Should you have lights on during the day?

[Samuel D]

Rightly or wrongly more and more cyclists are using DRLs so those who choose not to use them are IMO putting themselves at a real disadvantage when it comes to being seen.

It’s not we who are putting ourselves at a “real disadvantage” but you plural. I see no sign that that bothers your conscience, so why not be forthright about it?

However, I contest there is any disadvantage to be suffered. Whether a driver sees me as I heave over the horizon is irrelevant to my safety (or possibly bad, giving them too much time to dismiss me from their attention). What matters is whether I’m seen in good time for the driver to avoid hitting me. I have never had a doubt that I am. Nor apparently have thousands of Parisian cyclists, dressed in black from head to toe at midnight with not a lamp in sight. I don’t condone that behaviour, but the fact that I’ve never seen, heard about, or even read about one of those stealth ninjas being hit shows it is not nearly as hazardous as the scaredy-cats believe.

DRLs ratchet the scaremongering up another notch. Well, you can’t scare me so easily. I opt out of a life of perpetual startlement. I leave that to the meerkats and hi-viz alarmists.

[Cyril Haearn]

I do not ride on the road because the great majority of motons habitually ignore the law, not just drivers of big vehicles

Are you serious Bryn?
I am surprised, if you are, that you feel qualified to comment, about dooring, eye contact, hi-viz etc.
No wonder a highly developed sense of air pressure is useful.

Hm.. . in my leafy suburb I use the road if there is no traffic, but otherwise not, it means the journey takes a bit longer or I walk some of the way
One typical occurrence in the leafy suburb: no traffic, riding past parked vehicles outside the door zone. A PoB under-took me (in the door zone)

There are plenty of things we do not understand about perception, maybe by air pressure I mean shadow (are there shadows in this grey winter?)

Maybe I am qualified to have an opinion cos I used to...
How many of us are qualified to have political opinions?

[Cunobelin]

The bright colours, sirens and blue lights of emergency vehicles are an excellent indication of the real problem

Any driver of these vehicles will be able to regale you of stories where despite all of this, vehicles refuse to pull over to allow them to pass, or pull out in front of them at junctions.

They are highly visible yet the same problem occurs, drivers either prioritise their own "needs" or have no idea how to interact

[Ellieb]

I love the way there is a theme running through this thread which essentially says the absence of evidence is an evidence of absence
eg

As has been said repeatedly - there is actually no evidence to support your assumption that a yellow top is less like to be subject to saccadic masking or cbdr or any other failure to observe.

Then the only 'evidence' presented that greater conspicuity fails to help in avoiding accidents is some pictures of yellow bollards which have been hit by drivers....conclusive eh?

Any driver of these vehicles will be able to regale you of stories where despite all of this, vehicles refuse to pull over to allow them to pass, or pull out in front of them at junctions.

Yes, of course, but how many more incidents might occur if they didn't have blues 'n twos? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother to use them?

[Cunobelin]

Any driver of these vehicles will be able to regale you of stories where despite all of this, vehicles refuse to pull over to allow them to pass, or pull out in front of them at junctions.

Yes, of course, but how many more incidents might occur if they didn't have blues 'n twos? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother to use them?

The point is that in these specific instances the blues'n'twos, fluorescent and reflective coatings etc did fail..... unequivocally to prevent the incident

Or in the case of the East Midlands Ambulance Service alone failed to prevent 90 accidents in 2017 (and that is only the ones resulting in an accident not those who refuse to pull over or give way)..... now multiply that by the number of services, add Police, Fire engines and the number where these features have failed starts to become more and more significant

Fairly conclusive evidence that the use of these features is far from foolproof and that there is a significant problem with drivers failing to see them or responding correctly to their presence

Are we really to believe that thousands of drivers who cannot see or react to an emergency vehicle in it's full panoply will see a cyclist with a 2 watt lamp and a yellow jumper?

[Cyril Haearn]

In town I drive with a window open and no music so I hear sirens
Many motons have to keep the windows closed because they have air-conditioning , modern vehicles are fairly sound-tight, many listen to music, plenty of drivers are slightly deaf
Solution: another tragedy of the commons: sirens need to be much louder

[Ellieb]

The point is that in these specific instances the blues'n'twos, fluorescent and reflective coatings etc did fail..... unequivocally to prevent the incident

Well, I don't think that anyone is claiming that hi-viz & lights are foolproof are they? Surely it is acceptable to make a case for using them if there is a significant correlation beteween using them & preventing accidents. But of course we don't have that evidence....either way. Essentially that is the short answer to the question the OP poses. There is no real evidence for or against a definite safety benefit, there is just anecdote, which is largely what this thread has been.

[[XAP]Bob]

To even recommend a ‘safety’ measure you need to have positive evidence of its benefit.

As has clearly been demonstrated by the magic hat experiments making something *look* more dangerous (by requiring special clothing etc) will result is reduced participation, despite the fact that cycling is at least as safe as walking...

As a driver I have never seen anyone ‘because’ of their high vis - but I am all not aware of many cases where I have failed to see a person entirely.

The suggested benefit (as espoused by the adverts) is being visible from >1km!
That is more than 10 times the HC stopping distance from 70! It’s absurdly far, and of no benefit - particularly since the road obviously needs to be straight for that distance as well...

[ANTONISH]

To even recommend a ‘safety’ measure you need to have positive evidence of its benefit.

As has clearly been demonstrated by the magic hat experiments making something *look* more dangerous (by requiring special clothing etc) will result is reduced participation, despite the fact that cycling is at least as safe as walking...

As a driver I have never seen anyone ‘because’ of their high vis - but I am all not aware of many cases where I have failed to see a person entirely.

The suggested benefit (as espoused by the adverts) is being visible from >1km!
That is more than 10 times the HC stopping distance from 70! It’s absurdly far, and of no benefit - particularly since the road obviously needs to be straight for that distance as well...

In my experience I can see a cyclist wearing hi vis at night at a greater distance than a cyclist in dark clothing.

The HC stopping distance you mention is for an emergency stop - at 70mph you would have around 30 seconds to decide how you are going to overtake a cyclist safely. That will be influenced by the traffic conditions - so I wouldn't consider it a great deal of time. Presumably that's on a dual carriageway.

The quoted 1km is just an indication of effective the Hi vis is - on ordinary roads and lanes at night particularly if the sky is overcast the hi vis is picked up by the car headlights more readily than dark colours. Obviously most cyclists at night will have a rear light or two.

Unfortunately we are far removed from the times when the CTC campaigned against compulsory rear lights.

In the late fifties I used to go out at night in a black "Greenspot Nomad" jacket - matt - reflective decals were not then available (some one may tell me differently). I had an "Eveready" rear light - but traffic was lighter and slower.

Today even on minor roads we have to deal with cars travelling faster than conditions should dictate.
It seems to me that cyclists generally are more visible than in my youth - so I would guess that numbers of cyclists wearing hi vis being injured or killed by vehicles will exceed in total that of cyclists wearing dark clothing.
I don't know of any study that shows the proportion of each group - but I'm inclined to believe that hi vis at night enhances safety.

[Ellieb]

To even recommend a ‘safety’ measure you need to have positive evidence of its benefit.

Why? It is not as if you are demanding that it is mandatory. You can suggest a safety measure without being certain how effective it will be, especially if an accurate measurement is problematic.

[gaz]

If you are going to suggest things as 'safety measures' you need to prove the claim that they do indeed improve safety.

Otherwise why not recommend Ninja suits?

I'm not demanding that Ninja suits are made compulsory, I have no evidence to suggest how effective they will be and I feel an accurate measurement could be problematic to obtain.

There is a mantra; be safe, be seen. Being seen earlier by a driver gives no guarantee of that driver modifying their driving.
Interventions for increasing pedestrian and cyclist visibility for the prevention of death and injuries.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Visibility aids have the potential to increase visibility and enable drivers to detect pedestrians and cyclists earlier. Public acceptability of these strategies would merit further development. However, the effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist safety remains unknown. Studies which collect data on simple, meaningful outcomes are required.

(My underline).

To come back to thread and add a little more anecdote I took a little pootle about on Friday. There was fog up on the Downs and I switched my lights on. I forgot to switch them off after I'd cleared the fog. I was wearing my banana coloured top with reflective stripes.

Riding on narrow roads in broad daylight, clear lines of sight, lights and hi-vis, I was seen by drivers, identified as a cyclist and immediately dismissed as being any form of hazard to the driver. Nobody slowed down, nobody used passing places. My safety was an irrelevance to them and not worth delaying their journeys by a few seconds.

Drivers need to realise that they create the hazard and should adjust their behaviour around vulnerable road users. DRLs don't help to achieve this, neither do magic cloaks.

[[XAP]Bob]

To even recommend a ‘safety’ measure you need to have positive evidence of its benefit.

Why? It is not as if you are demanding that it is mandatory. You can suggest a safety measure without being certain how effective it will be, especially if an accurate measurement is problematic.

Because by suggesting it you are implying that there is something that needs extra activity to prevent.

Activity from the one person who *can’t* actually prevent it...

[The utility cyclist]

I love the way there is a theme running through this thread which essentially says the absence of evidence is an evidence of absence
eg

As has been said repeatedly - there is actually no evidence to support your assumption that a yellow top is less like to be subject to saccadic masking or cbdr or any other failure to observe.

Then the only 'evidence' presented that greater conspicuity fails to help in avoiding accidents is some pictures of yellow bollards which have been hit by drivers....conclusive eh?

Any driver of these vehicles will be able to regale you of stories where despite all of this, vehicles refuse to pull over to allow them to pass, or pull out in front of them at junctions.

Yes, of course, but how many more incidents might occur if they didn't have blues 'n twos? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't bother to use them?

Again, keep on lowering the standard to actually look, see and act and push the onus on the vulnerable and you are were we are, utter lawlessness on the roads and a 'justice system failing not just pedestrians and people on bikes but other motorists too.

Given the number of actual crashes/injuries hasn't reduced due to DRLs (just more and more safety systems for motorvehicle occupants) and people still fear going out on the roads on bike (numbers for cycling have remained static for a long time)and hi-vis/helmets etc has not worked either, continually pushing the responsibility to the vulnerable will never, ever improve matters and history has proven this in droves (not to mention it's utterly the reverse to how other crimes against society.individuals are treated rape, stabbings, hate crimes etc)

[Wanlock Dod]

...But of course we don't have that evidence....

Given an absence of evidence do we really think it's a good idea to tell motorists that they don't need to look out for cyclists anymore, because cyclists will be making themselves seen?

[pwa]

...But of course we don't have that evidence....

Given an absence of evidence do we really think it's a good idea to tell motorists that they don't need to look out for cyclists anymore, because cyclists will be making themselves seen?

I'm a motorist and I've not been getting that message. I do prefer other road users to make an effort to be more visible in poor light, but I've not taken the step of assuming they all have done so.