Should you have lights on during the day?

[Ellieb]

Sorry, straw man arguements about camouflage won’t cut it here.
Yes I saw the cat within a second - but then I knew I was looking for a cat.

Nothing straw man about it, especially since you try and use an argument about walking into someone on a pavement, which has more than a whiff of dried grass about it. The issue isn't about 'visibility' , it is about how easily visible you are in terms of the context. ie how conspicuous you are to a driver giving a quick glance as they pull out into the road. That is not the same as walking down a pavement with a person walking in the opposite direction. I totally accept that if you look properly, under almost any conditions you care to mention, any cyclist is 'readily visible' . It is all very well saying that drivers should look more carefully- of course they should, but they don't. Given that, should you take steps to increase your conspicuity? People shouldn't nick bikes, but given that they do, I'll take a U-lock with me when I leave my bike in public thanks very much.

[PDQ Mobile]

costs you nothing if dynamo, does cost (financially and directly) in rechargeable world.
More significant cost is external - it’s marking cycling as a ‘specialist kit’ world of activity, not the jump on and ride to the shops activity that would benefit so many.

I agree that lights aren’t going to make you *less* visible (assuming they aren’t dazzling) but that’s a race which absolutely isn’t necessary, and has other effects on society as a whole...

Tinkering at the edges of what *looks* like a safety intervention is almost never a good thing - because it distracts from conversations about things that could actually help...
People are visible during the day - I find it really bizarre that people are suggesting that they are not.

No one is suggesting that peds and cyclists are invisible.
But that something that aids the vehicle driver to see them is probably a help. In my now much stated view.
A vehicle driver has an enormous amount of visual information to process rapidly, especially at certain road configurations.

Then there is the low light, dappled shade road environment, where I have satisfied myself, that wearing something bright helps.
And a simple brightish light may well be of benefit too. IMHO.

As to cost, well a few pence extra worth of electric charge, for a light used in darkness anyway, isn't a game changer.
I use no specialist cycle clothing except clip-less shoes.
A pair of new cheap Aldi gloves with a bit of hi-viz and reflection replaced some older black with plain green worn out ones.
Seemed a reasonable idea to make my signals a bit clearer? Comment?

It's personal choice though.
No one is suggesting any statutory intervention.

Society has a lot of complex, hard to solve, problems.
Whether cyclists use or don't use lights or hi-viz seems pretty low down on the scale of importance to me.



And as a slightly off topic point about pedestrians at night.
There are a great many unfootwayed roads in this part of the world.
To walk along them at night, not facing the traffic and not wearing something bright/reflective and/or carry a torch amounts to putting oneself in very grave danger.
People know this and apart from the odd drunk don't do it.
There have been a great many fatalities and injuries caused just so.

[[XAP]Bob]

Sorry, straw man arguements about camouflage won’t cut it here.
Yes I saw the cat within a second - but then I knew I was looking for a cat.

Nothing straw man about it, especially since you try and use an argument about walking into someone on a pavement, which has more than a whiff of dried grass about it. The issue isn't about 'visibility'

Of course the issue isn't about visibility, that's what I've been saying - it's about drivers looking where they are operating their lethal machinery.

The only thing that DLRs do is distract drivers from other road users - it's an arms race, and not one that has a good outcome for anyone (in the same way that a nuclear arms race won't end well)

On Monday I was hit by a driver who 'didn't see' me. It was at night, so completely irrelevant to this discussion in some respects.
I have a Cyo up front - which I am informed by various people is 'unmissable'. Other motorists, the stewards/security at my workplace, the fact that at my workplace HGVs stop pulling out of side roads when the lit patch of road appears ahead of them.
I looked directly at the car for over a second as they approached the roundabout, and satisfied myself that they were slowing appropriately for the junction. They then just drove into me - they came onto the roundabout and ploughed straight through me.

[pwa]

Sorry, straw man arguements about camouflage won’t cut it here.
Yes I saw the cat within a second - but then I knew I was looking for a cat.

Nothing straw man about it, especially since you try and use an argument about walking into someone on a pavement, which has more than a whiff of dried grass about it. The issue isn't about 'visibility'

Of course the issue isn't about visibility, that's what I've been saying - it's about drivers looking where they are operating their lethal machinery.

The only thing that DLRs do is distract drivers from other road users - it's an arms race, and not one that has a good outcome for anyone (in the same way that a nuclear arms race won't end well)

On Monday I was hit by a driver who 'didn't see' me. It was at night, so completely irrelevant to this discussion in some respects.
I have a Cyo up front - which I am informed by various people is 'unmissable'. Other motorists, the stewards/security at my workplace, the fact that at my workplace HGVs stop pulling out of side roads when the lit patch of road appears ahead of them.
I looked directly at the car for over a second as they approached the roundabout, and satisfied myself that they were slowing appropriately for the junction. They then just drove into me - they came onto the roundabout and ploughed straight through me.

Sorry about your "incident" and I would not link what happened to you to visibility issues. If you think you were visible, you were there and I wasn't, so you know best.

But widening it out from your specific case, what I seek to do when I wear hi-viz is get noticed by drivers not only looking straight ahead, but also in their peripheral vision. At busy junctions drivers are looking in all directions and it helps if they notice things "out of the corner of their eye". So in a way the yellow top with reflectives is there to get them to look at me and notice me. Once they have done so, yes, from that point on I could be wearing Harris Tweed and they could see me.

Lights on their own can be misinterpreted by the viewer, in terms of distance and speed. At night. In daytime they don't stand out much so are a bit irrelevant.

[mjr]

[...] we do have two wheels on the pavement occasionlly on narrow streets to allow vehicles to pass in difficult situations. I admit to doing it last night when I encountered a bus coming the other way on a tight, twisty lane. Normally I would have reversed to a wider bit of road but I had a van behind me and there was more traffic behind that, and the bus was in no position to go back, so I carefully put two wheels on the pedestrian-free pavement to my left to free things up. I did think about you, with a wry smile, as I did it. If I hadn't we would have still been there. But those things are, or ought to be, 1mph driving with extreme caution, hardly relevant to a discussion about lights.

What I haven't seen is drivers using a pavement as an inside lane to get past stationary traffic going in their direction. Often, of course, obstacles like lamp posts make it impossible, but even where it is possible I've not seen it. I do accept that you have seen it.

I'm less concerned about the occasional cautious crawl to clear a blockage as the near-daily pavement driving at 25-35mph regardless of anyone on it just because the big meester in the motorcar won't wait for the turning vehicles in front. To me, it's a pretty strong indicator that lights won't work because the problem isn't really that motorists can't see other road users but it's that some basically don't care.

[Cunobelin]

[...] we do have two wheels on the pavement occasionlly on narrow streets to allow vehicles to pass in difficult situations. I admit to doing it last night when I encountered a bus coming the other way on a tight, twisty lane. Normally I would have reversed to a wider bit of road but I had a van behind me and there was more traffic behind that, and the bus was in no position to go back, so I carefully put two wheels on the pedestrian-free pavement to my left to free things up. I did think about you, with a wry smile, as I did it. If I hadn't we would have still been there. But those things are, or ought to be, 1mph driving with extreme caution, hardly relevant to a discussion about lights.

What I haven't seen is drivers using a pavement as an inside lane to get past stationary traffic going in their direction. Often, of course, obstacles like lamp posts make it impossible, but even where it is possible I've not seen it. I do accept that you have seen it.

I'm less concerned about the occasional cautious crawl to clear a blockage as the near-daily pavement driving at 25-35mph regardless of anyone on it just because the big meester in the motorcar won't wait for the turning vehicles in front. To me, it's a pretty strong indicator that lights won't work because the problem isn't really that motorists can't see other road users but it's that some basically don't care.

Like HiViz, pavements are a classic example of failing to deal with teh main issues and pandering to the motor lobby instead

Locally there is a programme to move all the streetlights from the kerb to the back of the pavement (if you look you will see this has been the trend for many years)

The reason..... they are obstructing cars using the pavement!!!!

[mjr]

I'm less concerned about the occasional cautious crawl to clear a blockage as the near-daily pavement driving at 25-35mph regardless of anyone on it just because the big meester in the motorcar won't wait for the turning vehicles in front. To me, it's a pretty strong indicator that lights won't work because the problem isn't really that motorists can't see other road users but it's that some basically don't care.

Like HiViz, pavements are a classic example of failing to deal with teh main issues and pandering to the motor lobby instead

Locally there is a programme to move all the streetlights from the kerb to the back of the pavement (if you look you will see this has been the trend for many years)

The reason..... they are obstructing cars using the pavement!!!!

There is a similar effort underway in Norfolk. IIRC the reason given is to reduce damage to the county's highways assets (aka motorists crashing into lampposts). That's OK then: let's use people walking as a human shield for the valuable streetlights(!)

[Cunobelin]

We even have dangerous trees here in Hampshire.

There was a lovely line of trees on the A3 , planted in memory of Canadian troops who trained at Bramshott and lost their lives.

Unfortunately once again they had to be removed as there were drivers for whom remaining on the road was too difficult and trees several yards off teh road were seen as a hazard.
Here is a link to the " dangerous trees"

[Cunobelin]

Then we have HiViz cows:

A COUNCIL proposed decorating cows in hi-viz jackets and flashing lights after a spate of collisions with cars.

The plans would create a herd of grazing "disco" cows at night - but the plan has already been labelled "ridiculous" by local farmers.

Farmers in Hungerford, Berkshire, have tried to convince the council to put in place measures to slow down motorists in the area of the local common.

Several cows have recently been struck on the common and one animal was so badly hit that it had to be put down by a vet.

Around 175 cows graze on the common during summer but the animals stray onto surrounding roads at night.

The authority's proposal is aimed at making the cows more visible to motorists at night.

But farmers have already described the scheme as "hare-brained" and just the latest extreme case of health and safety measures.

Hungerford Mayor Martin Crane proposed that "luminous bands or lights be put round the cows’ necks."

But, Roger Denton, who keeps around 25 cows on the green during summer said: "I think it’s ridiculous.

"The bottom line is that it’s all down to the speed of cars. If a cow had a fluorescent strip around its neck, you wouldn’t be able to see it if it had its back to you or if it was facing you head on.

"What are the chances of the perfect cow that’s going to cross right in front of you, side on, to ensure you spot its décor?"

Robert James, the trustees' manager of the common, said something had to be done but that flashing lights was not the answer.

He said: "They would just pull it off in hedgerows and shrub.

"It’s been raised as a possibility by the council more than once but no one is keen.

“I’ve told them lots of times but they keep coming up with the same idea.”

Common sense has won through and the measure has since been deemed too costly – at £3,000 for the whole herd.

Although Hungerford's proposals were knocked down, a similar pilot project near Stroud in Gloucestershire has been launched to fit around 500 cows with reflective luminous collars.

... and I had to leave in some of the comments

Pig Sick
Will they be fined for not sounding their horns?

weston
they have to place indicators on heir ears, as for a blower horn they can use their rear ends .
ReplyShare+1


Screwloose
Udderly ridiculous - as the man says, they'd need to be at right angles to you for a jacket to work.

As anyone who works on roads knows, the most vital reflective bands are the ones on your lower legs - dipped headlights illuminate those first.

So what these ladies need are reflective-banded gaiters for their legs - and maybe tails. They work from all angles and would flash in headlights as they walked.


Trebor
Council wants to dress cows in 'hi-viz jackets and flashing lights' for health and safety
Jesus wept !
Only in local government could this idea be taken seriously.
(What about the flattened hedgehogs ? When are they making mini-sized ones for them ?)


wallace
Yes and what about the badgers and foxes. If you only do it to the cows the EEC would say you were discriminating and it would be taken to the court of animal human rights!!!LOL Are the politicians and councils really so stupid, in a word YES!


AgendaTen
Fit them with loud bleepers as well, just to keep country up all night.



Screwloose
They could always use their horns...

[pwa]

You can laugh, but I once cycled downhill into the side of a black bullock very like that, having mistaken the dark mass in front as a shadow or a puddle or something. Only when I was too close did my bike lights, my eyes and my brain all work properly together to tell me what I was really looking at. I braked hard, wheels sliding, and my shoulder hit the beast along its ribs. Neither of us hurt.

[[XAP]Bob]

You can laugh, but I once cycled downhill into the side of a black bullock very like that, having mistaken the dark mass in front as a shadow or a puddle or something. Only when I was too close did my bike lights, my eyes and my brain all work properly together to tell me what I was really looking at. I braked hard, wheels sliding, and my shoulder hit the beast along its ribs. Neither of us hurt.

I don't laugh at the collisions with cattle - that can be serious for both parties... But...
The idea that the cattle should have high viz and lights is, however, utterly ridiculous.

There could be a certain logic in putting up a sign saying that there may be livestock on the road - because that is, nowadays, basically outside most peoples experience. If there are cattle grids etc then I expect livestock on the road, but otherwise it would catch me out as well...

[Cunobelin]

.... and HiViz chickens




I wonder if foxes can distinguish HiViz?

[pwa]

You can laugh, but I once cycled downhill into the side of a black bullock very like that, having mistaken the dark mass in front as a shadow or a puddle or something. Only when I was too close did my bike lights, my eyes and my brain all work properly together to tell me what I was really looking at. I braked hard, wheels sliding, and my shoulder hit the beast along its ribs. Neither of us hurt.

I don't laugh at the collisions with cattle - that can be serious for both parties... But...
The idea that the cattle should have high viz and lights is, however, utterly ridiculous.

There could be a certain logic in putting up a sign saying that there may be livestock on the road - because that is, nowadays, basically outside most peoples experience. If there are cattle grids etc then I expect livestock on the road, but otherwise it would catch me out as well...

There are two obvious roads to take to get from my home to Bridgend. On the morning (pre-dawn) that I hit a bullock I was taking the rollercoaster narrow lane route, which has no cattle grids and doesn't cross common land. So in theory the cattle should have been behind hedges, fences and gates. Clearly something went wrong that morning. The alternative B road route does cross cattle grids for a stretch of common, and as you say, you expect livestock. In that case it would be sheep. Conveniently lighter and therefore a bit easier to see in the dark.

But what surprised me that morning was just how difficult it was to register a jet black bullock for what it was in the dark. For a few crucial seconds it really did not stand out as a 3D object that might require me to scrub off some of my downhill 25mph or so.

[[XAP]Bob]

.... and HiViz chickens




I wonder if foxes can distinguish HiViz?

My guess is that, like dogs, they are red green colour blind...

[gaz]

The reality is that even if you wear hi-vis the defence will argue that somehow your own actions made it less visible and it is still your fault:

Waiting to see whether this one will go along similar lines .