Do urban cyclists *actually* need lights?

[mattc]

I don't think it's a case of hi-vis blending in.  I think it's a higher-level psychological effect.  Drivers clock a well-lit cyclist as a well-lit cyclist and that gets filtered out before it reaches the decision-making part of their brain, because cyclists are two-dimensional objects of zero velocity, and that one's *over there*, while they're looking for cars, traffic signals and so on that are going to interfere with what they're about to do *here*.  It's not that we're invisible, it's that we're only about as salient as a parked car.

Ninja cyclists, like zombie pedestrians, recumbents, horses, debris in the road, wowbadgers and whatever are weird and interesting and require a longer look to work out what they actually are.  In that time, not only does the driver become properly aware of them, but they're able to form an estimate of their speed and direction, rather than just making assumptions.

+1

[Biggsy]

Unlike on unlit dark lanes, the contrast between light reflected by a normal small bicycle reflector from a car's dipped headlights and the background of a well-lit urban street isn't all that magnificent, is it?

I don't feel comfortable without a rear light as well as reflective tape on bike/myself.  (Retroreflctive tape can be better than a "proper" reflector if good and plentiful enough).

[mattc]

Unlike on unlit dark lanes, the contrast between light reflected by a normal small bicycle reflector from a car's dipped headlights and the background of a well-lit urban street isn't all that magnificent, is it?

in the average well-lit urban street, it's a piece of piss to see hazards that have NO reflectors/ives.

It's been pointed out before - the streets of Oxford are not running with cyclist blood. Most serious accidents there involve buses/lorries - in daylight.
The point being that motorists have got used to crap cyclists - they don't really want to run any over (contrary to prevailing scaremongers).

A lot of posts here have focused on the dark areas - broken streetlights, cycle paths away from roads (and rural B roads). No problem - riders will take a bit more care in those areas (or buy lights to commute into the countryside).

Let's remember two things:
- Most cycle commuting is purely urban.
- If you're on an unlit cycle-path/alleyway/whatever, you're less likely to have a fatal collision with a car.

[AndyK]

I returned from a ride late one night a few weeks ago. As I was preparing to lug the bike up the stairs to the flat my neighbours arrived home in their car. When they got out they said when their lights were on me the bike and I lit up like something out of Tron. I said 'Yeah, the lights are bright aren't they?', but they hadn't noticed the lights, they saw the reflective bands on the Marathons, the reflector on the back, and the various reflectives on my clothing.

Do urban cyclists 'need' lights? Probably not. Would I feel comfortable riding without lights? No.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I DEFINITELY TOTALLY 100% COMPLETELY AGREE with the statement that many drivers feel pressured into driving faster or more riskily than they would really like, simply to avoid "holding up" other people.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

[RJ]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

No - I imagine it's so you can more easily see if there's a beam of light coming down the other road.

(Now, depending on the average duration of "lights off", there's an obvious flaw in this logic  )

[Panoramix]

Somehow, i think that ninja cyclists are more of a threat to other cyclists. In town I have my front light on the "be seen" setting and I had a once a close miss with an unlit BMX coming out of nowhere.

[Panoramix]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

No - I imagine it's so you can more easily see if there's a beam of light coming down the other road.

(Now, depending on the average duration of "lights off", there's an obvious flaw in this logic  )

If you switch off your lights, you can see the glow of the lights of other cars hence you don't need to slow down for the "priorite a droite".

[Canardly]

Cycling regularly in a university town renowned for its cyclists,  it frustrates the hell out of me how cyclists students cannot fit the simplest and cheapest of lights.

[Jaded]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

No - I imagine it's so you can more easily see if there's a beam of light coming down the other road.

(Now, depending on the average duration of "lights off", there's an obvious flaw in this logic  )

If you switch off your lights, you can see the glow of the lights of other cars hence you don't need to slow down for the "priorite a droite".

Unless they too have switched their lights off

[Jurek]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

No - I imagine it's so you can more easily see if there's a beam of light coming down the other road.

(Now, depending on the average duration of "lights off", there's an obvious flaw in this logic  )

If you switch off your lights, you can see the glow of the lights of other cars hence you don't need to slow down for the "priorite a droite".

Unless they too have switched their lights off

Ta! Da! 

[Panoramix]

Unless they too have switched their lights off

If you are into safety, you can do it twice. 

[drossall]

The original question has to be at least worth asking.

• There are the studies that show that 90% of cyclists involved in accidents at night had lights - so, the percentage is greater than most people would estimate for the percentage of cyclists in general having lights at night, i.e. you're more likely to have an accident if you have lights
• The ideal lighting has to be even, as in a bright day with no low, blinding sun

I definitely go for good, bright lights, but it seems to me that there is something that we don't understand about the relationship between lights and the probability of having an accident. It's an important safety issue, so I'd like to understand it.

[drossall]

Last night, out driving, I saw many cyclists without lights.  The key here is SAW.

<speculation>I sometimes wonder whether the lack of lights causes irritation, and hence a reaction. It's the lack of reaction to the presence of a cyclist that could make things dangerous. Hence, lack of lights would be safer.</speculation>

I have no plans at present, however, to test this by getting rid of my lights. I'm still very much in the arms race, currently with an Electron rechargeable.

Many of these unlit cyclists had very good rear reflectors, and even pedal reflectors. Despite their black clothing they were really visible.

Worth remembering that, in general, bike accidents often involve motorists pulling across cyclists' paths when the motorist should have given priority. In such situations (emerging from side roads, overtaking and then turning across the cyclist, etc.), the car lights will not necessarily illuminate the bike's reflectors well.

[Ham]

The original question has to be at least worth asking.

• There are the studies that show that 90% of cyclists involved in accidents at night had lights - so, the percentage is greater than most people would estimate for the percentage of cyclists in general having lights at night, i.e. you're more likely to have an accident if you have lights
• The ideal lighting has to be even, as in a bright day with no low, blinding sun

I definitely go for good, bright lights, but it seems to me that there is something that we don't understand about the relationship between lights and the probability of having an accident. It's an important safety issue, so I'd like to understand it.

I'd agree with you, but my observations over the past week lead me to suggest an alternative explanation: 90% might have been found to have lights post incident (where is that figure from?), but the question remains - could the light be seen? I good proportion of cyclists I see have their lights obscures by clothing, baggage etc, or alternatively even several powerful lights - in a single place (so if that area is obscured from view they can't be seen). That would lead to an attitude on the part of the cyclist that they MUST be able to be seen coz they've got lights on, but the reality is different.

I don't go for lazer-kill-em-ded power, but I do go for diversity - three different levels to the rear, lots of reflective and hi-viz, one Cateye 5-led on the front with a backup little'un in case.

[Wendy]

Nutty, if you see reflectors before lights, I would think that the bikes you've seen have not had any sort of decent lights on them at all.  I very much doubt you'd be able to see reflectors anywhere near my super bright lights, or those of many forum members.

[Gandalf]

The original question has to be at least worth asking.

• There are the studies that show that 90% of cyclists involved in accidents at night had lights - so, the percentage is greater than most people would estimate for the percentage of cyclists in general having lights at night, i.e. you're more likely to have an accident if you have lights
• The ideal lighting has to be even, as in a bright day with no low, blinding sun

I definitely go for good, bright lights, but it seems to me that there is something that we don't understand about the relationship between lights and the probability of having an accident. It's an important safety issue, so I'd like to understand it.

I'd agree with you, but my observations over the past week lead me to suggest an alternative explanation: 90% might have been found to have lights post incident (where is that figure from?), but the question remains - could the light be seen? I good proportion of cyclists I see have their lights obscures by clothing, baggage etc, or alternatively even several powerful lights - in a single place (so if that area is obscured from view they can't be seen). That would lead to an attitude on the part of the cyclist that they MUST be able to be seen coz they've got lights on, but the reality is different.

I don't go for lazer-kill-em-ded power, but I do go for diversity - three different levels to the rear, lots of reflective and hi-viz, one Cateye 5-led on the front with a backup little'un in case.

I often see cyclists with lights mounted on seat stays or low down on front forks which is not something I'd personally be happy to do. 

In terms of driver behavior, particularly in terms of pulling out of side roads, I have noticed a big improvement since I augmented my Fenix P3D & L2D with helmet mounted Ayups. 

Perhaps it is because I consciously swivel my head in their direction in 'don't even think about it' gesture,  I have found it particularly effective in preventing the 'parallel turn of wank'.

[citoyen]

the question remains - could the light be seen?

I suspect that in most cases, whether or not the light could be seen is irrelevant, since the motorist would have hit the cyclist through paying insufficient care and attention, and wouldn't have noticed the cyclist even if they'd been riding with a ruddy great belisha beacon coming out of their head.

d.

[Tigerbiten]

The ideal lighting has to be even, as in a bright day with no low, blinding sun

Actually I think the ideal setup is two lights in both directions.
One flashing and one steady.
The flashing light gets the drivers attension and the steady one give them a good referance point to work out your speed.

[Domestique]

Last night, out driving, I saw many cyclists without lights.  The key here is SAW.

I think when I am in another mode of transport I see cyclists because I am specifically looking for them, as well as other dangers, regardless of the lights etc. Maybe someone who doesn't ride a bike doesn't think like that.

[RJ]

Getting back to lights:

I think the SMITYWACALWA is the reason that motorbikes post-a several years ago are no longer allowed to have two dipped beam headlights (they can still have one dipped, one high).

I remember reading that in Egypt (I think it was Egypt), the custom when driving at night out of town is not to turn your lights on but to flash them when detecting signs of vehicular presence. If other drivers flash back at you, it shows they haven't fallen asleep at the wheel!

A French variation of this (on country lanes) is to switch off lights before reaching a junction to check that nobody's coming.

I don't understand this. How does it work? Do you mean to provoke a reaction from the person you haven't seen, who suddenly doesn't see you?

No - I imagine it's so you can more easily see if there's a beam of light coming down the other road.

(Now, depending on the average duration of "lights off", there's an obvious flaw in this logic  )

If you switch off your lights, you can see the glow of the lights of other cars hence you don't need to slow down for the "priorite a droite".

Now imagine the classic four-cars-arrive-simultaneously-at-priorité-à-droite - all with their headlights off ...

 

[Panoramix]

Now imagine the classic four-cars-arrive-simultaneously-at-priorité-à-droite - all with their headlights off ...

 

It saves some time as they don't have to go through the bit "shall I go first" before all crossing the crossroad at the same time!

[nuttycyclist]

Nutty, if you see reflectors before lights, I would think that the bikes you've seen have not had any sort of decent lights on them at all.  I very much doubt you'd be able to see reflectors anywhere near my super bright lights, or those of many forum members.

I spotted an interesting trend.

The majority of bikes with lights had no reflectors.
The majority of bikes without lights did have reflectors.
The few bikes without lights or reflectors were still obviously visible in the urban streetlit environment, as were the pedestrians.

[nuttycyclist]

re turning off lights at night on unlit roads at junctions, I make a point of dipping on the approach (not only so that I don't blind somebody going past, but also so that I can more easily see if other headlights are approaching).


My brother-in-law had an even better one the other weekend that I spotted.  As he approached a particularly difficult junction (5 way crossroads between narrow hedges) he wound down both windows so as to be able to hear if other traffic was in the vicinity.