Originally Posted by LV2TNDM

I'm glad you're flattered. Too bad it's for all the wrong reasons. I guess you should thank me for not calling you out more.

Anyway, your original reply and this one, as usual, reek of arrogance and dismissiveness. You're so full of yourself, it's embarrassing. To wit;

"And they are still not better than riding cautious and aware." Wanna back that up with some ACTUAL data?

Because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. "Dead" wrong. As in, many riders may end up "dead" following your officious recommendations.

If lights don't improve safety, then why do drivers often encounter "Daylight Safety Sections" on high-risk highways? Oftentimes, two-lane highways that have been identified as having much higher incidence of serious crashes, oftentimes involving fatal head-on collisions require drivers to use headlights ALL THE TIME. Hwy 20 out of Auburn is one such highway, as is Hwy 99 in the Sacramento valley. But even thought it's safer AND the law, there are arrogant drivers out there who can't be bothered to turn their lights on. Looks like I found one of 'em - YOU! Figures.

If lights during the day don't offer additional safety, then why are "Daytime Running Lights" on automobiles considered an additional safety feature? And why do insurance rates drop for drivers using them?

Thirdly, if lights don't help, why do motorcycles use daytime running lights? Why are they now required in California and other states?
"Anyone riding a motorbike produced after 1977 during the day must have daytime running lights."

Fourth, drivers are now required to turn on their headlights during inclement weather in many states, California included. I'm sure many drivers could simply "drive better and avoid collisions" if they were just more experienced, according to you. But those in the REAL world understand that drivers aren't perfect; they're distracted, hurried, impaired and who knows what else. So instead of wishing and hoping drivers would driver better in the rain, we simply passed a law to require headlights be used whenever your windshield wipers are on. Pretty simple. OH but there are hordes of drivers who can't be bothered to do this. The ones in silver cars are a SPECIAL kind of stupid! Again, I'm guessing this might be you.

Looks like these four examples clearly rebut your mis-informed stance on bike lights during the day. I could go into these examples in further detail, but would rather not waste any more time on you. Again, your reply was 100% predicted, and you confirmed my suspicion almost immediately.

Now we're all impressed with your LONG tenure pedaling on two wheels. But consider this, when you and I were wearing hairnet helmets, drivers weren't on their phones! They weren't surfing the internet or sending texts. They didn't have their eyes glued to a navigation screen as they tried to figure out where they're going. This fact ALONE is enough to convince anyone with ANY sense to use lights on their bicycle during the day (in addition to at night, obviously).

But nope, you've come here to rebut a suggestion that doesn't need rebutting. To let everyone know that my post was an "unsolicited PSA." You apparently find someone offering sound advice that may save a life and/or serious injury "unsolicited advice" on a bicycle forum. I disagree. And as I said, your "opinion" will increase risk for people heeding it. Well, the friend who was hit, as I said, has more mileage under his belt than about 95% of the bicycling public. And in a very dense urban area. So he's the PERFECT example of the "experienced cyclist" who didn't use lights who was almost killed by a driver who didn't see him. Looks like "depending on experience" wasn't quite enough. Didn't matter how many thousands of miles he had on the saddle, or how many right-hooks he's avoided during his 30-career cycling to work, he STILL got nailed. That right there is a pretty strong argument for front and rear lights during the day.

But I'm countering your stupid post because I feel the new or less-informed cyclist might take your advice in error. The newer or less experienced cyclist needs MORE tools at their disposal to reduce the chance of collision. It's like the baloney "alternative facts" crap we're seeing today. Let's barrage people with "both sides of the argument" and leave them drawing the wrong conclusions, or leave them too confused to make the correct conclusions. Lights are the correct conclusion, ESPECIALLY for new riders. Once they've gotten 25 years of cycling under their belts, then maybe they can forgo the lights and be as safe and awesome a rider as you are!!!