SA_SA_SA wrote:But surely if a car has braked for a slow rear steady lit cyclist they can see its "only a cyclist" easily enough using headlamps/streetlamps? I never noticed any effect on close passing from starting/abandoning using flashing rear lamps. Don't pedal reflectors perform the same 'give away'?
You answer that yourself later: "not from as far away". By the time they can see pedal reflectors, they've probably already set themselves up on a wider line and most will continue along it because it's less effort.
Under streetlights now (where we have them in our semi-rural area), it's pretty similar to daytime and lights are basically irrelevant, to the point that motorists now seem to be fairly often driving off down A roads without putting on their lights until they reach the unlit area - carelessness rather than feeling it's unnecessary, I think. I hope!
SA_SA_SA wrote:I think flashing lights are only arguably a benefit when the cyclist is alone in faster traffic as it perhaps tells those not concentrating and zipping along blindly on dipped lamps that they need to brake for the slower vulnerable vehicle ahead: I would expect braking late to be just as likely to result in a close pass due squeezing past due to being unable to slow enough..
I think that's assuming that all motorists think flashing = cyclist = vulnerable = steer wider, which I don't feel is true for a significant minority. I prefer a steady rear with a sufficiently large illuminated area that that minority will think it's a slow motorcycle that could seriously dent their precious and steer around it.
roubaixtuesday wrote:For winter commuting, I always have two rear lights, mainly just in case one fails without me realising.
I run one good reliable rear light mounted in a place I can check (typically back of the rack or on the seat stay) rather than two failure-prone ones that could easily both fail without me realising.
roubaixtuesday wrote:The backup I run flashing, partly because the battery lasts forever that way, and partly because it might just attract the attention of someone who misses the constant light for whatever reason.
I think deliberately seeking to take attention away from other vulnerable road users like that is anti-social, so I don't do it, even though I have some sympathy for the energy conservation argument.
roubaixtuesday wrote:The idea that motorists are somehow more likely to pass you closer if you have a flashing rather than constant light seems far-fetched to me.
I'm not aware of any research, so I admit I'm just going on my experiences.
roubaixtuesday wrote:I also run a helmet mounted light with front and rear. Mainly because I find them very noticeable on other cyclists when I'm driving, partly because I can angle it to improve the likelihood of motorists at junctions seeing me, and partly just to annoy mjr
. That one is constant front and pulsing rear.
Yes, I will shout offensive things at users of such things, to try to return the annoyance.
A light which rotates and shows white to the rear and red to the front would not be legal on a bike and it seems like a loophole that it's even allowed on a rider.
roubaixtuesday wrote:Given white power LEDs Flashing front lamps seem entirely pointless and annoying now compared to their feeble progenitors....
Riding one of the original London Cycle Hire bikes with its flashing front light into an unlit area (Regent's Canal towpath, worse luck!) was quite an unsettling experience! I've not tried it since they fitted the green lights too, but I doubt that's enough to overcome the night-blinding effect of the flashing white.
