Spoonrobot 

I did not see any follow-up information on the issue noted in your link below:

The second part of the sentence seems to indicate this issue is not conclusive. As do the statistics I posted, if motorcyclist injuries and deaths are increasing, perhaps in the current time period always on headlights are not as effective as when they were when studied 18 years ago. Seems to indicate more research is needed and perhaps additional conspiscuity measures should be taken. Or perhaps some have the view that the issue is done and settled and no more research or development needs to be done?

JoeyBike

This may help: The Science of Vision.

Spoiler alert! Eyes "see" LIGHT, and nothing else. Those signals are transmitted to the BRAIN to interpret them. It takes TIME to realize what your eyes see, and more time to take action based on that imagery. Time is something we just don't have in high speed vehicles.

The system is set up to fail. Normal humans are so imperfect and not designed to SEE and make DECISIONS and REACT to those decisions in fractions of a second at high speed. There are little things we can do to be seen, and hopefully recognized SOONER, and that is about all we can do.

wombat_alex

Are you serious? For starters, I don't have to provide you anything and I most certainly don't appreciate the demanding tone. I did answer the OP question and also provided the stats that proved your opinion statistically wrong in the post above this in regards to the off-topic you started. Don't like the stats/research I mentioned - find another, just don't call anecdotes "research".
If your takeaway from it is that I allegedly tried to discredit a "credible news source" instead of just providing facts that show the source was misleading, I'm very sorry.
I linked the stats and that's about it. You may believe whichever source you like. I choose to rely on statistical data and science, for some anecdotal evidence and stereotypes is enough.

No matter how much fewer cars are on the roads during the day, it's still irrelevant to the fact that the majority of accidents involving cyclists happen during daylight according to the stats.
Not sure why you brought it up, but it seems like you were trying to say "fewer motorists out equals safer conditions for cyclists" but the stats shows otherwise.

wphamilton

We've known it since the 70's, that it's safer with the motorcycle headlight on. At least I've known it since then, it might have been known before that. But what I do NOT know is that it's transferable to bicycles, that it's much safer with daytime lights. I know, "common sense", I get that, but there are several differences between bikes and motorcycle driving that could make it less so.

I AM convinced however that lights at night make us more visible to traffic than we are in daytime, and one reason you alluded to. Though opposite to your reasoning, the bike lights are easily recognizable as indicating a bicycle (in most conditions) and as soon as our brains see them, we think "bike".

JoeyBike

Fewer road users = fewer opportunities for road users to slam into each other. Pretty simple math.

Between Midnight and 4.a.m. in many locations there are ZERO road users and the same amount of accidents. So at least from the standpoint of other ROAD USERS, night driving/riding is safer from collision with other road users - because there are fewer opportunities. Alien abductions may increase but I can't find any stats to back that up.

JoeyBike

Well, isn't this why we are having a discussion on a bicycle forum about daytime lights? To get input and facts on the ground from those doing the thing in question. For me, my one vote claims that my perception is that I am getting more respect from motor vehicles after dark. That first day back in the early '90s when I strapped a NightSun headlight to my bike changed my life. It was THAT noticeable. I got RESPECT instantly.

Maybe from behind. My front setup looks like a car with one headlight burned out. And by today's standards, 350+ lumens is baby stuff. I find it to be enough for my situation. There are times when I have to bike past a high school football game crowd walking/driving to/from a stadium and I switch that 350+ to flashing - the whole world STOPS in it's tracks. Rude yes. Safer for peds and me - absolutely. I am 100% seen, and respected as some sort of emergency vehicle I presume.

I am not here to prove anything. I'm here to offer my perception and my experiences with lighting and my OPINIONS on why I get harassed by motorists fewer times after dark. One word - R.E.S.P.E.C.T. They think I am a motor vehicle and respect me as such. For any of this to happen I have to be 100% SEEN first.

wphamilton

At night for sure, I'm saying the same thing. It is the main factor IMO that there is less harassment at night, if indeed that's true and I think it is.

In daytime, I see no difference in keeping the light on and the lower speeds and being less in line with traffic makes it reasonable, to me, that drivers recognize the bike as easily as seeing the lights during daylight hours. On a motorcycle with high closing speeds, the headlight grabs you first. Part of that involves the driver's self-preservation, seeing a vehicle's light coming at you, you think "vehicle" before anything else. A bike, dimmer, on the far shoulder, it's not as much an visual impact.

JoeyBike

Ah! The thing is...I run my 350 watt front light FLASHING during daylight hours and aimed at eye level to most motorists. This, I assure you, everyone involved is seeing. After dark I run the front light on solid and point it down just like any motor vehicle. I also run a much dimmer white flasher up front along with the bright solid beam. That combo gets attention even better than the solid front alone, especially for pedestrians. It is extremely rare for a ped or motorist to cut across my path in a bad way after dark.

wombat_alex

JoeyBike

Great Idea

flangehead

My personal experience is that my rate of harassment peaks at midday and after evening rush hour. Why? I do not know.

Briefly, I kept track of bad interactions with motorists over a 100 day period of mostly commuting and utility cycling. The rate of unpleasant interactions was 2-4 times at midday and after 8:00 pm than during rush hour or before the morning rush hour.

I have put the details of my test in a reply to the "Why Do Aggressive Drivers Do It?” thread in the "Commuting" forum.

Leisesturm

I don't know, I'm not a very aggressive driver but ... iffn I was ... hmmm, given a choice of which cyclist to give a bad time because I could, would it be the azzh*t hanging his fanny in my face going 15 in a 25, or the one over in the bike lane minding his own business? Amazing that in, what, three pages of point/counterpoint no one has observed that "taking the lane" behavior brings out the worst in drivers and maybe in this context "harassment" should be qualified. 100% of my riding is of a commuting or general transportation nature and is conducted on urban streets and my "harassment" by drivers is zero. I didn't say drivers treat me well all the time, but many do. Drivers cut me off, drivers make close passes, drivers do all the things drivers do, not just to cyclists but to their fellow drivers as well. I don't consider that harassment. The o.p. sounds almost disappointed that the level of general outrage that they elicit from the drivers they inconvenience is lower at night. They might want to see someone about that. Most people seek to avoid conflict with total strangers, especially at night. I know I do. But I am aware that not everyone thinks like me.
Edit: BTW the large majority of bicycle accidents happen in the day because 98% of cyclists ONLY ride in the daytime. Riding at night is many, many times more dangerous for all kinds of reasons than riding in the daytime but, because hardly anyone does it (night riding) and those few that do, 50% of them are usually savvy (and properly equipped) to do it, even though plenty of accidents are being racked up at night, that total is eclipsed by the number that is occurring during the daytime when anyone and everyone that rides is doing so.

blue192

Where I live in Ottawa I actually feel less safe at night compared to the day. This is because there are some idiots that look to cause problems with bicyclists ie honk there horn as they are passing despite only two of us on the road or people hiding on mups randomly attacking cyclists etc. Do not even get me started on the Caldwell ave mup at night...

Leisesturm

Actually what you want to do is avoid being in the travel lane at all! Whether you are seen or not is quite irrelevant. It MIGHT become an argument of importance AFTER an accident, if AFTER an accident it can be proven that you (cyclist) were 'invisible'. For that reason a prudent cyclist will make an effort to be visible. It does not IMO need to be more than a TOKEN effort. Because, as said, it is irrelevant before the fact. A single Planet Bike flasher (and far from their top of the line) keeps my six covered AT NIGHT ONLY. Up front the headlight is FOR ME. I don't care who sees me, or not. But I need to see where I am going. I use enough light to do that. Should the unthinkable happen it will also make it hard for opposing interests to claim I was not visible from the front. When drivers text they still make the (mostly successful) effort to follow the main flow of traffic! Don't be IN traffic should be the takeaway there. This does not mean cruise on the sidewalk. Even if not illegal where you live (it is not illegal where I live) it is bound to be slow(er) and more frustrating. The point is not to become a cycling martyr. I still expect to complete my cycling commute faster (much faster) than I could by mass transit or walking. I probably could not match the ETA of a car but that is not my goal. But as far as possible I seek to use the space allotted to bicycles on the road and/or share the general roadway in a manner that minimally impacts my transit time and maximizes my physical safety. Even if by, say, the use of a 750W e-assist I could match the 35 mph burst speed of motor traffic deep in the urban grid. Even if I could run at 25mph for blocks at a time IN the main travel lane. The sight of a bicycle behaving that way would be intensely triggering for most drivers. They would have to get around you. You would be chased down to each and every stoplight and sooner or later something would go wrong at very high speed. BLAM! Not worth it. In the bike lane OR in the door zone the cagers don't care how slow (or fast) you go. It's really the better way to ride and if you spend any time in cities with a large. Really large, cycling population you will see that the large majority of cyclists riding in heavy traffic stay to the right of the traffic stream. It does NOT mean they fear being IN traffic. They indeed can and will use ANY part of the roadway as necessary, but they LIMIT their exposure to only what is necessary. YMMV.

JoeyBike

Exactly what I have been preaching for a few years now. Don't depend on THEM. "They" cannot be trusted with my life. Take action yourself. Limiting exposure is one effective tool to this end - not being a hood ornament.

Glad I read your whole paragraph. The last line is the moral of the story.

Flip Flop Rider

hot weather, day light, car windows down = more temptation to yell, throw, spit, whatever

cold weather, dark, car windows up = less temptation

cycling harassment is a crime of opportunity, that's my theory at least

no motor?

I haven't paid much attention to this since I quit riding a motorcycle 10 years ago, but when I was the trend was increasing due to the increase in old guys buying overweight underenigeered bikes they couldn't ride. These returning riders usually bought something much bigger and heavier than the motorcycles they'd ridden in their youth, and often ended up hurting themselves on one of the rare occasions they did go for a ride. And those rides usually took place during the daytime.

detroitjim

JoeyBike

As I said upthread. From midnight to 4 a.m. there are very few motorcycles on the road, or any motor vehicles for that matter. Less cars to run into each other and virtually zero motorcycles. So for 4-Hours of "darkness" there are no opportunities for MC disaster. This skews the results. Same for bicycles. Just far fewer of them on the road after dark, and after about 6pm, most working folks are home eating, not driving around.

no motor?

Well there are fewer people out then, but too many have been drinking earlier in the evening. And drinking and riding a motorcycle are a bad combination. I used to drive nights for one of my college summer jobs and it was usually really peaceful out after the drinkers had made it home and most of the rest of the world was still home. Most of my favorite memories of that job happened during those times.

MontgomeryMeigs

I would like to suggest that the perception of nighttime harassment vs. safety as measured statistically by number of accidents are two unrelated issues, on which it would be to difficult to link the two. The former is essentially a willful act by the motorist to get the cyclist's attention and in most cases no physical contact is made. The latter involves unintentional or negligent behavior by the motorist, in most cases without malice or bad intent, but unfortunately with contact. The motorist's underlying behavior is different in each case, in addition to 'perception' being a feeling (valid as it may be) vs. statistics (whichever ones you believe) being based in mathematics.

Statistics or no, I too have noticed that while riding or commuting after dark cars on the average tend to swing more often into the oncoming lane and give me a wider berth. Perhaps it's because the drivers aren't up against some time limit, like getting to work. Perhaps the drivers figure the cyclist is some poor bloke who is forced to ride a bike at night, of all things, because he can't afford a car, or got a DWI and they feel sorry for us.

Personally, I suspect most drivers think that anybody out riding a bike in the dark is a little off the deep end anyway and it's better to give that person just a little extra room.

BikingTech

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe I don't get bothered at night because I am covered in NRA and ninja looking bumper stickers. BAM BAM BAM, PooooF! I escape with ninja smoke into the darkness.

daoswald

But is it a crime?

I keep looking to find an answer on that question. If someone driving past me in a car leans out and shouts just as he goes by, going for the big prize of seeing me jump with surprise, has that person committed a crime?

I think it's fairly clear that if someone intentionally passes too closely they've broken at least the 3' law (where applicable) and possibly could also be cited for reckless driving. In fact it could possibly be considered assault. But for whatever reason I tend to attract the loud shouts as someone whizzes by with their windows down. I believe it puts me in danger; they're paying attention to shouting out their window, not to the road. And I could possibly go off the shoulder and wreck or something. I'm just not sure what law has been broken if there was no injury from someone shouting to startle.

I would love to find out that it is a crime. If so, I'll try to do a better job of remembering license plates, though I'm not so naive as to believe a report of someone yelling at me would get any follow-up from the authorities.

SHBR

Much less harassment (for me) at night.

As for statistics, how many fatalities happen at night compared to daytime when proper lighting equipment is used by cyclists?

Lights = slightly more respect from road users that care about safety, even in daylight.

Rollfast

I think around here it's because people are in the bars.