Cycling UK Forum

mike4.3 wrote:If the CTC make public statements dismissing hi-viz I hardly think it unreasonable if a member asks to see that information that has formed that opinion.

I respect your intellectual curiosity, but I guess I'm surprised that you require to see the proof. Why would the CTC lie about this? Sounds like you doubt it purely because it goes against your instincts.

As I see it, the police need evidence that it DOES make a significant contribution before spending (our) taxes on such an exercise, which (as others have pointed out) is also a clear victim-blaming exercise.

WHy don't you guys show us your evidence that Hi-Viz does make a significant contribution to safety?

I wouldn't be surprised if the CTC have seen studies that suggest a very small safety benefit, or one that may be within statistical error.

Given that something like 3/4 of accidents are caused by drivers, I suspect that around 3/4 of accidents are caused by drivers who could see the victim perfectly well. (I'm sure unlit victims would be blamed pretty quickly.)

But I haven't seen their figures, so I'm just applying "common sense".

Wheelchairs? Nice idea ... i suppose they are closer to running in distance and speed, and thus courses. Would they race on the open road? I guess they'd fit in well on closed-circuit races (but not velodromes); this is pure guesswork.

Note also this useful stuff from CJ on the other bright rear lights thread:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=44002#p356328

Gentlegreen:
That looks the perfect tail-light for fog!

However, in that picture it looks a smidge brighter than car brake-lights. If so, I think it's too bright to use on unlit roads, or on lit roads with other bikes about.

We're into compromises and grey areas here - if you're riding with others, motorists are bound to take more notice of you (packs of 20 get huge respect in daytime, I've noticed!). And urban areas with high cyclist numbers tend to have drivers who are more aware - look at Oxford, where the ninjas are very rarely mown done, simply because motorists are looking out for them (mostly).

Cars have switchable fog lights - I think we have to take on similar responsibility if we want to 'compete' with their lights.

Just as PBP welcomes 'odd' vehicles, Audax UK is entirely welcoming. (although note PBP has a separate start time for specials!)

I don't know about sportives - the organisers vary a lot, so I bet some do and some don't.

As a part-time tester, I'd love to see everything allowed to race as long as they don't expect to be allowed to win! You could list their times at the bottom of any results - if more than 1 turn up they can organise any "competition" amongst themselves.

I'm broadly in favour of reducing technology in cycle-sport, as it reduces costs. OTOH some riders can ONLY use a recumbent (or a trike), so we should try to be inclusive where practical. Complicated.

Clearly I haven't considered many of the details here, but I'm convinced the current setup isn't the best possible.

irc wrote:

mattheus wrote:...
I recently passed a "well-lit" cyclist, and as I came alongside I could see nothing but red - no cyclist, no road ahead. Thanks mate.

This is clearly "too much light", however you choose to interpret the wording of the laws.

It's never happened to me. I'm frequently dazzled by brake lights on stationary cars, headlights from oncoming cars etc.

IMO the current generation of lights, Smart Superflash, Cateye LD610 etc are bright enough without overdong it. Some current lights marketed as 1W and so on may be going to far. I certainly still see far more bikes with inadequate rear lights than with good visible setups. I can't recall ever seeing one I thought uncomfortably bright.

I should clarify that the above experience was a 1-off - that light was leagues of brightness ahead of other lights I've seen in the flesh. But the fact is they are out there, and technology isn't likely to go backwards. Have you seen the rear Dinottes? They only make any sense pointed at the ground to give a warm pool of red light. I suspect that any light with a run-time of [guess] 40hrs+ with mainstream batteries will not be too bright. The problem is that folks are fitting 1-night-wonders, either out of fear, or just to be at the front of the bling wave. [Off-road front lights are a big problem used onroad.]

I agree that the current mid-range lights are about right, and lots of riders are badly lit. But advances will move the distribution towards brighter lights, whilst a minority will _still_ ride unlit and be all the more vulnerable, as cars and bikes move to ever brighter lights. God help the pedestrians and wildlife!

[From the perspective of a social rider, even the current mid-range lights are a problem if they are angled above the horizontal - more common than you might think, especially when mounted to seat-stays.]

I'm undecided about all this.

The OP is about release methods - I suppose that if you do instintively pull out, then maybe making it easier will reduce muscle strains.
on-the-other-hand, most injuries are due to impact with the road. I'm not convinced staying clipped in is a problem. Bikes weigh a lot less than we do, so they don't really cause damage by landing on you. Even if they did, if you unclip then the bike is potentially flying around unpredictably, perhaps leading to more spectacular injuries if you come together again.

This is one area where I might cede to the experience of off-roaders; they have more offs, and you need a decent statistical base. (Although they tend to be biased against toe-clips (due to rider age), so their input won't be perfect either )

snibgo wrote:Very pleased (and quietly chuffed) to help, TC.

The language in RVLR is "undue dazzle or discomfort". Some folks in wigs and gowns will doubtless earn a crust by pinning down "undue".

Sure, you could debate the exact definition of this. But the fact is that quite a few current lights cause discomfort to other road users (especially when flashing), and inhibit their ability to perceive other hazards. I recently passed a "well-lit" cyclist, and as I came alongside I could see nothing but red - no cyclist, no road ahead. Thanks mate.

This is clearly "too much light", however you choose to interpret the wording of the laws.

531colin wrote:When you say a nipple "pulling out".........................

When the eyelet pulls right through like these bad boys, I dont see how the wheel can stay true.

Yup, that's exactly what I mean!Nice piccy.

But my gut doesn't think 1 such failure will "de-true" a wheel any more than one spoke breakage. In both cases you've lost the tension from 1 spoke, thus creating an imbalance. The wheel is bound to become less true, but by how much will depend on the factors we've been discussing. Anyhoo, spoke breakages seem very much more common, so this is probably a bit OT ...

Definitely short-sleeved. You'll get far more use out of it.

- if it's real cold wear either arm-warmers, or some cheaper (LS) mid-layer.
- a good base-layer gives more wicking benefits than the other layers, and
- with merino, you don't have to wash it much, and the midlayers need less washing in general!*

I have both, but wear the SS about twice as much over the year. Save up for the LSleeve!

And make sure it's got a decent long back (Howies do, haven't tried others).
M

*This depends on your hygiene standards, and where you will be going on your ride, and who you will be spending post-ride time with But if you haven't used merino before, trust me - it takes many hours to get at all smelly.

irc wrote:

mattheus wrote:Imagine if motons get the same idea - we wouldn't be very happy, would we?

I thought they already had. Car headlights drown out 99% of the bike lights I see and flashing indicators or warning lamps at roadworks don't see to cause crashes so why should flashing bike lights? Besides a flashing red light shouts "BIKE" like nothing else. I like drivers to know they are approaching a bike ASAP.

I agree pedal reflectors or ankle bands are also a good idea.

Well yes and no ... we were talking (mainly) about rear lights, which on cars are still mainly pretty tame. From a recent night ride I'd say the average current bike tail-light is brighter.

Flashing indicators are only on for short periods, and I'm prepared to accept them given their other advantages!
Flashing lights on roadworks? Well good point, but then roadworks don't move (and they're not all _that_ bright, are they?). Scientists have shown problems for humans judging the movements of flashing lights.

Agree about car headlights though - that is exactly what first made me aware of the nasty "lighting war" that we are in danger of moving into. Highway Code used to advise sidelights-only in well-lit areas, which I think should tell us something ...

531colin wrote:Un- rideable with one broken spoke? That'll be a narrow, lightweight rim then. Ah yes, Open Pro.

So, in summary, the wheel is dished to kingdom come, with a nice flexible rim to distribute any load to the minimum possible number of spokes. Not exactly a recipe for durability, it seems to me.

Well funnily enough, _my_ last wheel issue was a nipple pulling out of a .... a 32h Open Pro. Hardly went out of true. Shimano 10sp hub.(It's possible I'd ridden about 500k before noticing). "Anecdata" as they say!

All good stuff chaps, keep it coming ...

I witnessed a spoke breakage on Saturday during a fairly stiff climb.

Driveside rear. 36 spokes, Open Pro rim, not sure about the hub, nothing exotic but not cheap. 10-sp campag gears, so possibly a mid-range campy hub. Hand-built, shan't say by whom, but a "reputable" builder.

Despite the 36 spokes, the bike was unridable with 1 broken spoke. I did quite a bit of tweaking with my trusty key just to get the rim away from the mudguard. (Then 5 miles later it somehow started rubbing again.) I also noted that the spokes (on both sides) had more tension than I've ever noticed on any factory-built 32/26 wheels. I'm no building expert, so can't say if they were "too tight".

Apprantly the wheels had stayed very true for a few 1000 miles - then this. He's not a huge rider, and tends to spin up hills. Would the high tension influence this behaviour?

I think there is a difference between being seen and being considered.

Don't forget that thousands of motorists every year crash into perfectly visible objects (e.g. other cars).

There are certain situations where a bright flasher might increase your survival chances, but there are others where it might be worse. It often takes more than a few seconds to be overtaken, and there be may other things going on in a driver's vision. When you add in the irritation it can cause to other road users (especially other cyclists), I'm not in favour.

Imagine if motons get the same idea - we wouldn't be very happy, would we?

(+1 to pedal/shoe reflectors and ankle bands)