Front Light for daytime

[Fruity]

I will be getting a daytime running light because I want to be seen & give myself the best chance of finishing my ride.

if a DRL keeps me a tiny bit safer then I will use them.

The problem is that there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that lights don't make us safer (and that high vis colours aren't always highly visible) and can actually have the opposite effect.

Did you know that (historically) lights have been fitted to such large objects as battleships, in order to camouflage them?

[pwa]

I will be getting a daytime running light because I want to be seen & give myself the best chance of finishing my ride.

if a DRL keeps me a tiny bit safer then I will use them.

The problem is that there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that lights don't make us safer (and that high vis colours aren't always highly visible) and can actually have the opposite effect.

Did you know that (historically) lights have been fitted to such large objects as battleships, in order to camouflage them?

That's misleading. A battleship is a large slab of an object that needs to appear less solid if you want to hide it. Anything to disrupt the continuous solidity of the object will help. A cyclist on a bicycle is, visually, already disrupted by numerous voids, angles and lack of solidity, and a flashing light can hardly make him/her less visible in daylight. If you think that looking in my left wing mirror I would be quicker to identify a cyclist wearing dark clothing and with no light than one in bright clothing with a flashing front light, I think you are incorrect. I'm basing that on my experience sat in the driver's seat, and the OP is doing the same.

[Mick F]

Ex RN speaking here.

Battleships ........... or any other naval vessel displays lights like a naval vessel.
Merchant ships display merchant lights.

This is the norm.

In order to camouflage a naval ship, they often display merchant lights. You can make your ship look a different length as well. Another method is to "Darken Ship" and unless you have decent radar or sonar, you won't see them at night unless in bright moonlight of course.

The USSR had trawlers and fishing boats lit normally for a merchant ship that they used for clandestine snooping. They were bristling with high-tech equipment. They looked like small merchant ships until you got close.

[old_windbag]

Here is a normal cyclist and a cyclist disguised as a battleship.



So which would you detect coming up your inside. Perhaps something flashing would gain your attention.

[Mick F]

Which one is disguised as the battleship?

[Debs]

Can't see no battleships.
Just a brainless blonde basket-case, and the other one is Kelly Brook.

[Tigerbiten]

The problem is that there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that lights don't make us safer (and that high vis colours aren't always highly visible) and can actually have the opposite effect.

Does "no safer" mean that using lights makes no difference or does using lights actually make you more unsafe.

If it's a bit like helmets in that due to rider compensation you ride more dangerously believing you're safer, I could believe that.
I can also believe it actually make no difference if you use lights or not.
I could see a super bright light merging into a sea of bright car lights in a city center, but would a dimmer "be seen" bike light still merge in or be seen more because it's different or even be not seen at all ??

I think you're best bet is to get some long (over a week) lasting "be seen" lights, switch them on/off/recharge as needed and forget about them.
By forgetting about them you don't risk compensate due to them being on.
By getting long lasting you're not getting into a light war, as brighter lights equals more power needed which means a shorter run time.
If they make no difference then thats ok, you have another box ticked.

[mjr]

If they make no difference then thats ok, you have another box ticked.

Yep, and [rude word removed] all other cyclists who haven't spent money on unhelpful box-ticking who will be blamed for being less "visible" than the average once the average is with annoying lights.

It's the tragedy of the commons, I'm alright Jack, me-first, all over again. Individually, it's difficult to blame anyone for acting to put themselves first but societally, it's very

[mjr]

With regards to these who posted that we shouldn't use DRL's for the "greater good", I have got a family, mortage & bills to pay & if I a DRL keeps me a tiny bit safer then I will use them.

They don't keep you safer. They just mean that you've ticked a silly box so that your family can get more compensation and more chance of a conviction if a motorist kills you.

http://yehudamoon.com/comic/2015-03-27/

[meic]

all other cyclists who haven't spent money on unhelpful box-ticking who will be blamed for being less "visible" than the average once the average is with annoying lights.

The same non DRLed riders who are saying that they dont mind others having a light if they want one.
Compulsion is bad be it for or against lights or even helmets.

It is perfectly reasonable for somebody to take whatever precautions that they feel are sensible for their personal protection. Society can set limits to avoid the tragedy of the commons, those limits seem to be towards DRLs, hi-viz and helmets, not against them.

[Mick F]

Is this more visible?

[old_windbag]

Is this more visible?

Only if she moves her hands out of the way.

The important point there is the wearing of the helmet by butch.... or sundance?

[AlaninWales]

Is this more visible?

Only if she moves her hands out of the way.

The important point there is the wearing of the helmet by butch.... or sundance?

That's Butch, stealing Sundance's girl.

[RickH]

Or there's always this AA recommended way to be seen

[youtube]AlGmiHKCDI4[/youtube]

!!!!

[Patrickpioneer]

in the rain I use a light in daytime, if I feel the light level is low I use a light in daytime.