Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
… How many times have you heard cyclists say
"ride like they can't see you"? Don't you find it interesting that with that mindset uppermost, some cyclists still invest a small fortune in lighting equipment and other hi-viz accoutrements to make themselves seen?
Makes no sense. I am convinced that a lot of cyclists don't really know what it means to "ride like they can't see you"?
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
…In particular
I interpret this to mean invest yourself with as much visibility as you want, but don’t think it is necessarily effective.
Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
Which then begs the question: how much MONEY is it reasonable to spend on what has already been acknowledged as a crapshoot?
Because my spouse also rides, I have more license than many to over-indulge in profligate expenditure of domestic treasure to satisfy bicycle related goals and attainment. Even so, we keep it simple: Planet Bike flasher (rear) and MagicShine headlight (obvious) and neither run during daylight.
I've seen dual and triple Dinotte 400R outfitted bikes. That's $600 in rear lighting alone. That is what my bike cost. I think I can point to that as an example of unreasonable. Especially if you are going into debt to do it.
Obviously night time lights are a necessity, but
I think calling day time lights a crapshoot is begging the question. Personally, I run daytime lights, that I don’t think are overly bright, and
daytime oncoming drivers’ or cyclists’ eyes are pretty well accomodated to sunlight.
I posted on this thread,
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
"Studies?..We don’t need no stinking studies…"
Many disputed safety practices, while maybe ineffective, are of themselves relatively harmless, e,g daytime lights, rear view mirror; perhaps less so, FRAP vs Take the Lane.…
I like to consider the perceived risk benefit ratio (based on my own experience, and/or advice of trustworthy others). Or, not to be religious, but in a similar vein, consider Pascal’s Wager: :
Originally Posted by Pascal
–God is, or God is not.
–Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
–A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
–You must wager (it is not optional
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing…
f you believe in dayttime lights (independent of the cost of lights since they are a nighttime necessity ayways), you win with possibly increased safety, you lose with perhaps battery wastage and increased incremental costs;
if you don’t believe daytime lights, you lose by possibly diminished safety, but win by conservation of your battery life.
However, incredibly bright lights are a losing proposition to oncoming traffic, though they win if they are alerted.
So IMO, unreasonable use of lights is determined not by cost, but by inconvenience to oncoming vehicles
Originally Posted by
gear64
… I feel like a significant number motorists are living a 'Fast and Furious' fantasy life.
All the safety equipment in the world won't protect from these offenders…
Also,
even most lights used at night by motor vehicles and cyclists are waaayyy too bright. I can't say how many pedestrians and cyclists have been hidden in an oncoming vehicles halo only to be seen by me at the last moment. Vehicles behind can also generate some unsafe conditions by over saturating a drivers vision.
Originally Posted by
Jim from Boston
…Regarding overkill, the few instances I have encountered have been on MUPS with oncoming cyclists with blazing, blindingheadlights. I often think that they believe a cone of light is a force-field that will protect them, even from oncoming cars, so the more the better.
Here in Boston, most of my route is visible even with just ambient street illumination.
Probably to such
true believers, cost is no object to energizing their force field to keep them safe.
