many of these cars now give off.

Once we were on a dual carriageway and I let him past (was fed up with the dazzle in the mirror despite it being daylight) I noticed that the REAR lights were not lit.    They only came on a little later when we went through a dark road under tress (automatic lights too?).



i.e. the emphasis seemed to be that the approaching car needs to be visible so that people can get out of the way.    Not the rear of the car needs to be visible in order to prevent a following driver catching it up and colliding....

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm sure I've already mentioned that upthread. Perhaps it was a different thread though.

I haven't noticed automatic rear lights on cars. I have one on my bike, it's good for going through tunnels, but it doesn't work right now. I've been "fettling" it on and off for several weeks (very kind of you to offer, Nutty, but I don't need any help  ). I'm not sure that the legal emphasis is intended to be "get out of my way," though that's certainly the way some manufacturers use them (the predictable ones - Audi for instance). I think it's probably intended to be an arse-covering measure for those "bright day but shadow under trees" situations. I don't like it myself, but we're probably going to end up with it being the default for everyone.

[nuttycyclist]

Automatic lights - many cars have them (I hated all I've driven so far.  Worst one being the lights were on in the afternoon gloom earlier than I expected, then turned OFF when the heavens opened and visibility decreased to near zero.  That car reset from "manual" to "automatic" every time the ignition was turned off, so trying to use the lights properly was frustrating).

if the lights on the cars are for arse-covering, why did the car I see last night only have front lights then? 

Stupid front strips of dazzling glare as standalone lights.  Then real lights front and back that could be turned on or off....

[Cudzoziemiec]

if the lights on the cars are for arse-covering, why did the car I see last night only have front lights then? 

Because that's what someone has decided is 'needed'! I suppose the idea is that then no one can say SMIDSY.

[nuttycyclist]

if the lights on the cars are for arse-covering, why did the car I see last night only have front lights then? 

Because that's what someone has decided is 'needed'! I suppose the idea is that then no one can say SMIDSY.

but the lights only visible in front, so don't prevent that vehicle being rear-ended or t-boned.

i.e. it's SMIDSYAJOOTW (sorry mate I didn't see you and jump out of the way)

[mattc]

Extra lights up front have always been a big marketing thing.

Think how many car adverts show front fog lights on - have you ever seen a car advert filmed in fog?!? Many front fog light owners call them "driving lights", even though these are completely different things.

Brighter lights are often a selling point on adverts for BMs etc.
"70% more candelux from our new optimised turbo-xenoate light projection modules - keep your family safe and look fucking cool"
I'd be pretty sure that car manufacturers were on the side of mandating DRLs.

Rear lights are boring. (And "everyone knows" that if you're hit from the rear you can 99% claim off their insurance).

[Cudzoziemiec]

Brighter lights are often a selling point on adverts for BMs etc.
"70% more candelux from our new optimised turbo-xenoate light projection modules - keep your family safe and look fucking cool"
I'd be pretty sure that car manufacturers were on the side of mandating DRLs.

Yeppo.

And - "optimised turbo-xenoate light projection modules" - do you work in marketing or are you in fact a sci-fi writer?!