http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Tag: unlit - Recent Posts en Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:00:14 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203956 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:23:56 +0000 ih 203956@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@steveo Your post, and the lighting issue in general, does raise many many questions that I certainly don't have completely satisfactory answers to. Whatever is suggested can always be countered by the opposite which also appears to have merits and demerits. I suspect car headlights have become much brighter; I don't know what to suggest other than adjust properly. Alternatively, rewrite the HC to say headlights MUST NOT be used in built up areas, but I don't think that will happen. I would rather (nearly) all cars do the same thing rather than some using heads and some sides. This problem of dazzle is yet another example of how the motorised industry only thinks of itself and pays scant attention the the safety and comfort of other groups. </p> <p>I agree that bikes can be dangerously invisible. For that reason I always use flashing lights on the road, which IMO are much more visible without being retina-searing bright. For same reason in the dark I always wear something hi-vis or reflective (but not a h****t).</p> <p>Of course we just need Dutch style infra to sort these issues! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203953 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:08:06 +0000 Min 203953@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Absolutely. I can hardly see anything at night apart from a dazzling kaleidoscope of overly strong car headlights. When it rains, it is 1000 times worse as they are all reflected in every rain drop. And it is only going to get worse as the "arms race" (like it) continues. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203952 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:48:31 +0000 steveo 203952@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>True, but the flip side of that is that everything else is less visible once your eyes adjust to the inflated light levels due to high output headlamps. </p> <p>Making a car slightly less visible but allowing bicycles to be visible without running &gt;300 lumen off road lamps seems fair. </p> <p>Making a car slightly less visible but allowing pedestrians to be visible when they're waiting the cross the road on the other side of your dipped beam also seems fair.</p> <p>You'd be shocked just how invisible a cyclist actually is in a flow of traffic when they're a few meters in front and to the left of a vehicle with bright lights whether or not, especially (?) if, the lights are correctly adjusted. Even quite antisocial lamps can just vanish, low level ones such as dynamo's or bromptons don't stand a chance since they're in the dipped beam. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203950 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:40:32 +0000 ih 203950@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@steveo Always a dilemmma when trying to be brief, to leave something unexplained. The advisory rule to use dipped headlights in lit areas is good advice. Cars using only sides are very much less visible when walking, cycling or driving, especially in twilight conditions. So that's why I think the rule should be followed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203948 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:32:47 +0000 Klaxon 203948@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In terms of dazzle (as opposed to road illumination), even LED <em>sidelights</em> are far brighter than headlights of the era steveo refers. </p> <p>That includes the one on my bike, pointed at roughly low windscreen level.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203947 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:21:17 +0000 steveo 203947@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>That's why I think all motorised vehicles should use dipped headlights.</em></p> <p>Why though, because it's been recommended by a document written when <em>cars</em> used dynamos and lamps were measured in tens of watts? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203944 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:06:32 +0000 crowriver 203944@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh I think someone should print a batch of really sticky stickers quoting Rule 116, so others can use the stickers to 'advise' illegally parked vehicle owners/drivers using blinkies as to the error of their ways. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203943 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:04:24 +0000 crowriver 203943@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@twq: "But officer I am merely warning other drivers that I am 'temporarily obstructing traffic'. I'm not parking at all!" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203941 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:57:44 +0000 ih 203941@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@dougal not contradictory; as @Steveo says, dipped headlights in built up (street lit) areas is advisory according to highway code. That's why I think all motorised vehicles should use dipped headlights. The increased level of dazzling could be due to increasing use of led lights which are poorly adjusted. Proper adjustment should be more rigorously tested for both new cars and at MoT tests. I get rather frustrated with over-bright rear lights, which are frequently more distracting than heads because you're following them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203939 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:48:58 +0000 twq 203939@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Had hazards on today.<br /> <img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTItNbSWUAQM-nA.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203937 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:44:16 +0000 steveo 203937@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Must means its the law, should means its advisory. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203934 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:37:11 +0000 dougal 203934@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>113 and 115 would seem to contradict each other unless I'm misreading. One says you must use headlights except in built up areas and the other says use dipped lights in built up areas. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203933 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:35:15 +0000 steveo 203933@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Must vs Should there. You must light up, you should make yourself as visible possible. Unfortunately making yourself visible now involves thermonuclear lighting to the detriment of those with out such capability. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203930 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:27:20 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 203930@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Also this gem:</p> <p>Rule 116<br /> Hazard warning lights. These may be used when your vehicle is stationary, to warn that it is temporarily obstructing traffic. <u>Never use them as an excuse for dangerous or illegal parking. </u> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203929 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:26:01 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 203929@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The Highway Code both gives:</p> <p>Rule 113<br /> You MUST</p> <p>ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit between sunset and sunrise<br /> <u>use headlights at night, except on a road which has lit street lighting.</u> These roads are generally restricted to a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) unless otherwise specified<br /> use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226).</p> <p>and takes away on this issue:</p> <p>Rule 115<br /> You should also</p> <p><u>use dipped headlights, or dim-dip if fitted, at night in built-up areas and in dull daytime weather, to ensure that you can be seen</u><br /> keep your headlights dipped when overtaking until you are level with the other vehicle and then change to main beam if necessary, unless this would dazzle oncoming road users<br /> slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by oncoming headlights.</p> <p>In short, unhurt, not using headlights at night under street lights isn't illegal, but could cause you to fail your test. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203922 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 14:42:00 +0000 unhurt 203922@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>There is no legal requirement for more than side lights in street lit areas.</blockquote></p> <p>...I did not know that - definitely not what my driving instructor taught me c. 2009*! Which is interesting. </p> <p>*I was a very late-learning driver. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203909 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:50:22 +0000 Nelly 203909@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I think they should have sidelights only in streetlit areas"</p> <p>Sensible thought, but I imagine it will take hold sometime after drivers stick to the 20mph limits and the new school streets initiative.</p> <p>Not sure if that is cynical, defeatist, or realist view? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203902 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:15:50 +0000 Min 203902@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>In the city I'm not convinced it would be a bad thing if cars were unlit or lit only by sidelights/daylight running lamps, there is no need for level of illumination even a modest car has let alone the arms race the German motors seem to be involved in.</em></p> <p>Oh I so agree! Car headlights are getting really dazzling now. I think they should have sidelights only in streetlit areas. Give the rest of us a chance. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203901 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:14:14 +0000 Klaxon 203901@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There is no legal requirement for more than side lights in street lit areas. It's also unnecessary, and training our learner drivers to use dip has lead to this horrid race between headlight manufacturers and fluorescent jacket manufacturers to stay 'more visible' </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203899 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:07:26 +0000 SRD 203899@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@PS i think you're right - more like Oxford or Cambridge ? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203897 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:54:20 +0000 steveo 203897@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Would cyclists having to learn to expect unlit cars be described as a good thing?</em></p> <p>In the city I'm not convinced it would be a bad thing if cars were unlit or lit only by sidelights/daylight running lamps, there is no need for level of illumination even a modest car has let alone the arms race the German motors seem to be involved in. If you can't see well enough then you're probably going too fast. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203896 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:54:07 +0000 dougal 203896@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't expect pedestrians to carry lights, and if I hit a pedestrian it's my fault for not being in control of my vehicle for the speed/visibility/other conditions. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203895 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:49:51 +0000 PS 203895@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've got a suspicion that it reflects an increase in the popularity of cycling. It certainly seems to me that there are more non-stereotypical cyclists about my part of town (which is a good thing). It's like they're normal people, pedestrians if you will, on bikes. And, like pedestrians, they don't carry lights because the streetlights provide them with enough light to see by.</p> <p>Just to be clear, I'm not being facetious or approving of their unlit state. That's just how it seems to me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203892 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:29:39 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 203892@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Would cyclists having to learn to expect unlit cars be described as a good thing? I think not somehow. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203889 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:14:53 +0000 neddie 203889@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If motorists learn to expect unlit cyclists, that can only be a good thing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203883 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:35:56 +0000 crowriver 203883@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Maybe it's 'cool'. Until someone becomes a statistic... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15727#post-203881 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:27:45 +0000 cc 203881@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There seem to be loads of ninja student bikes this year. </p> <p>For my sins I live just off the QBC, and when I venture on to it of an evening, there's usually a totally unlit bicycle with a darkly clad rider coming down the hill from KB. It's difficult to see them until they're very close to me.</p> <p>I started noticing the prevalence of unlit bikes a few weeks before the clock change. I don't remember seeing nearly so many unlit bikes in previous years. It almost seems like it's becoming the majority/default thing to do. </p>