Is the legal standard for rear lights fit for purpose?

[Pete Owens]

I will say that my personal perspective is that a single, steady rear bike light can be difficult to pick-out and identify as a bike when viewed against a background of darkness and numerous other tail lights on other vehicles, and could be bettered by using one flashing (to shout “bike”) and one steady (to aid judgement of distance), which I know some use already.

So long as you can see the light you know not to drive into it - whatever it is. It is not there to identify the exact nature of what it is - just to highlight its existence. Or do you make a habit of crashing into things other than bikes?

Many things you might encounter on the road are completely unlit (fallen logs, pedestrians, animals and so on). A basic rule of driving is that you need to be able to stop within the distance YOU CAN SEE to be clear. You cannot rely on anything beyond the range of your headlights being clear just because you cannot see anything there. I suggest you take some driving lessons and learn to drive at night - and if you still find it difficult to spot lit cyclists then it suggests your eyesight isn't up to the task and you need to hand in your driving licence on medical grounds.

And even when cyclists take up your suggestion of using 2 lights you will get another victim blaming motorist complaining about that
as well:
viewtopic.php?t=143005&hilit=dangerous+front+lights

Now - I always use 2 lights at the rear. But this is nothing to do with one being inadequate, but as a backup in case the battery runs out.

[Stevek76]

I'm not sure there's any benefit to identifying oneself as a person on a pedal bike?

In certain scenarios it seems it might be rather disadvantageous. Though all my nighttime riding is urban or off road.

Given the amount of drivist moaning at this time of the year about cyclists with no lights and dark clothes the conclusion can only be reached that they must actually be very visible in that state!

As always the problem is not looking in the first place.

[Pete Owens]

I'm not sure there's any benefit to identifying oneself as a person on a pedal bike?

^^^ This

Indeed - I would rather that my lighting gave other road users the impression that I was something big and dangerous (say a tractor with one of these spikes for picking up bails of hay pointing backwards at windscreen height.

[Nearholmer]

So long as you can see the light you know not to drive into it

I'm not sure there's any benefit to identifying oneself as a person on a pedal bike?

“Seeing”, as in some light entering he eye, and perceiving, as in realising the significance of that light, are two very different things.

If a steady bike tail-lamp is “lost” among other tail lights, one “sees” it, the light arrives at the eye, but one may not perceive it correctly. It can be read as a partially-obscured car much further ahead, a minor reflection from a puddle, or simply not be noticed at all because it is “drowned” by the bigger, brighter tail-lamps of other vehicles.

The benefit of identifying oneself as a person on a bike? Huge, because that instantly tells a driver that: you are likely to move at a different speed from most traffic; that your tail-lamp maybe small, meaning that you may be closer than a motorbike with the same apparent tail-lamp size; that you don’t have indicators so that advance notice of turning may be given differently, or be invisible in he dark; that you may change position in the lane to avoid potholes and puddles; that you are unlikely to have rear-view mirrors so may be less aware of what’s behind you than a motorcyclist is; that if an overtaking move is in prospect you need to be given plenty of space and perhaps be passed relatively slowly to avoid startling you; etc.

Maybe I should have started this with a question about how best to self-identify as a cyclist when on the road in the dark, rather than simply asking for views on tail-lamps, because reflective clothing and reflectors on the bike play a significant part too.

[tim-b]

snip...can I ask whether people think the current legal minimum standards for cycle rear lights are adequate, and if not what people think is adequate?

The current legal minimum standard includes flashing and static lights. A light that can only flash must emit at least 4 candelas (which mjr eluded to earlier ) and flash between 1 and 4 times per second. That's it.
A static light (which might include a flashing mode) has to conform to BS6102/3
On then to "adequate":
Current regs only apply to cycling in the dark, should cyclists have, for example, fog lights? IMHO, yes
Should there be a standard for flashing dazzling lights in the dark? IMHO, yes
4 candelas is a small light output and IMHO not suitable for a front light so that a rider can see unlit hazards in otherwise unlit areas

The "good" thing about current standards is that you can apply common sense and improve, e.g. use a light in fog
The "bad" thing is that providing you comply with the minimum, then you can add whatever giga-lumen lighting you fancy, providing its colour and position are appropriate

[Cugel]

Many things you might encounter on the road are completely unlit (fallen logs, pedestrians, animals and so on). A basic rule of driving is that you need to be able to stop within the distance YOU CAN SEE to be clear. You cannot rely on anything beyond the range of your headlights being clear just because you cannot see anything there.

Whilst I feel that this is how all drivers should behave, the fact is that a large proportion of them don't. Annoyingly, this forces upon we cyclists (as well as pedestrians and the night time wandering beasts) a need to be extra-noticeable to the driver-inadequates in the hope that we can avoid being run down by them.

Sadly, the wandering night time beasts don't really understand this and anyway can't go to the shop for some reflectives. Even the Christmas tree cyclist will still be at risk from the even more cretinous variety of driver, for whom no amount of extra help at noticing things will stop their dangerous stupidities and inadequacies.

Yes, the rozzer & beak should be enforcing the existing laws to rid the roads of driver-fools. But that doesn't happen either. Claiming the right to ride legally at night and without having to be the Christmas tree won't help as you lie maimed and dying in the road, see?

************
A major issue with adopting self-preservation stuff in the face of dangerous self-centred little skinbags behind a large and powerful motor is that it normalises that situation. Failing to compensate for Mr & Ms Careejit's inability to drive properly will result in victim-blaming and all the rest. Still, better that than being dead in the road from eejit-wounds.

Cugel

[mjr]

A flashing red light is a start; or will do no harm, at least. Personally I have a very bright one indeed solely for daylight riding.

I can think of at least three harms done by a "very bright" red flashing light at night. Can you really not see the problems?

Did you miss the "daylight" bit of my remark?

An overbright bright light at night is a different matter.

No, I saw it: you did also say a flasher would "do no harm, at least" which is obviously untrue if you were to use your daytime one at night.

Flashers alone are legal but antisocial. A good wide steady light is far better. None of it matters much while about a quarter of drivers cannot see well and many of the rest aren't looking.

[mjr]

Many things you might encounter on the road are completely unlit (fallen logs, pedestrians, animals and so on). A basic rule of driving is that you need to be able to stop within the distance YOU CAN SEE to be clear. You cannot rely on anything beyond the range of your headlights being clear just because you cannot see anything there.

Whilst I feel that this is how all drivers should behave, the fact is that a large proportion of them don't. Annoyingly, this forces upon we cyclists (as well as pedestrians and the night time wandering beasts) a need to be extra-noticeable to the driver-inadequates in the hope that we can avoid being run down by them.

There is no hope of ever being visible enough to be seen by someone not looking. That is the main problem, not that cycle lights aren't bright enough or noticeable enough. It forcesupon we cyclists a need to campaign for a requirement for drivers to take regular eyetests and other measures to remove the incompetents before they injure others.

[Cugel]

I can think of at least three harms done by a "very bright" red flashing light at night. Can you really not see the problems?

Did you miss the "daylight" bit of my remark?

An overbright bright light at night is a different matter.

No, I saw it: you did also say a flasher would "do no harm, at least" which is obviously untrue if you were to use your daytime one at night.

Flashers alone are legal but antisocial. A good wide steady light is far better. None of it matters much while about a quarter of drivers cannot see well and many of the rest aren't looking.

SO .... what were the many drawbacks of a bright flashing red light at night? You mentioned that I ought to be able to think of "at least three" but in truth I can't think of any - unless the light has so many lumens that it would be literally blinding.

Do any such flashing red lights for cyclists exist? I know there's one named "Knog blinder", as I have two. Luckily this is just marketing-speak and the light has so far blinded no one at all, not even for a nano-second. Phew!

Still, if you know of true and actual blinders, perhaps you should list them for us? Also, the mechanism by which their lumens get in the motorist eyes to cause them to not only stop seeing aright but to press even harder on their accelerator pedal.

And now you have mentioned an "antisocial" factor to the flashers. What is that, prey? I've never seen one used to beat up a motorist; or seen them beaming out expletives in the street.

Cugel

[Postboxer]

To be honest, I've no idea what the legal standard is, what that looks like in practice, and which lights meet that standard, exceed that standard, or fall below that standard. When I've seen lights advertised, I can't recall any referencing anything about legal standards. Battery/light technology has come on leaps and bounds in recent years so I'm not sure if regulations have kept up, it could be possible some lights are far too bright for use on the road. It doesn't matter what the legal standard is if not many people are aware of it and it then isn't clear which lights do or do not conform. Not to mention the lack of pedal reflectors on many pedals.

[gazza_d]

Imo no it isn't..

I also think it's just not enforced tight or enforced enough so anything goes

I'm not a fan of flashing lights as I do sometimes find it hard to judge the distance and on a road busy with other lights they can be hard to track. On unlit or dark routes an oncoming bright flashing light can really screw with my night vision too.

I also don't get that having light that's "mark" you as a cyclist help either. They don't have magic empathy inducing powers. When I swapped from battery flashers to dynamo steady about 8-9 yrs ago I found I got better oases in the dark.

I personally think an adoption of the German svtzo standard would be best, not that will happen due to brexit of course. Only lights that meet that std would be allowed to be sold as suitable for cycling..

Chuck on as many extra lights as you want but at least one should be bright and steady as per the German regs.

Also those regs mandate lights as standard with any bike sold over 12 kgs which must meet the std. Again to me that sounds sensible.