Rear light that flashes red and white?
Comments
-
KingstonGraham wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:I'm very happy to accept the very small possibility of a slap on the wrist in exchange for better visibility.
I think a key point of visibility is the other party understanding what it is they are seeing, and interpreting how fast they are likely to be moving. A flashing red and green light to me does not say "bicycle".
This is already an issue in time trialling, particularly at junctions etc, as riders are typically going far faster than most motorists expect. Standing out more is likely to be a good thing, and many TT riders are using these lights; I see a few at every open or club event I'm at.0 -
It is a little different if being used for visibility in the daylight.0
-
KingstonGraham wrote:It is a little different if being used for visibility in the daylight.
Not sure the law sees it that way.
With regard to TT riders using them, I wouldn't have thought it was in the interests of organised events - needing risk assessments and prior agreement of the local police etc - to have participants flouting the law.......FFS! Harden up and grow a pair
0 -
Svetty wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:It is a little different if being used for visibility in the daylight.
Not sure the law sees it that way.
With regard to TT riders using them, I wouldn't have thought it was in the interests of organised events - needing risk assessments and prior agreement of the local police etc - to have participants flouting the law.......
I haven't heard of any incident in any TT in which the rear light a competitor was using was a problem.0 -
Svetty wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:It is a little different if being used for visibility in the daylight.
Not sure the law sees it that way.
With regard to TT riders using them, I wouldn't have thought it was in the interests of organised events - needing risk assessments and prior agreement of the local police etc - to have participants flouting the law.......
But from the practical point of being seen and recognised as a cyclist, it is different.0 -
wongataa wrote:
Flouting, not flaunting. They mean very different things.Svetty wrote:Maybe it makes them feel special or that they are in some way ahead of the game in flaunting the rules
Yeah I know - not sure how that got through quality control :oops: :oops:
Used correct term in my later post........FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
Slowbike wrote:imafatman wrote:Also this talk about confusing road users is hilarious. I couldn't give a shoot how confused someone is, the fact is the light is extremely visible and so they don't have any excuse.
It might be extremely visible - but I don't want drivers wondering what it is they're approaching.
As a driver I find I get disorientated with bright lid mounted lights with either nothing or dim lights on the bars - it takes longer to discern what they are and where they're going (combination of height and lack of stability) - so can end up with a paniced manoeuvre before you've time to work out a rational one - yes - I've almost done an emergency stop when suddenly presented with bobbing bright lights in poor visibility - dark & raining - it didn't have any negative effect on anyone else purely because there was nobody else about.
There's a reason why we have laws on what lights should be used and even how roads should be used and that's so we all know what to expect and can act accordingly - once you move outside that, you start suprising people and a suprised person can act in a random manner which may not be the outcome you're intending.
I'm quite surpised that a UK company is allowed to sell lights in the UK that clearly do not conform to UK law.
TT mode is the one with one flash green.* Regulations surrounding rear lighting for bicycles is a grey area in the UK and if you want to be absolutely certain of being within the law, then don’t use the TT mode
Having read the BC guide and Highway code - it clearly states White at the front and RED at the rear ... I don't see how that's in anyway grey ...
I think the point may be, that when drivers see something bright, anything, coming up in the distance, they should proceed with more caution. Rather than not and be suprised when it's a bike.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
meursault wrote:I think the point may be, that when drivers see something bright...they should proceed with more caution.
There is a massive list of things drivers should do but generally don't, so I probably wouldn't rely on them not driving badly when confused.0 -
philthy3 wrote:imafatman wrote:Gonna guess it's the Four4th Scorpion.I saw one of those on a ride and it was amazing, saw it all the way in the distance and said. I WANT ONE OF THOSE.
I quickly changed my mind when I saw the price of the thing.
Also this talk about confusing road users is hilarious. I couldn't give a shoot how confused someone is, the fact is the light is extremely visible and so they don't have any excuse.
Maybe not, but it will certainly minimise, if not negate any compensation in a claim. Insurers will look for any opportunity to minimise or get out of liability, no matter how small or insignificant you may think it is.
I guess if you are hit from behind by a car, van or lorry, the compensation getting reduced to your family may not be your primary concern?
i get over taken by drivers every day, with or without a light and they ALL see me, some however choose to drive extremely close and/or over take on blind bends or with on coming traffic etc, its what a driver does that matters and a fcuking great light doesnt alter the fact that many drivers dont give a shitte about cyclists and genuinely believe we shouldnt be on the road... "Road Lice" was one term i heard recently.
But if you think a big flashing light will save you on a DC then more fool you.0 -
I guess they all see you until one doesn't ?0
-
mamba80 wrote:philthy3 wrote:imafatman wrote:Gonna guess it's the Four4th Scorpion.I saw one of those on a ride and it was amazing, saw it all the way in the distance and said. I WANT ONE OF THOSE.
I quickly changed my mind when I saw the price of the thing.
Also this talk about confusing road users is hilarious. I couldn't give a shoot how confused someone is, the fact is the light is extremely visible and so they don't have any excuse.
Maybe not, but it will certainly minimise, if not negate any compensation in a claim. Insurers will look for any opportunity to minimise or get out of liability, no matter how small or insignificant you may think it is.
I guess if you are hit from behind by a car, van or lorry, the compensation getting reduced to your family may not be your primary concern?
i get over taken by drivers every day, with or without a light and they ALL see me, some however choose to drive extremely close and/or over take on blind bends or with on coming traffic etc, its what a driver does that matters and a fcuking great light doesnt alter the fact that many drivers dont give a shitte about cyclists and genuinely believe we shouldnt be on the road... "Road Lice" was one term i heard recently.
But if you think a big flashing light will save you on a DC then more fool you.
The point I made was that any compensation is going to be reduced. I haven't made any reference to it being your primary concern or that all drivers are good mannered road users, just like all the cyclists.
Take this idiot. Cyclist, 4am, no lights or reflective gear rides through a red light and hit by a car. Car driver drives off. Both idiots.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england ... ed-on-cctvI ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
cougie wrote:I guess they all see you until one doesn't ?
I felt pretty invincible until I did get hit. Some cyclists seriously overestimate their own visibility to motorists.0 -
Svetty wrote:Can't see much point in arguing on here with people who want to use an illegal light. It's their decision.
Maybe it makes them feel special or that they are in some way ahead of the game in flaunting the rules - a bit like teenagers who think it's adult or clever or anti-authoritarian to smoke. More fool them........
I don't think it's that, it's purely about having something which catches the attention of the motorist. I've been rear ended by a 4*4 on a straight road on a bright morning (sun not in drivers eyes) where they guy didn't even touch the brakes because he didn't notice me! Now my lasting injuries amount to a niggly hamstring but as he was in a 40 zone I suspect he must have hit me at 30-40mph - there must be a small but significant enough chance I could now be dead from that - I think it's avoiding that that is the motivation to get one of these lights not some desire to be anti authoritarian.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
philthy3 wrote:
The point I made was that any compensation is going to be reduced.
Just because you have a light which includes a green flash I think it's a bit of a stretch to say your compensation will certainly be reduced.
It may not be legal but some vehicles can use green flashing lights so I can't see how it could be argued a green flash led is dangerous and contributed to someone rear ending you. The real issue is how likely you are to get fined and how more effective the green is over a bright red led.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
If s driver cannot see a flashing red light then there are only two reasons.
The light is not bright enough. The driver is blind or distracted. End of.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:Svetty wrote:Can't see much point in arguing on here with people who want to use an illegal light. It's their decision.
Maybe it makes them feel special or that they are in some way ahead of the game in flaunting the rules - a bit like teenagers who think it's adult or clever or anti-authoritarian to smoke. More fool them........
I don't think it's that, it's purely about having something which catches the attention of the motorist. I've been rear ended by a 4*4 on a straight road on a bright morning (sun not in drivers eyes) where they guy didn't even touch the brakes because he didn't notice me! Now my lasting injuries amount to a niggly hamstring but as he was in a 40 zone I suspect he must have hit me at 30-40mph - there must be a small but significant enough chance I could now be dead from that - I think it's avoiding that that is the motivation to get one of these lights not some desire to be anti authoritarian.
In this thread I don't think it's even that, merely childish denigration of those with differing views. If you want to use a flashing light to make yourself more visible, use one.0 -
The reason there are laws regarding the colour of rear lights for traffic is to minimise distraction for drivers and to allow them to identify what's ahead.
You might think a different colour rear light would catch the attention of the driver, and it may well do so, but it is also likely to distract the driver as they try to identify what they are approaching.
Every road user should do so with consideration to other road users and obey the highway code.
Green/ white rear lights are illegal and if you use one you can have no complaints if plod does pull you over at some point. ( apart from white lights for reversing of course ) 0 -
This reminds me - I'm pretty sure I saw someone riding the other day with a light that flashed red and blue (smallish, mounted on a helmet). From a distance it did look rather like it might have been on top of an emergency vehicle.0
-
It's very kind of everyone to point out the legal issues with rear lights, but I hope you are all equally diligent at informing people that fail to use adequate reflectors.0
-
Simon Masterson wrote:It's very kind of everyone to point out the legal issues with rear lights, but I hope you are all equally diligent at informing people who start threads about failing to use adequate reflectors.
FTFY0 -
PBlakeney wrote:If s driver cannot see a flashing red light then there are only two reasons.
The light is not bright enough. The driver is blind or distracted. End of.
There is a difference between can't see and don't see. I was clearly visible to the guy who drove into the back of me but he didn't see me. The point is something out of the ordinary like a green light may attract the attention of a driver who may be distracted or not concentrating.
Of course a bright red light may achieve the same effect without the legal consequences but it is at least a reasonable belief that a green light will be more effective.
As for it being confusing - maybe it is though my guess would be that it isn't dangerously so - there are vehicles which can use green flashing lights so presumably there is no proven case that they confuse drivers in such a way as to increase risk.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Green light means - go!
Do as you wish. I'll stick to red.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:philthy3 wrote:
The point I made was that any compensation is going to be reduced.
Just because you have a light which includes a green flash I think it's a bit of a stretch to say your compensation will certainly be reduced.
It may not be legal but some vehicles can use green flashing lights so I can't see how it could be argued a green flash led is dangerous and contributed to someone rear ending you. The real issue is how likely you are to get fined and how more effective the green is over a bright red led.
My background is in law enforcement and have dealt with enough RTCs and through my own experience of claims to know exactly how insurers work. The slightest mitigating point they will run with. It is their duty to reduce or prevent costs. If they were all for paying what is due, they wouldn't try wearing claimants down with months and years of negotiating and not responding to contact.
Its your choice, but when the threads appear on here whining about the third party insurer refusing to compensate fully, or maybe at all, its going to be an interesting read.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
The first time I saw a doctor on a call they had a green flashing light ...... it confused me so I drove in to the side of their car0
-
fat daddy wrote:The first time I saw a doctor on a call they had a green flashing light ...... it confused me so I drove in to the side of their car
You must hate traffic lights!0 -
Joncomelately wrote:fat daddy wrote:The first time I saw a doctor on a call they had a green flashing light ...... it confused me so I drove in to the side of their car
You must hate traffic lights!
who doesn't?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:who doesn't?
Sometimes, I will them to go red...0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:In this thread I don't think it's even that, merely childish denigration of those with differing views. If you want to use a flashing light to make yourself more visible, use one.
It's not a matter of 'differing views', it's a matter of what is lawful and what isn't. Not sure what 'childish' has to do with it although 'denigration' is pretty accurate given that law isn't advisory and advocating a DIY application of traffic laws probably doesn't contribute towards road safety. :roll:
If drivers using their phones took the same approach most cyclists would take a dim view of them deliberately choosing to do so and then claiming that they had decided that that particular law was one that needn't apply to them.FFS! Harden up and grow a pair0 -
Svetty wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:In this thread I don't think it's even that, merely childish denigration of those with differing views. If you want to use a flashing light to make yourself more visible, use one.
It's not a matter of 'differing views', it's a matter of what is lawful and what isn't. Not sure what 'childish' has to do with it although 'denigration' is pretty accurate given that law isn't advisory and advocating a DIY application of traffic laws probably doesn't contribute towards road safety. :roll:
If drivers using their phones took the same approach most cyclists would take a dim view of them deliberately choosing to do so and then claiming that they had decided that that particular law was one that needn't apply to them.
It is also illegal to ride without reflectors at night. Many road cyclists are at odds with regulations. If the infringement is very unlikely to result in the police taking action and potentially improves a rider's safety, let them make their own decision.
The childish denigration I was referring to was primarily this little gem:Svetty wrote:Can't see much point in arguing on here with people who want to use an illegal light. It's their decision.
Maybe it makes them feel special or that they are in some way ahead of the game in flaunting the rules - a bit like teenagers who think it's adult or clever or anti-authoritarian to smoke. More fool them........
We get it - you don't want to use one of these lights. Many others feel differently. What if their reason is to do with their own safety?0
