Amitoj

Long ago, back in India, when my car did not have DRLs, I used to drive on the highways with my headlights on. I can't count the number of times it has prevented a pedestrian or a cyclist from darting across my path on the highway.
Now, on my bike too, I ride with the lights on all the time. If it has even a remote chance of making me more visible, I'll take it. And I wish every car out there had DRLs too. It just makes it so much easier to spot them in my mirror.

ItsJustMe

Personal experience - When I'm driving and a bike has a front flasher during the daytime, I see him much sooner than if he's not running them.

I posted the videos above. I'm not kidding when I say that this happened to me usually 2 or 3 times a year every year for the 10 years I rode without front lights in the daytime. In the 3.5 years since then, it has not happened once, and I HAVE seen people pull out, notice me (with my front flasher) and then pull back in, wait until they're past me, then complete their pass.

This IS evidence. It's not a scientific study, but it's still evidence. And multiple people on this thread have related similar experience. Stop saying there's "no evidence."

Leisesturm

So I weighed my 4400mah (4 x 18650) MagicShine battery pack. 9 ounces on the nose. That is with cloth case and 6" connector cable. I don't even want to speculate as to the weight of your combined front/rear light setup. You have to know that it is rather atypical. My single Magicshine helmet light is comparable to what many cyclists use in Portland, but many more just use tactical flashlights (2 x 18650) and still many more just use low cost 'commuter headlights' (3 x AA, AAA!!) and call it very good. With the high amount of ambient light you are getting in the urban environment you were riding in in the video I suspect 1000 lumens just makes you one more asshat cyclist, with a chip on his fluorescent green cycling vest. It is your right to be that, I'm not judging, but I am not impressed. But the thread is about DRL. Care to show a video with the same light setup performing a useful function in the daylight hours?

Edit: there are indeed 3,000 lumen (x2) HID headlights legal for sale to asshat motorists that can then use them inappropriately in urban cityscapes in much the way that asshat cyclists use their big LED lights with the four figure lumen numbers.

kingston 

Unless you were actually hit by one of those cars and sustained an injury, your "evidence" suggests that there is no difference in rider safety between riding with and without DRL's. My own personal "evidence" of decades of riding with no DRLs without a multiparty accident resulting in my injury suggests the same thing.

mr_bill

THE BOROWITZ REPORT
Not the news.

-mr. bill

SHBR

Nice passive-aggressive post.

Not judging yet calling everyone who doesn't comply with your standards of lighting is an asshat?

I won't waste anymore energy replying to any of your posts in the future.

Leisesturm

I suppose "look in your rear view mirror (if you have one)...", isn't passive aggressive or snarky. Good to know. How about we just move on and don't hold any grudges.

Leisesturm

I have to agree. It really is not supportable to say that because I ______________ <---insert your chosen talisman, cars now give me more passing room on the road. I doubt that is the case. I DON'T employ most talismans in use by many in the cycling community and I cannot complain about the passing practices of the majority of drivers. As long as 'majority' < "the totality" then I am still an at risk cyclist. Using DRL is not supportable as a 'best practice', but it is supportable under certain conditions. There is a difference.

I-Like-To-Bike

Further questionable evidence of the alleged safety benefits of Daylight Running Lights for bicycles are the anecdotes and claims of being detected much sooner and/or at much greater distances than without DRL. Just how much sooner and at what distance does it really have any significant effect on reducing collision events under normal cycling conditions? Perhaps on those sun dappled forest and canopy shrouded paths that some cyclists find themselves on so frequently sharing with speeding cars these lights really do prove their worth.

I suspect for some hyper safety conscious cyclists, more is always better which also explains the quest for mega-lumen flamethrower lighting used by some bicyclists to allegedly enhance safety. And they are still here to tell all, providing all the anecdotal evidence they need to convince themselves of the value of blindingly powerful headlights.

kingston 

Rule of thumb is that drivers need 2 seconds to be able to react to avoid a collision. At 55 mph that's about 50 yards.

JoeyBike

The very day I started using bright daylight flashers front and rear my interactions with cars entering/crossing the road in front of me from a side street or driveway without any regard for my presence or motion went from daily to almost never. So...

30 years of cycling without lights showed vehicles cutting me off up front was a daily thing, even multiple times daily.

5 years of running lights during daylight hours and now I am cut off almost NEVER. Statistical ZERO.

I also noted that in the distant past (before using daytime lighting) I got much more respect after dark (running NightSun headlamps same brightness as a motorcycle) than I ever got during the day. This was my first clue that the lights made a difference.

Another clue: Modern motorcycles do not have an on/off switch for headlamps. They just COME ON and STAY ON automatically. The MC industry has known since the early '80s what the cycling industry still (obviously) does not believe.

But the contrarians here can poopoo the idea of daytime lights all they want. Modern rechargeable bicycle lights changed my life for the better in a big way. Others here may want to give it a try. I do not work for any companies making lights BTW.

10 Wheels

Amen.... Preach it brother.

ItsJustMe

OK, so your contention is that a car coming at you at a total speed difference of 80+ MPH and missing by about 18 inches is the same safety as missing by a full lane distance.

I've never had an incident either, but I don't feel that I need to compare how many times I'm killed two different ways to know that not having cars pull out and come at me is safer than if they do.

coominya

Yes I agree, I use them, and a yellow jacket or white tanktop depending on the weather. It's obvious really, if you are more visible you are less likely to be hit. Of course a lot of riders will argue with this but then they don't want to been seen as Freds so they will sacrifice safety for the "cool" factor.

I know of a group of downhill mountain bikers, one of them, a new rider, is my dentist. They get bashed up all the time and I suggested to my friend he wear knee protectors before he gets a serious injury there. He said "haven't you heard all the jokes about those" I went home and googles Jokes, cycling, knee guards and came up with nothing? A week later I bought a pair of Fox launch Pro knee pads because I do a little off-road too, and I wore them into his surgery and showed them off. Then I messaged him a thread from a MTB forum where 80% of riders wear them. Now he says he's going to get a set I mean it's not rocket science is it.

Cyclists complain about stupid driver behavior but I see much more of it in the cycling community. Most of it comes form peer pressure and ego.

Jim from Boston

I posted to this thread, "Hi Vis at night - Next Step?":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

…Regarding overkill, the few instances I have encountered have been on MUPS with oncoming cyclists with blazing, blinding headlights. 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...

JoeyBike

The obvious has little relevance here at A&S.

Of course, it is also "obvious" that if someone hired a hit-man to take me out during my commute, I might be safer remaining difficult to see far in advance. Just sayin'.

Some here will argue though.

kingston 

The safety outcomes are identical if a car misses you by 18 inches or 10 feet. That’s not really debatable. How you feel about each occurrence is up to you. From the cycling accident statistics I have seen, daytime head-on collisions between a motor vehicle and a pedal bicycle are exceedingly rare events, so the headlight is protecting you from something that almost never happens anyway.

This is exactly why one person’s individual experiences do not constitute evidence. Again, I don’t really care if people use DRLs because it makes them feel safer. The problem I have is that now that cheap LED lighting is available, a lot cyclists are becoming over-the-top obnoxious about using them.

mr_bill

On the other alternative fact, sometimes called fact.

Are you dead? Move along, nothing to learn here.

Alternative fact - there were no safety errors on Deep Water Horizon, it just inexplicably blew up.

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

Of course, "more" is always better, no matter what, eh? Just how much more visible than visible in daylight do you need to be and from what distance do you think you need to be visible without "sacrificing safety"

Is bicycling with anything less than a glowing/pulsating neon billboard bicycling outfit and an array of high power lights visible in all directions from 1000 yards or more in bright daylight obviously unsafe? No? Why not?

Isn't it obvious that bicycling with anything less than the highest available lumens and most square inches of hi visibility fabric is always sacrificing safety for vanity? At least that is the implication of the more is always better simple minded approach to bicycle lighting/bicyclist visibility issues.

mr_bill

To summarize.

More lumens very very bad.
More Christmas tree very very good.

-mr. bill

jon c. 

Some of us consider ourselves fortunate to live in places where riding on sun dappled roads and canopy shrouded paths are the norm.

350htrr

Well... Evidence it may not be... But really, If it makes you feel "safer", you will ride more... So, it's a good thing. IMO.

Chris0516

I am not debating the 'guarantee'. Just that the supposed way to 'obtain' the 'guarantee', is through DRLs.

njkayaker

The "guarantee" is something​ you are imagining.

Chris0516

I am not imagining a 'guarantee'. The DRL thinking is the 'imaginative' guarantee. More like a fallacy.