Front Lights in Daylight

[simonhill]

Strobe lights may be legal,

They're not. Flashing yes, strobe no.

Ooops, sorry - are those fast flashing bike lights proper strobes, or just very fast flashing?

Whatever, my original question/point re harming susceptible people still applies.

[tim-b]

Hi

The human brain can process an image in only 13 milliseconds (link)

It can indeed process an image in 13ms. But you cannot perceive flickering over 75Hz (the reciprocal of 13ms). A good example is with modern LED brake lights - they look steady until you flick your eye across them - in which case you perceive a series of dots. So indeed you can see a single 13ms flash, but cannot separate a series of them.

75Hz = 75 cycles per second. TC mentioned 240/minute = 4Hz???
Regards
tim-b

[Jdsk]

Strobe lights may be legal, but shouldn't the rider warn you that 'this bike contains flashing lights' like they do all the time on the TV.

Seriously though, could someone who is susceptible to flashing lights be harmed by these lights? They certainly make my eyes hurt.

Critical frequency for epilepsy and similar is roughly 3 to 30 Hz.

Dazzling is different.

Jonathan

[Pebble]

Strobe lights may be legal, but shouldn't the rider warn you that 'this bike contains flashing lights' like they do all the time on the TV.

Seriously though, could someone who is susceptible to flashing lights be harmed by these lights? They certainly make my eyes hurt.

Critical frequency for epilepsy and similar is roughly 3 to 30 Hz.

Dazzling is different.

Jonathan

Interesting - Just tested my cateye volt 800 and counted a 100 in 35 seconds - so 2.85 Hz I wonder if it was designed to be below critical epilepsy trigger frequencies.

[Jdsk]

That sounds likely.

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

Precisely the thinking that has gotten us into this poophole in the first place, CTC was right nearly 90 years ago regards rear lights, thin end of the wedge indeed. https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-wedge/ A person on a bike should never have to ride in a particular position simply to get a safe overtake, I get why we are told to do it, indeed I do it myself but like many on here with many decades of riding under their belts it's still not always as easy to do. And it's the modification to do this that irks me, why should I have to ride in such a manner that by not doing so could cost me my life when what I'm actually doing presents no actual harm to others, frankly it's perverse.

Ask your average non enthusiast or non cyclist if that's where they would ride, the answer would be no, I see many people with all the gear and some that I know have ridden for a long time still riding in the gutter, we see it all the time.
Forcing people to do precisely what their heads are telling them not to do is really difficult, you're asking them to put themselves closer to that which might harm then, and that fear in itself is enough to stop people from riding bikes in the first instance. Riding primary/secondary doesn't ever change that and it doesn't stop people from getting killed or injured.

Er... around here, you're more at risk of other things other things if you choose not to take the secondary or primary line... in some lanes there's no pavements or grass verges, there's just a six or seven foot high hedge right by the sides of the road - during spring and summer they can sprout lines of brambles in a week, some times at face or even eye height... in other places there's just a foot wide verge and then a five foot drop into a ditch with another three foot of ditch water at the bottom.. Going back a couple of years, I had a young deer burst out of the hedges. It was young and frightened and even around here it doesn't happen that much - I was taking the primary line at the time, but I would have collided with the animal if I hadn't been. Due to the location, many of the lanes road here have been built on peat soil - the roads can deform quickly and some of the lanes have really bad cambers and if you don't take the primary or secondary line you'll come off, especially in the damp. Then there's the usual drains and road muck which also build up at the side of the lanes - mulched leaves, broken glass and other delights. There's a load of reasons why I take the primary and secondary lines. I can understand why its difficult for some to take them, but around here, if you're gonna cycle you've got no choice.

[freiston]

The reason for raising this is through my own experiences- I found that if I took the same position on the roads as one would expect to see a moped or light motorcycle, I found that less people pulled out on me and I had a better line of sight to the occupants. If I cycled closer to the kerb I my line of sight was greatly diminished.
It has been noted that many drivers fail to look towards each roof pillar when assessing if a junction is clear - thus those who are cycling closer to the kerb may fail to be spotted.

I agree that a cyclist in the secondary or primary position is a lot more likely to be seen than a cyclist hugging the kerb/riding in the gutter. I would say it is dangerous not to adopt the secondary or primary position when approaching/passing a side road. This is basic roadcraft/good practice; it is not the ineffective modifying of victim's/vulnerable's behaviour any more than it would be for a pedestrian to find a clear spot with good visibility (for them and other road users) before crossing a road. Rather than serving to excuse wrong doing on the part of the motorist, it enables and (therefore) promotes safer behaviour.

Precisely the thinking that has gotten us into this poophole in the first place, CTC was right nearly 90 years ago regards rear lights, thin end of the wedge indeed. https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-wedge/ A person on a bike should never have to ride in a particular position simply to get a safe overtake, I get why we are told to do it, indeed I do it myself but like many on here with many decades of riding under their belts it's still not always as easy to do. And it's the modification to do this that irks me, why should I have to ride in such a manner that by not doing so could cost me my life when what I'm actually doing presents no actual harm to others, frankly it's perverse.

Ask your average non enthusiast or non cyclist if that's where they would ride, the answer would be no, I see many people with all the gear and some that I know have ridden for a long time still riding in the gutter, we see it all the time.
Forcing people to do precisely what their heads are telling them not to do is really difficult, you're asking them to put themselves closer to that which might harm then, and that fear in itself is enough to stop people from riding bikes in the first instance. Riding primary/secondary doesn't ever change that and it doesn't stop people from getting killed or injured.

You've missed the point somewhat. Your argument is akin to telling a child not to follow the green cross code because "why should they have to cross the road in such a manner that by not doing so could cost them their life when what they're actually doing presents no actual harm to others".
This isn't about modifying your behaviour to compensate for or force the hand of the motorist - it is about sharing a road responsibly and proceeding in a safe manner. The road is a shared space and anyone using it needs to think about and respect other users, behaving in such a way as to aim to make it safe and stress-free for all users. There's a difference between being entitled on the road and feeling over-entitled above and beyond anyone else on the road.

The second point is that this thread is about being seen - and the simple fact is that humans ain't evolved to be that good at seeing bikes when they're approaching a junction - and whilst drivers should be expected to act in such a way as to overcome this shortcoming (and should be held responsible for any incident resultant from that shortcoming), only a fool would dig their heels in and insist on riding a bike in such a way as to make it harder rather than easier to be seen - it's like a pedestrian insisting on crossing a road on a blind bend or between parked cars when it would be just as easy to find a spot where oncoming drivers have good visibility of the pedestrian waiting to cross.

[9494arnold]

It's about time the law was changed to an immediate presumption of guilt if a Car driver hits a Cyclist/ Motocycle/ Pedestrian .
I agree daytime running lights on cars has buggered it up for cyclists/ motorcyclists.
Also have to say some Mountain Bikers have an annoying habit of riding round with searchlights on their helmets.
Blinding all and sundry as they turn to chat to their mate.
I am not anti motoring by any stretch of the imagination.

[Jdsk]

Criminal guilt or civil liability? Or both?

Recent discussion, and a petition:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=140174&hilit=presumption

Jonathan

[sixtoes]

After numerous cars pulling out on me this week I'm thinking of installing strobe style lights on my flatbars so the "I didn't see you" excuse won't be valid anymore !!!

I'm looking at these Knogs [url]https://ebay.to/2YERrjm
[/url]

Anybody use similar ? Do you think 2 would be overkill ?

Thanks for any advice,

Regards

J

I use a set of Lezyne Femto Drive USB. Very happy with then so far and they are about £22 for the set of two. They are bright and the battery life is good.

I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of using DRLs other than to say that I'm pretty sure I notice bikes with flashing lights when they are further away than those without.

[SA_SA_SA]

.... In my earlier post I should also have mentioned that the rate has to be "equal."

Don't you mean constant? The law doesn't forbid mark space (on/off) ratios other than 50% but that ratio must be fixed (hence seesense lamps' main feature is illegal in tthe UK).

[JohnW]

It's about time the law was changed to an immediate presumption of guilt if a Car driver hits a Cyclist/ Motocycle/ Pedestrian .
I agree daytime running lights on cars has buggered it up for cyclists/ motorcyclists.
Also have to say some Mountain Bikers have an annoying habit of riding round with searchlights on their helmets.
Blinding all and sundry as they turn to chat to their mate.
I am not anti motoring by any stretch of the imagination.

+1 to most of that.
However, the lawmakers are all motorists, so your first line of thought won't happen.

My only dissent from what you say is to the last line - think of a world without motorists!?!?..............

[thirdcrank]

.... In my earlier post I should also have mentioned that the rate has to be "equal."

Don't you mean constant? The law doesn't forbid mark space (on/off) ratios other than 50% but that ratio must be fixed (hence seesense lamps' main feature is illegal in tthe UK).

No - I meant "equal" which is is in the bit of the advice I quoted in the same post but which is omitted here. I put it in quotes here to emphasis that I was quoting. I'd have no trouble believing that the govt's advice I was quoting was wrong - if somebody quoted a statutory source which disproved it.

"Older readers" may remember that an earlier version of this said that if a pedal cycle was fitted with lights, then they must be used in poor daytime visibility. It was only after my persistence that they rather miffily changed that to advice rather than compulsion.

[willcee]

IME front flashing quality white LED illumination is useful. however given that many on here may to my feeling be urban dwellers and urban cycle users, I can understand their views regarding more lighting distractions,advertising signage, shop lighting, street lamps, thankfully I have never had to suffer such .. I would however be very much in favour when in a rural environ, I use a small bright flashing led which lets drivers see from hundreds of yards away on a clear road that there are cyclists in front of him so if he was considering an overtake he would need to take care.. like many here I am also a driver , and hold the advanced as well,and have covered way in excess of a million miles thankfully with only 2 speed tickets and one careless driving fine, one serious accident and a couple of minor prangs, none my fault and no cyclists ever so far.. too many drive at the end of the bonnet, and ride at the front of the front wheel ! a good experienced road user doesn't.. no diss intended.. will

[OldLimey]

What I wear is pretty much irrelevant to visibility because my bikes have good German-spec lights, wheel and pedal reflectors and reflective wheel bands and some of them have the rear quarter of the back mudguard painted white. Any driver looking at my bike doesn't need to see the rider. Even so, positioning makes far more difference than the bike, but any of you riding around with substandard lights, black mudguards and no pedal or wheel reflectors don't really have a leg to stand on to lecture about visibility, do you?

The human body is a much larger target for a driver to see, especially if light or fluorescent clothing is worn.

Although motorcycling is a different world, I took the experienced rider course three times in ten years, and it was always emphasized to wear bright clothing. I had a yellow fluorescent over jacket (with sleeves) and it had white reflective strips around the arms, across the back and down the front. I've quit motorcycles, now, but in the twenty-seven years that I rode (in every kind of weather, winter included), I never had a car cross my path to make a turn. Yet that is a major cause of car/motorcycle crashes. Crotch rockets have a small profile and because of the speed of the car and the motorcycle as they approach one another, there is a good chance of being creamed by the driver; less so on a cruiser where the rider is wearing bright colors.

You mention the rear mudguard being partially white. That may help with cars coming from behind, but what about those coming the other way in the dark? The driver is hardly likely to see pedal reflectors, so all you have is a front light, and it had better be a good, bright one. Ever had your battery suddenly go low a mile or two from home? I have! That may be a good reason to have two lights so when one goes out, the other one can be turned on.

Reflective tires are good but not much help when a car is coming the other way and decides to turn across your path. So it still comes back to wearing something bright. Your life may depend on it. I wear bright T shirts (black draws the heat) all the time, and the reflective over jacket at night.