I've been enjoying using the Union canal path since I traded in my recumbent tricycle and am now using my backup bike, an Orange P7 mountain bike, until I get up to speed with my new Nazca Fuego recumbent bike.
However, I am finding that at night the canal path can be a bit dangerous and I am canvassing opinion on what the solution might be, if anything.
Tonight I was run into by another cyclist and knocked off my bike into the grass by the canal, and got some cuts and bruises. I am disappointed that, despite my best efforts to avoid crashes, I still had a significant one tonight. My strategy has been to slow down, and deliberately drive along the line of cats-eyes (or the line of grass) on the left as I pass other lighted cyclists so that I do not drift towards them and hit them. That was why tonight, I did not actually see the collision which threw me off my bike and gave me enough cuts and bruises that I probably won't be able to cycle for a few days. I hope the other guy is OK, he was bleeding from cuts on his face and nose enough to leave blood splashes all over the tarmac. The collision wasn't actually that bad, all the pain came from the ground.
The other guy said I had drifted into his path, which can't be so because I was running along the line of cats-eyes, and that he might have been blinded by my lights, which might be true, although they aren't hugely bright.
So the question is: what are anybody's ideas for avoiding canal-path collisions at night? Thanks for any suggestions you can make.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Avoiding canal path crashes at night
(31 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I cycled east from Hermiston, about half fiveish. The lights I had on (a wee fixed and a wee blinker) were hopelessly inadequate to see properly on the dark and darkish stretches, though I'm sure were more than enough for me to be seen.
I had more than a few moments when I had to practically stop as cycles coming towards me were literally blinding. Some because they were madly bright, some because they were pretty bright but just pointing straight ahead rather than dipped.
Those cats eyes were a godsend for me btw!
Anyways, 'ordinary' lights rather than uber brights would help a lot IMHO
Posted 11 years ago # -
It could be that you and/or the other cyclist were caught out by that old bugbear, looking at the very thing you want to avoid and subconsciously heading towards it.
As any experienced mountain biker will know, if you want to avoid an obstacle, look at where you want to go, not at the obstacle itself.
It's so easy to get wrong, however alert you are and you might not even realise you have done it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks, Bikeability Edinburgh. You're right that super-bright lights are dangerous to *other* cyclists, and that's why I've started to not look straight ahead when someone is coming with them. I do stop as well - it's that or go into the drink. My lights are somewhere between good and excellent - they're Revolution 3 watt ones, but I don't think they're super-bright, at least I hope not..
Focus, you're right, you should look where you want to go and you may be right about this crash. My problem is that if I look forwards with someone with super-bright lights, I can't see *anything* at all, so I then struggle to balance, and keep any kind of straight line. The only alternative when that happens is to stop, which is what I've been doing. Not tonight though, because I was looking down at the ground to stop that from happening, and trusting that the other guy would avoid me.Posted 11 years ago # -
I've been pondering night cycling along the canal.
I must say that I'm surprised by the number of people who seem to have very bright lights pointing straight ahead, I tend to try and dip my bright front lights down when I see someone ahead, but it's a tricky combination between trying to get a view ahead to cover unlit walkers/dogs/cyclists in plenty of time and trying not to blind other cyclists as I pass.
From previous years, give it a few weeks and the number of people on the canal will (sadly) drop and everyone left will get used to the dark and these first dark week problems will pass.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hi Chrisfl, I agree with you and in fact I try to have my lights angled down so that I can see the ground, but up enough that I can see what is coming up.
The solution which I might try may be to have two front lights, a very weedy one for passing people and a stonker for seeing ahead. then I just switch on the appropriate one at the right time.
I may decide to just cycle on the roads if I can't avoid this type of problem, I'm not yet sure.
But thanks very much for your post.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"It's a tricky combination between trying to get a view ahead to cover unlit walkers/dogs/cyclists in plenty of time and trying not to blind other cyclists as I pass."
This really hits the nail on the head. The lights I run along the canal and in town are too dazzling to run straight forward so of course I've dipped them to pool about 3m in front. This is absolutely fantastic for seeing 3m in front of course but leaves basically nothing for seeing further ahead. I have a helmet light too - Electron Micro 5 - which is bright but has a very diffuse beam. I know it can't be blinding anyone as even pointed right ahead it barely throws further than the dipped bar lights. Any reflective material still stands out brilliantly as that's what it's meant to do. Anyone unreflective jumps out suddenly if I don't spot them before by the telltale occluding of the ground lights.
Now, those bar lights, pointed right ahead are excellent for seeing miles into the distance. Which is exactly how I can't run them if I want to avoid dazzling/blinding/irritating oncoming peds/bikes or traffic on roads. So, it's quite the little dilemma. One solution (of a sort) is to have bright, concentrated helmet light that you can look far ahead with when it's clear and you can dip/look away when there's oncomers. Not ideal.
My bar lights are rated at '3 watts' but I wouldn't put too much confidence in watt ratings. A while back I had 1 watt EBC lights that I was happy to point right ahead as they weren't all that piercing. I upgraded to a pair of alleged 3 watt lights that were notably brighter, to the point where I reckon that's the most I'd ever want pointing right ahead - I think I ended up dipping them slightly. My current lights (Raleigh RX 1.0) are also rated 3 watts but are much brighter again than the previous 3 watt ones, and laugh in the face of the EBC 1 watters.
Posted 11 years ago # -
allebong, you're right of course, it's tough being bright enough but not too bright. I'm going to have to find an appropriate compromise, and so far my thoughts are indeed something floodlight-like which I can dip, leaving something quite inoffensive. I think I'd also be tempted to wear more protective clothing, given that the canal is quite narrow, especially at the pinch points.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I do the towpath every day. The mantra I repeat to myself as someone passes is "don't look at the light...don't look at the light...don't look at the light". It's so easy to be distracted by it and then, as previous posters have said, ride toward it. Also, like alanr said, sometimes you can't see anything other than a wall of white light. Then the only option is to stop.
When you stop, put your hand up to shield your face so that the owner of the light gets the message. Try something short and loud like "Too bright" too. Inevitably it sounds petulant and aggressive, but there's no polite way to say it in the time it takes a cyclist to pass.
Beam cutoff is key, but there's not easy way to say to someone that the cheap bright light they've got is a dangerous liability and that they need to spend £80 on a proper light if they are going to share the towpath.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"need to spend £80 on a proper light if they are going to share the towpath."
With the best will in the world, many people consider £80 on a whole bike to be the upper limit, so good luck with that.
My own very scientific testing, consisting of propping the bike up and walking/running towards it from various distances, has told me that a light that is far too dazzling when pointed directly ahead is basically okay when dipped appropriately. Yes, it's be great if it had proper beam cutoff, but as I've had really cheap lights last years I can't justify shelling out £80 on a single light just for that feature.
The other issue being that once you're out on really dark open country roads you need a full beam or at least a sharp, penetrating headlight so you can see far ahead and round corners etc.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I agree with you, greenroofer, that beam cutoff is very important, and I'd be happy to pay £80 for a good light. My impression of £80+ lights is that more bucks = more light, not necessarily more controllability. My current light from the bike coop was reduced to £25 in a sale from £45 and seems good, and does have a reduced-power setting which I use and seems to work: what would you recommend for the canal towpath? If you'd recommend something, I'll check it out. Thanks for any help you can give.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ allebong http://road.cc/content/news/97193-big-roadcc-lights-test-2013
Good beam comparison here, from cheap all the way up to megabucks
Posted 11 years ago # -
The thing I find hard to understand is why there aren't more lights with a beam cut-off. After all, they won't cost more to make, only more to design. I can understand that a no-name light from eBay might not be well-designed, but you'd think the mass market lights from Cateye, EBC, Knog and the light would be designed this way. The extra cost of the design would soon be absorbed into the multi-thousands they sell.
I don't think most of them are designed with beam cut-off: my impression from a quick look at EBC this morning is that they all have radially-symmetrical reflectors.My recollection is that it's a legal requirement for road lights in Germany, so is a good test of whether your light has been cutoff that it's got a German approval (TUV?).
I like my B&M Cyo, but that's the one that cost £80. It's not insanely bright, but it does put all the light in the right place.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The thing I find hard to understand is why there aren't more lights with a beam cut-off.
Because there aren't more lights built by the Germans.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If you have a magicshine - or clone like moi - you can get an aftermarket beam deflector for a few quid from ebay.
It shapes the beam well rather than spraying photons everywhere.
Also, last week I adapted an old cateye mount and screwed it into the light body - very solid and ensures it always points down / left rather than dazzling everyone.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry to hear about the prang!
If you don't mind making the investment, here's the finest battery light of all.
The other option is half as bright, and about half the price. It would still be plenty for the canal.
I don't have any issue seeing my way along the towpath, even with oncoming riders. In theory, because of my horizontal cut-off aimed at waist height, there's little chance of genuinely dazzling anyone coming the other way, at least at close range.
To be fair, at longer distances the lumps and bumps probably do mean you strobe people even with a cut-off beam (like when a car goes over a speed bump, in miniature) but that can only happen when people are many multiples of your wheelbase away, I think.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If you have a magicshine - or clone like moi - you can get an aftermarket beam deflector for a few quid from ebay.
Can you? I have tried googling and can't see them anywherePosted 11 years ago # -
Not ebay but:
Also available through Amazon: C&B Seen.
Annoyingly, I ordered this C&B Seen clone but only realised it was coming from China once it was too late to order from a UK reseller. Amazon can be a bit awkward that way. Instead of a few days, I'm waiting till possibly the last week of this month to get it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks
Posted 11 years ago # -
Crikey, that sounds like a nasty crash. I'll be taking it extra cautiously on my way home tonight after falling on wet leaves while down in England last week and now also because of this. My current lighting set-up is a fairly powerful bar-mounted front light pointing down towards the path 5-10m in front of me along with a head torch.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Forgive my ignorance, but when we say "beam cut-off" are we just talking about a line across the lightbeam above which it's dark? In which case, would something as simple as a bit of masking tape in the style of headlight stickers for driving on the continent work?
I ordered a C&B Seen light last night, so I'll see what that's like once it arrives. It comes with a beam diffuser, but I think that just gives an even light dispersal as opposed to a directional one.
Posted 11 years ago # -
In which case, would something as simple as a bit of masking tape in the style of headlight stickers for driving on the continent work?
Probably not, as light moves in mysterious ways and putting a bit of tape over the light doesn't have the intended effect of blocking off that part of the emission in a similar manner on the ground. By which I meant he light will bend around the tape and end up going places you don't want it. It needs to go through a lens to steer it in the correct direction.I think. I'm woefully out of my physics depth.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You can buy after market lenses for the Cree lights which may fit others with a bodge of gaffer tape.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Kaputnik you're talking about diffraction, which if my admittedly rusty Higher Physics knowledge is correct, depends on the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (or 'light' as we mortals call a fraction of it). I recall long wavelengths diffract more which is why radio waves, with wavelengths in the metre and kilometre scale, can bend all the way round the planet itself. Meanwhile visible light is down at the nanometer scale (ie one millionth of a millimetre) and so diffracts far less.
You could perform lengthy and involved calculations to determine exactly how much light will bend around a shadow mask on a bike light. Or, you could try it out on a light and see.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Just cover the whole light in tape. Problem solved :)
Actually, masking tape might be good as I assume some light will penetrate the paper. It will come off at the first sign of rain though.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Radio waves in my experience are fairly rubbish at bending around the surface of the earth (unless huge power outputs are employed). The "right" wavelengths (HF) however can reflect off the ionosphere (sp?) And indeed the earth, permitting intercontinental traffic with surprisingly low power :-)
I like CW (morse code) for some similar reasons I like bicycles, they're just soooooo elegant and efficient :-)Posted 11 years ago # -
You can use the ionosphere to bounce the radio waves back to earth when using HF. Unfortunately I've seen cyclists use this method with their Cree lights also :o(
Posted 11 years ago # -
[OT] University Radio York used to use an old submarine antenna to broadcast - covered the campus pretty well, but not much around. Except for the small and dedicated fanbase in Belgium who picked it up on the rebound from the ionosphere :) [/OT]
Posted 11 years ago # -
Kaputnik, you are indeed drowning, not waving, in your physics depth.
Masking tape over a beastsome bright light's top half will perform the same social function as a diffuser lens, but with two significant downsides:
1) It wastes the light pointed up, whereas a lens redirects it somewhere useful
b) Most of that wasted light is going to be turned into heat, which may have undesirable consequences. Like melting or fire.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
