Commuters are a dying breed.

seajays

Sirius631 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I've been thinking that having a flashing light should be compulsory as it instantly lets other road users know it is a cyclist

I go with the opposite. I want a driver to see *light, question what it is, work it out and react accordingly rather than see flashing light and immediately know it is a cyclist.

The problem here is that motorists see static lights all the time, assume that they are cars or other motor vehicles, and do no further processing of the information until they are right on top of the unexpected cyclist. A flashing light tells the motorist early that it's a cyclist up ahead, so they have more lead-time to plan a proper manoeuver to overtake the cyclist safely.

This is certainly my experience as a driver. Particularly in poor visibility conditions, I find I can spot a cyclist several cars ahead with a flashing light, and am therefore prepared much earlier, whereas those with only steady lights you don't always realise they're cyclists until you are much closer when there are lots of other static red lights on the road.

ai_1

Seajays wrote:

Sirius631 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I've been thinking that having a flashing light should be compulsory as it instantly lets other road users know it is a cyclist

I go with the opposite. I want a driver to see *light, question what it is, work it out and react accordingly rather than see flashing light and immediately know it is a cyclist.

The problem here is that motorists see static lights all the time, assume that they are cars or other motor vehicles, and do no further processing of the information until they are right on top of the unexpected cyclist. A flashing light tells the motorist early that it's a cyclist up ahead, so they have more lead-time to plan a proper manoeuver to overtake the cyclist safely.

This is certainly my experience as a driver. Particularly in poor visibility conditions, I find I can spot a cyclist several cars ahead with a flashing light, and am therefore prepared much earlier, whereas those with only steady lights you don't always realise they're cyclists until you are much closer when there are lots of other static red lights on the road.

I think a flashing rear light is a good idea. Closing speeds between cars and cyclists up ahead going the same direction are typically much faster than between other motorised vehicles. A motorised vehicle doing 25-35km/h on a road where cars are typically driving at 80-100km/h would generally use their hazard lights and with good reason. A flashing rear light on a bike serves a similar purpose.
However I don't think flashing front lights are necessary or desirable except perhaps in urban areas with relatively low powered visibility lights. I've seen people riding on unlit roads with high powered front lights that flash and I don't understand why. Cycling with strobe illumination of the road ahead can't be a wise! It's a bit irritating for oncoming traffic but more importantly it can't be a good idea to light the road ahead only intermittently, even if it's basically a strobe. I'm sure this messes with your spacial awareness and can't be comfortable on the eyes?!

elbowloh

I always use 2 sets of light now (both front and rear). 1 on flash, 1 on permanently.

The Rookie

A flashing Moon Shield 60 at the rear, bright clothing (white or yellow top, or I have a hi viz when it's colder) plus red 3M diamond tape on the rear of the seatpost and yellow on the crank arms. Up front I only really need to see so a Lezyne Macro. Some workmates complain my rear light is too bright!

keyser__soze

Seajays wrote:

A flashing light tells the motorist early that it's a cyclist up ahead, so they have more lead-time to plan a proper manoeuver to overtake the cyclist safely.

Unfortunately this leads to the usual 'it's only a cyclist, I've got plenty of time to pull out' manoeuvre, often seen at any junction/side road, whereas if it'd been a motorcycle/car they wouldn't chance it.

seajays

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Seajays wrote:

A flashing light tells the motorist early that it's a cyclist up ahead, so they have more lead-time to plan a proper manoeuver to overtake the cyclist safely.

Unfortunately this leads to the usual 'it's only a cyclist, I've got plenty of time to pull out' manoeuvre, often seen at any junction/side road, whereas if it'd been a motorcycle/car they wouldn't chance it.

But then, flashing lights won't stop idiots. Nothing will actually. For the majority of more sensible drivers however, I (as a driver also) like to know it's a cyclist as early as possible and can make decisions appropriately.

tootsie323

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The German traffic standards say that flashing lights aren't allowed, due to the fact that they have a tendency to mesmerise tired or drunk drivers...

A standard that caters for drunk drivers... nice.

keyser__soze

Seajays wrote:

But then, flashing lights won't stop idiots. Nothing will actually. For the majority of more sensible drivers however, I (as a driver also) like to know it's a cyclist as early as possible and can make decisions appropriately.

Just wondering what different action you take when you know it's a cyclist vs a moped say?

rick_chasey

Re commuters are a dying breed:

I've had to adjust what time I leave the house because there's so much bike traffic it takes me 5-10 mins longer to get in.

And that's not just me being slow.

anonymousblackfg

Rick Chasey wrote:

Re commuters are a dying breed:

I've had to adjust what time I leave the house because there's so much bike traffic it takes me 5-10 mins longer to get in.

And that's not just me being slow.

Had a look at the tfl cycleflow stats, on average cyclist numbers are up 21% across the months so far recorded this year.

If anything I find it dissapointing how many idiots without lights or shite riding ability aren't ending up as poster boys as to what happens if things go wrong.

iPete

...but despite all our venom on here, do they go wrong?

They don't appear to be a dying breed because they don't seem any more likely to get run over(?).

roger_merriman

iPete wrote:

...but despite all our venom on here, do they go wrong?

They don't appear to be a dying breed because they don't seem any more likely to get run over(?).

probably right, I might sigh when I see a cyclist with no or remarkably weak lights, that I only notice they have lights once close, but the point is I do see them and so does the rest of the traffic.

Urban areas are almost with out exception well lit, clearly rural/country areas are not but there, you do get animals,trees,rocks etc that are not lit etc.