gear64

I'd be curious if just from automotive only perspective there's any evidence running lights make any difference. I feel like the number of crashes and number of ems response required crashes increases every year on my daily commute. I refuse to call them accidents because I believe in every case one if not both parties were doing something negligent and often negligently aggressive. 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. In the case of responsible drivers I trust my own skills to fill the outlier examples. If one of the offenders get me... at least I died happy.

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.

gear64

I'm not curious enough to read an 80 page doc in detail, but a lot of what I expected at a glance ...varies... ....issues of methodology.... The second was more an opinion piece with uncited statistics. I'm still of an opinion if you can't see another vehicle sans day running lights you need vision correction or to stop looking at your phone. I would argue day running lights or not pales in comparison to in-vehicle entertainment whether baked in or by phone. Just holding a conversation with passenger and habitually trying to make eye contact with said passenger likely creates more peril than running without daytime lights.

bruce19

Is the statement "...it is not essential that oncoming traffic see you..." statistically true? I ask because as an MSF instructor I can tell you that the biggest problem that motorcyclists face is oncoming cars turning into their path. It's some ridiculously high percentage of car/bike accidents. I don't know if something similar happens when cycling. But, I'd like to know.

terrymorse 

According to this study, most car-bicycle collisions happen at intersections, and most of those are car going straight and bike crossing from the right on the wrong side of the road:

"Crash situation categories

MikeyMK

Yeah i agree, and that's a subject in itself. I personally find it especially difficult to tell the distance of the brighter flashers, which can look like flickering car headlights far away (objects in the foreground eclipsing them) only to realise it's a flasher right up close to me...

That said, i find static ones worse, blending in with street lights etc. The small size of bike lights may be to blame, with smaller things appearing further away - a motorcycle with only a sidelight on is clearly a motorcycle against any background.

BengalCat

A front flashing, blinking or strobe light during the day really increases the visibility of vehicle drivers approaching from a side street. That's what I use. The same light works if you are in traffic and vehicles in front of you want to change from where they are to where you will be. For me, the light has definitely increased my safety in the situations I've described. I've seen the effectiveness of it. I also use a flashing rear light during the day too. That rear light is especially handy on places like PCH.

Leisesturm

I have owned motorcycles as well. Motorcycles have the speed and power to operate anywhere in the road a car does. Motorcycles are often to the left of the center of the leftmost lane. If not seen (noticed) by an oncoming car that is turning left there might be a collision. I suspect in a majority of these crashes the driver SAW the motorcycle, but ass-u-med that the bike would yield. Then after the fact the driver LIES and says they did not see the bike. It's hard to blame them. Are they really going to say, "yeah, I saw them, hit them anyway, sue me." What lawyer is going to allow his or her client to throw away their defense like that? Do motorcyclists understand that the "I didn't see you" is code for "I'm <censored> unless I can come up with a good excuse for running that poor sod over"?

A bicycle is not a motorcycle. Regardless of what a minority of cyclists believe, a bicycle should be operating much further to the right of the road position that is usual for motorcycles. Plus the bicycle is far slower. Plus the bicycle should be using a surfeit of caution at intersections and should NOT be the first one to blast out of the gate the nanosecond the light turns green. I have saved the day any number of times by expecting some <censored> to do something sideways like a last second turn left through the RED left turn signal. A huge no-no, but faced with the prospect of waiting (again) through the entire cycle of a complex intersection, some will risk it and run the fresh red light or left turn signal. Especially if its only a bicycle they SEE on the other side. And see you they will. Flashing light, steady light or no light, they see you. Even when distracted by their phone, they see you! However, distracted by their phone, they will not have their higher order decision processes online. They will not be driving defensively. A cyclist MUST be.

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"? It means eating a lot of humble pie when the contest is between a 220lb. rider/bike combination and a 5,549lb. driver/SUV combination. Don't even get mad. Don't try to get even. Just let it roll off and keep moving. Words to live by.

Metieval

I grew up under the False narritive that cyclist need to stay as far right as possible.

after a way too many right hooks, and people pulling out in front of me. (lights made no difference). I started taking my lane in the intersections. I have not had a single car right hook me or cross my path since taking my lane.

I think there are several things wrong with being on the right edge of the road. 1. you blend in with the objects along the road. 2. that is not where driver focus their attention. 3. if they do see you over there, you are just a slow bicycle. (if you are slow then a right hook won't really matter, unless you have no brakes, or are trying to brake from the hoods on a drop bar.)


I am not condoning being an ass to car traffic here. If I have a car behind me, I may slow to allow them to get to the intersection first, then I'll take my lane. I see it as all part of the flow and yielding to faster traffic. at the same time making my world the safest place possible for me.

Communication is Key too. Knowing that many people fail to use turn signals. I'll signal my intentions of going straight at intersections. This has had a few people turn on their turn signals, that otherwise wasn't using them, to indicate they are turning left across my path.

EYE CONTACT is important. If you don't have it, they probably don't see you. Even if you have eye contact, they might not register 'cyclist'. just part of being aware, and being ready.

this is all my experience, and my opinions based on my experience.

and the law by the way , at least here. Is not to ride as far right as possible. It is to ride as far right as safely possible. My view on that, don't impede traffic. Navigating an intersection is not impeding traffic, so use the lane. and be in the focus part of it.

acknowledge, communicate, be seen, be friendly, smile, all things that makes traffic better.

bruce19

Perfect

Miele Man

Studies and experiments have shown that making eye contact with a driver does NOT increase your safety on a bicycle. That's because a lot of drivers aren't looking for a bicycle and thus they do NOT SEE YOU. Forget about eye contact; to be safe watch the front wheels of the vehicle. If the front wheels of the vehicle stat moving then either the driver doesn't see you or the driver doesn't care or is distracted.

Cheers

bobwysiwyg

I agree. I do this on the bike and driving the car.. watch the wheels.

I-Like-To-Bike

What studies and experiments?

subgrade

I see what you did there

Jim from Boston

Daytime Running Lights - Get Them! VideoI have frequently posted:Apropos of the advice cited above in this thread my aphorisms include:In particular, @Leisesturm wrote“ ‘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?.”

I interpret this to mean invest yourself with as much visibility as you want, but don’t think it is necessarily effective.

wphamilton

US DOT looked into it and found that DRL made no difference in accident rates, other than with light trucks I believe. There are various other studies, particularly in Northern European countries, that claim 5-10% reduction in crash rates. Some, like the US showed little or no crash reduction.

I strongly suspect that most if not all of the reduction of crashes from DRL arise from having them on during low light conditions at dawn and dusk. The countries showing the greatest reductions are also more typically have lower light conditions would bear this out. Personally I turn my lights on in those conditions religiously so I suppose I have daylight running lights in a sense, but I see no point in having them on during the rest of the day.

Metieval

To calculate crash reduction, wouldn't we have to first establish accident cause?

in 24 hours here we had 2 head on collisions, one was on the Phone, the other high speed and a corner. He went wide and crossed the center line on a curve. The third accident, a guy left the road and hit a telephone pole. 3 crashes where DRL wouldn't have made a difference, regardless of if they do or don't.

In short, drivers here are just flat out incompetent drivers. Stories I hear from friends, tells me that this sh***y driver problem is Nationwide. What safety measure would make a dent in crash reduction, other than quit giving out driver license like prizes in a cracker jack box?

my point is DRL will not fix stupid.

Loose Chain

I have owned motorcycles since a kid, dirt bikes and then street bikes. The biggest concern I have are cagers turning left across me and getting rear ended (especially if stopping or slowing to clear a left turn. I am pro-filtering to reduce rear end collisions. As you say, a motorcycle has the speed, power and brakes to out maneuver almost all other road vehicles. The standard position for a motorcycle on a two lane road is the left side of the lane.

I ride as if I am invisible. I also do not exceed the speed limits which helps.

The "I did not see them" excuse is a lie. They did see the motorcycle and are lie out their axx. I do not trust eye contact. I have developed a keen intuition over the years and usually will begin an evasive action before the cager even sees me (which they do) and then decides to ignore me which is the truth. Like a Spidey Sense from Spiderman.

The biggest concern I have on my bicycle is getting hit and side swiped from behind. Yeah cars will cut across me turning left just as on a motorcycle but again I just assume they intend to. But getting hit from behind is hard to take evasive maneuvers, some times there is nowhere to go. And this is the big difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle, maneuverable as a bicycle is, a motorcycle has, again, the speed, power and braking to out maneuver virtually any vehicle on the road, if I do not want somebody behind me, I hit the afterburner and they are not there any more.



I take that speed and power thing back, this Monkey, I ride it like it is a bicycle:



I have the flasher kits on my tail lights and on my head lights, and I am sorry, but they work and the same with the rear flasher on my bicycle. The flashers that get the most attention are those that have the double strobing type pulse or erratic flashing.

And there is plenty of evidence that daytime running lights on cars help. I had a cop pull me over once a few years ago when the running lights were becoming common safety feature on cars. He did a U-turn to pull me over. He was complaining (loudly) about driving with my headlights on in the daytime, so he could apparently see me. He told me to turn them off. I told him they were factory installed OEM Toyota daytime running lights and cannot be turned off but he is welcome to show me the switch, well there is not one.

Saying lighting does not help visibility is like saying airbags do not work if everybody would just wear their seatbelts. Airbags work and so do lights if properly installed and used.

2manybikes

Excellent

Jseivert

I don't think I've seen anything that says lights make me LESS visible so I'll continue to use them, even if it's a minor gain, along with every other option I can to keep myself safe.

JanMM

This is from Wiki: 'Eye contact occurs when two animals look at each other's eyes at the same time.'
.Eye contact? Often not even possible between motorists and cyclists due to tinted glasses, tinted windscreens, reflections, glare, positioning, etc. I often can't see if a motorist is even looking in my direction, much less see their eyeballs.

Metieval

the full quote is?

here I'll grab it for you
"Eye contact occurs when two animals look at each other's eyes at the same time. In human beings, eye contact is a form of nonverbal communication and is thought to have a large influence on social behavior."

So do you think that there is a possibility when someone says "eye contact" they might be referring to the "non verbal communication" between humans? Did i even need to add the "between humans" here? Apparently so, I mean it is a discussion about humans on bicycles and humans in cars.

Jim from Boston

"Studies?..We don’t need no stinking studies…"

When it comes to safety issues of bicycling, I consider the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, Greek, so-called Father of Medicine: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.

The alternative, “experimental” methodology was previously described, in this case about cadence: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:If you believe in eye contact, you gain uncertain information, and may get get hit anyways...you lose. If you ignore eye contact, you gain nothing, but lose possibly uncertain information, and maybe a friendly smile.

wphamilton

It's why I only "strongly suspect" that the crash reduction is due mainly to having lights on during low-light conditions. The data isn't discrete enough to make that a strong conclusion.

But generally no, I don't you'd need to in order to get a general measure of accident reduction from using DLR. You'd look at total number of accidents, and break it down into discreet categories if you have the data.



That is true. But it doesn't rule out the possibility that seeing lights on bikes would make even incompetent, stupid drivers less likely to run into bicycles. Can't know, without real data.

drbarney1

I made this out of a lithium battery a flasher and an LED for an automotive brake light.

Last ride 76 

Clear as mud to me. I don't understand why you dragged my words into this, your point seems to be the opposite of Pascals... If you behave as if eye contact has been made, and thus go ahead, but are wrong, as you say...you lose.
If you ignore eye contact and stop, you don't get hit, and still may get the friendly smile.

I'm not sure why, but we just seemed on different wavelengths...Do me a favor, keep me out of your imaginary conversations. and I will in future, refrain from commenting on yours. Best regards, Eric