nirakaro wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:How would developing any such product work in terms of victim blaming, similar to what we already have? Police stating that legal lights are 'not very bright' when a victim of crime has been struck.
That's all I see any of these ideas that seemingly throw more responsibility onto the vulnerable to absolve motorists of their responsibility and yet again it's the well if you had been wearing/using xxx you would/might have not being killed/injured/struck, which we know is absolute pony.
Why not simply go the whole hog instead of ridiculous half assed efforts, 'I am a cyclist, give me 1.5m space' emblazoned in 5000 lumens on the back of every jersey, jacket, not just for cycling but you could have them for pedestrians too and make them really fashionable so that people will want to wear them to work or to the shops as well as for recreation/sport, you could also have the same wordage projected back onto the road from a rear light, because that will stop motorists from ever killing or maiming ever again at night or in the day too right?
I hate these types of discussions, they serve no positive purpose for cyclists safety.
Absolutely. Whenever I ride at night, I make sure to dress all in black, and carry no more lights than the absolute legal minimum.
Being right is so much more important than staying alive! 
And your evidence for that is?
I hear that phrase all the time and yet there is no evidence to support it, is there, or will you provide some links or hard data to prove your statement? It's same when taking the lane instead of ceding priority and moving over, because 'no good being right than being dead'. and yet that's just not the case at all is it?
You're also training motorists that you and others will always get out the way, you're training motorists as do indeed government, police and cycling orgs, that it's up to the vulnerable to armour up/light up more and that way long term has not and never will work out to increase safety of the vulnerable. We have now fallen into a light war, DRLs which have failed to have any impact whatsoever on safety but offer another distracting aspect during the day and at night, lights that are unlawfully dazzling yet police do squat and government allow manufacturers to have because they incorrectly think more light equals better, which it does not.
here we are talking about what light is best, having a front type light on the rear, people like yourself stating that you'll be dead if you wear black and or have one light, and yet here I am as are many millions of others whom have somehow managed to miraculously survive many decades of riding in black and one simple rear light. All my jackets are black, my longs are black, I use one steady or slow pulse rear light and have done so for decades, I used to put my light on flash years ago when I first bought a blinker but I won't do that anymore and it's made jack all difference.
More light encourages riskier actions and faster speeds, you see this for cyclists as well as motorists, the increased speeds give you less reaction time and ability to take in and process the information of what is ahead, people are riding/driving worse due to increased ahead lighting and rear lighting of any form is not having any effect on safety. The result despite increases in helmets, despite so called improvements in motorvehicle safety, despite brighter/further throw lights we are seeing increases in overall KSIs, at best there is no decrease in the last 10 years when cycle lights have taken some big steps forward yet it's a light war we can never win and changing the rear light to somehow catch the attention of those that are simply not able to see a basic light or drive as per HC126 will not make a jot of difference as we have seen over history.
The president of the CTC in the 1920s was absolutely correct with respect to objecting to compulsary rear lights for cyclists!
Reflectives which may well be seen by the light of another on the road outside of the throw of a light but again we are asking the vulnerable to have something that flies in the face of the rule about driving at a certain safe speed. Despite all the reflectives (and lights) those that aren't looking and/or are distracted will not see anyway, we already know this.
