Do urban cyclists *actually* need lights?

[perpetual dan]

Rather like Biggsy I had a last minute noticing of a cyclist last week while I was walking. No collision, but not much time for us both to swerve the same way and correct (pavement cyclist). It was only his light I saw, at a distance of about 3m - the rest was dark on a dark background in a pool of shadow. He might have had reflectives on, but I don't walk through town with a torch on and there weren't any cars about so I don't know.

"I got hit while using lights" just means that lights aren't a magical force field, it doesn't mean that no one sees them.

Banning those extra dazzling headlamps would be a useful step though. Sure, I've seen you ... but I'm finding it hard to see anything else, which can't make the road safer.

PS Anyone care to join me in a rant about whether urban, suburban or rural areas actually *need* street lighting?

Sure, I'll join you. I'd rather get dark adapted and see in the shadows and up to the stars.

[mattc]

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.]

[Cudzoziemiec]

Back in the last millenium I picked up somewhere a copy of Bike magazine (that's motorbikes) from 1976 or thereabouts, in which one Royce Creasey had written a review of that year's motorcycle show in London. He referred to the city as "phototropolis".

[Ham]

Also, stop obsessing with what YOU nearly hit/didn't hit/etc

On urban streets there is frequently a danger of too much traffic in too little width. The ninja may be on the OTHER side of the road. If you don't notice them because street lighting is faulty  etc, you run the very real risk of collision with oncoming traffic or moving them into a very narrow overtake.

And another thing. Eyes do get older. As  eyes get older the first thing to go is night vision. Not that it is bad vision in the conventional sense of the word but it is less good, for sure. So, a ninja that you might see in the dark shadows might be invisible to an 80 year old (or even a 60 year old) who would have seen them had they had lights.

And another thing. What you might see in normal conditions, you might not if you had just had your vision impaired by a poorly adjusted oncoming headlight. You should be driving within the capability of your vision, however impaired, but noticing a ninja depends as above, depends on a higher level of awareness.

Ultimately, you pays your money and makes your choice but I reckon lights and hi-viz do make you safer on the road.

The question is, does it make someone else less safe? Is it the classical Prisoner's Dilemma?

Let's look at that for a second. In the dilemma, two criminals in a joint enterprise are interrogated separately. They have the option of staying quiet or implicating their partner. They are told, if one stays silent, and the other rats, the ratter will get off scot free, the ratee serves 10 years. If they both rat, they each serve 5 years, if they both stay silent they both get 1 year. The dilemma is all about social responsibility, as the best result for both is when they stay silent, however personal interest dictates that the prisoner rats, and therefore ends up with 5 times longer sentence than need be.

In our light case, the option is not, is the best option not to have lights/to have dim lights, as you can demonstrate that there is reasonable grounds for ensuring your visibility is higher. The raising of the bar of visibility, if it happens, is a by product. As such, I would suggest that hi viz wars, while regrettable are not anti social.

[hubner]

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

But he did see them! That's entirely his point.

What about the  unlit cyclists he didn't see?

[nuttycyclist]

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

But he did see them! That's entirely his point.

What about the  unlit cyclists he didn't see?

I have checked the front of the car.  No dents.  Therefore there were no unlit cyclists that I didn't see.

[Jaded]

Or the lit ones he didn't see? Or the children. Someone must think of the children.

[hubner]

Maybe your argument is self-defeating (or self-something else): you simply did not see the cyclists you could not see !!

But he did see them! That's entirely his point.

What about the  unlit cyclists he didn't see?

I have checked the front of the car.  No dents.  Therefore there were no unlit cyclists that I didn't see.

Maybe there were unlit cyclists you didn't see and you didn't collide with them.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I've heard CERN has a problem with them.

[nuttycyclist]

...

Maybe there were unlit cyclists you didn't see and you didn't collide with them.

Whilst a risk, I doubt it.

I take my driving seriously, and make a point of both actively scanning the environment ahead as well as commentating to myself to ensure I don't miss anything. 

The "is that something?" moments happened with some pedestrians tucked away in alleyway entrances, and some party balloons attached to a park bench (so set will back from the pavement, but might have been a child playing and about to run right out when I got there.


The unlit cyclists I was referring to were easy to spot.  In fact I'd say they were easier to spot than the lit ones that just had feeble lights.  Hence this thread.



I've posted before that I found I got fewer collisions/more road space in Southend as a novice commuter when I dropped hi-viz and excess lights.  (On the final collision I not only had hi-viz, but it had the electronic glow strips in both the jacket and helmet band, I had 5 flashing LEDs on the front, as well as a road legal light and a 10W off road light.  The rear was similarly adorned.  The driver who pulled out of the layby into my front wheel claimed he hadn't seen me, yet HAD seen the cyclist ahead who was an 80 year old in a black trenchcoat and a single weak 1960's light at either end of his old bike!)

Analysing that anecdote, and looking at it with fresh eyes of last night, I'd argue that the cyclists in BLACK were more visible than those in hi-viz as the black silhouettes formed large blocks of anomaly in the vision, whereas the bright hi-viz just merged into the background scatter of shop fronts, lights, and advertising hoardings.   

[urban_biker]

I've heard CERN has a problem with them.

Yes - but if you collided with a Large Hadron - would you have a dent in your car before the collision?

[Kim]

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.

[Pancho]

IIRC, the CTC campaigned against the law requiring rear bike lights on the basis that motorists shouldn't be ploughing ahead at such a speed that any impediment to their progress needs to be lit to avoid extinction.

I quite like that logic.

My own experience is that hi-viz and hundreds of pounds worth of lights won't protect you from a dim bint armed with a Clio. These days, I've dropped the hi-viz and look like a normal person and my lights are just 10s of pounds. And I still don't wear a stupid hat.

[mrcharly-YHT]

IME, fluoro yellow is like camo under yellow sodium lights. The colour just doesn't show up at all.

real 'hiviz' has retroreflective bands, usually some form or scotchlight. So in Nutty's situation they would stand out more than the dark cyclists or the others (he noticed reflectors more than lights, remember).

however, I don't believe that dark-clad cyclists sans lights showed up more than dark-clad cyclists with lights. That is like arguing that fixed gear sans brakes can stop faster than fixed gear with brakes 

[nuttycyclist]

real 'hiviz' has retroreflective bands, usually some form or scotchlight. So in Nutty's situation they would stand out more than the dark cyclists or the others (he noticed reflectors more than lights, remember).

I found the white reflective that is on hi-viz didn't really show up against the urban backlight.  What I did see was red and yellow reflectors.

however, I don't believe that dark-clad cyclists sans lights showed up more than dark-clad cyclists with lights. That is like arguing that fixed gear sans brakes can stop faster than fixed gear with brakes 

Of course, I wouldn't argue re the brakes, as I see that too irrelevant (although I like what you did there).

I found that the dark-clad cyclists showed up more, as most of them appeared to be the ones riding bikes with just the supplied reflectors.  The ones who had fitted lights appeared to have removed the rear reflector, and possibly fitted SPD without reflectors too.

I think the other thing that made the unlit riders stand out was that they were an anomaly on the road.  A lump of darkness against the lit surroundings.  They grabbed the attention.

[Honest John]

Many of these unlit cyclists had very good rear reflectors, and even pedal reflectors.  Despite their black clothing they were really visible.  One lady had such a good rear "light" I was planning on stopping ahead of her to ask about it, when I went over a speed hump and as my headlights dropped away from her realised that she had no lights.
<snip>
So...   In an entirely urban setting, do cyclists really need lights?  Should less focus be placed on unlit riders (and more placed on unsafe riders).

I learned to ride a bike in South Africa, partly on poorly-lit dirt roads.

Legal lighting requirements were a white light on the front (so that you could see where you were going) and a red reflector and a white-painted mudguard on the back (so that other people could see you).

Logic would suggest that, on well-lit city streets, a front light is unnecessary and only reflectors are needed at the rear. Of course, this breaks down if you turn into a dark street or ride into the countryside.

[Cudzoziemiec]

IIRC, the CTC campaigned against the law requiring rear bike lights on the basis that motorists shouldn't be ploughing ahead at such a speed that any impediment to their progress needs to be lit to avoid extinction.

I quite like that logic.

I like that logic too. Unfortunately I don't see how we could get back to that state, if indeed we ever were truly there. I think the law changed again with the WWII blackout. Up till then cyclists could have either a red light or a red reflector on a white background, from then on they were permitted - and now required (bar white patch) - to have both.

It's another example of hierarchy of importance.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I found that the dark-clad cyclists showed up more, as most of them appeared to be the ones riding bikes with just the supplied reflectors.  The ones who had fitted lights appeared to have removed the rear reflector, and possibly fitted SPD without reflectors too.

So you observed that reflectors showed up better than lights? So you observed that reflectors showed up better than lights? So it wasn't absence of lights or hiviz that made them stand out, but the *presence* of reflectors.

What if you had been pulling out from a side road? Your lights wouldn't be pointing at the bike, so no reflection.

[modified post due to browser hiccup]

[Ham]

And what happens when the cool kid screaming along with blue led's instead of headlights tries to see the reflectors?

[Euan Uzami]

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.

That reminds me of a theory of mine which is that a lot of drivers succumb to a level of peer pressure to drive at a pace which is more out of control than they themselves are happy with, but they keep it up because that's 'the speed of traffic'. There is just too much for them to take in, in the time they feel obliged to take in order not to hold other drivers up, and aren't happy that that isn't quite enough time, but while still feeling that they are concentrating as hard as they can, so they hope to god that the things that there are too many of to take in watches out for themselves. They don't want to run over cyclists and peds, but they still perceive them to be in danger (of them) despite feeling they are taking as much care as "possible" *, which is why there is a perceived onus on cyclists and pedestrians to 'look out for themselves', which is my theory as to why a lot of drivers feel cyclists should be wearing helmets.

* I use the term 'possible' loosely as it's obviously possible to slow down (even more), but some clearly regard that as out of the question.
 
A relative once displayed the exact tell tale signs of this attitude when on finding out I didn't wear a helmet his wife said he, probably only half-jokingly, felt he was 'well within his rights' to mow down cyclists who don't wear a helmet, on the grounds that 'if they don't take care of their own safety, why should he?'
(Sorry for mentioning the 'h' word outside of its sandbox, but it's just an anecdote indicative of the  perception amongst motorists that cyclists are at more danger of them than they would like, so would be grateful if they would do as much about it as possible so they didn't have to. I would guess the same is true of lights)

[Kim]

I'd certainly agree that there's incredibly strong psychological pressure on drivers not to hold up the vehicle behind, which can manifest as driving faster than they'd otherwise be comfortable with, risky overtakes, pulling out at junctions even if they feel the gap is a bit marginal and so on.  It's exacerbated when the vehicle behind is actively impatient or perceived to be of a higher status.  When driving I often have to use willpower to actively counteract this effect in a way that doesn't seem to come up when cycling.

I'm not sure about the rest.

[Panoramix]

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.

[rower40]

I'm more guilty than most here for escalating the lighting war.

I want my bike to be lit so that the first reaction of the motorist is anything BUT "bike".  As soon as it's something out of the ordinary, the average motorist can't just stay on autopilot, but must actually start to think.  Once they start to think, their reaction time goes UP, and they become more predictable.   (Huge Generalisation Alert)

The downside is that, with two Cyos or equivalent, fitted side-by-side, it might look like a car but a long way away.   I've not yet had a recognisable SMIDSY (or "Sorry Mate I Thought You Were A Car A Long Way Away" = SMITYWACALWA) as far as I know.

[nuttycyclist]

I found that the dark-clad cyclists showed up more, as most of them appeared to be the ones riding bikes with just the supplied reflectors.  The ones who had fitted lights appeared to have removed the rear reflector, and possibly fitted SPD without reflectors too.

So you observed that reflectors showed up better than lights? So you observed that reflectors showed up better than lights? So it wasn't absence of lights or hiviz that made them stand out, but the *presence* of reflectors.

What if you had been pulling out from a side road? Your lights wouldn't be pointing at the bike, so no reflection.

[modified post due to browser hiccup]

So good you said it twice

Indeed.  Reflectors showed up better than lights, so therefore does an urban cyclist need lights at all or will a simple reflector do?  For a town bike reflectors have less to go wrong (battery flat, bulb blown, water in electrics, slipping dynamo, etc)


I've had a think about the sideroad issue, as that's a good one.   Under street lighting I could easily see pedestrians, so therefore a cyclist approaching my stationary vehicle is just as easily seen.  Also the cyclist is looking my way, so if they are riding as I do would already be preparing in case I hadn't seen them.   The reflector is only really needed on the back as the car is moving and the cyclist is not looking behind.

[nuttycyclist]

I'm more guilty than most here for escalating the lighting war.

I want my bike to be lit so that the first reaction of the motorist is anything BUT "bike".  As soon as it's something out of the ordinary, the average motorist can't just stay on autopilot, but must actually start to think.  Once they start to think, their reaction time goes UP, and they become more predictable.   (Huge Generalisation Alert)

The downside is that, with two Cyos or equivalent, fitted side-by-side, it might look like a car but a long way away.   I've not yet had a recognisable SMIDSY (or "Sorry Mate I Thought You Were A Car A Long Way Away" = SMITYWACALWA) as far as I know.

I have had SMITYWACALWA twice when running two dual lights.

One had the car pull out under me.   The other had the car wait in the side turning for absolutely ages as I wasn't approaching as fast as they were expecting 

Edit:   Also lots of college kids petrol scooters have two lights, so I have also been mistaken for one of those when on a cycle path and stopped by the police!