CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
http://www.naden.de/blog/bbvideo-bbpress-video-plugin -->
| [+] Embed the video | Pugsley on Patrol No 91" target="_blank">Video Download | Get the Video Widget |
Lights are:
Front rack, 2x Magicshine MJ-872
Handlebars, 2x Hope Vision 2
Rear rack, 2x Magicshine MJ-808
I like that, realy nice!
Just to be mischievous, I feel that I have to point out that all the cycling deaths we've suffered in recent memory have been in broad daylight...
Not a reason to ride like a ninja, of course! And nice lights... but I personally don't think people are getting run down because they're in any way hard to see.
"all the cycling deaths we've suffered in recent memory have been in broad daylight"
Don't think that's true for Lanark Road.
According to the internet, it took place half an hour after 'lighting up' period ended?
It could have been a particularly dark day I suppose. But I think the point stands - if it came down to being conspicuous, you'd expect casualty rates to soar at times when people need lighting, especially when many will not bother with lights at all, but in fact that's not the case.
I read somewhere (internet factoid alert, I may have too google around for this) that on an average year in Scotland no cyclists die on the road at night (where 'night' excludes the evening rush hour). Makes you wonder, as there's plenty of cycling going on after rush hour, and standards of lighting are very low.
It does seem counter-intuitive, but I've seen that mentioned elsewhere as well. And yet we've all seen plenty of ninja cyclists out there after dark (worst I saw was a guy in Holyrood Park, pitch black, wearing blac, no lights - I mentioned as I passed and he said he'd been caught out and left his lights at home, I suggested he should therefore be walking).
Do road accident rates in general go up at night?
Despite the above I still think (perhaps wrongly!) that good lights at night on a bike are essential (and I wouldn't suggest that cars drive around without putting lights on either.
Probably put that down to the greatly reduced numbers and relatively high experience of those cycling at night, particularly if you exclude the rush hour?
Given that there are so few deaths from cycling anyway,
reducing the volume of cyclists over a period would result in a good chance of getting no deaths in that period.
(end of personal suspicions being presented as fact)
"relatively high experience of those cycling at night"
Would we not expect those with high experience to put lights on though?
Absolutely true that there are fewer cyclists at night, and fewer cars, but not all of the year. When rush hour in both directions is in the dark, as it is over winter, there are therefore a lot of bikes and cars together on the road in the dark.
And if we're thinking specifically about cyclists without lights then experience counts for nought if a driver simply can't see you surely?
"According to the internet, it took place half an hour after 'lighting up' period ended?"
OK I thought it was closer to 8:00 which was 'dark' at beginning of Jan. Certainly not "broad daylight"
But agree on your general point.
I think person did have hi viz + lights.
Off this forum there is a live 'discussion' about L&B (having to be seen) calling wearing helmets and hi viz "best practise".
There is an argument that a well light bicycle is more visible at night than during the day. Probably more so on the rear but some thing like a Cherry Bomb is both very bright and really catches the eye.
"There is an argument that a well light bicycle is more visible at night than during the day. Probably more so on the rear but some thing like a Cherry Bomb is both very bright and really catches the eye."
This of course leads to the wider discussion about how much 'cyclists' should/need to make themselves 'super' visible - because 'it's dangerous out there' and how much a) this increases chance of drivers 'only' registering bright clothing/lights, b) leads to some people/authorities accepting 'that's the way it is' and doing less to reduce danger from other bigger/faster road users.
Personally my 'concession' to this is (usually) two reasonably bright lights front and rear, one flashing (I think drivers have got 'flashing light = bike') and one steady.
Plus a jacket (not yellow) with lots of reflective bits.
But that's just within the city.
"I think drivers have got 'flashing light = bike'"
For that sort of reason I bought some retro-reflective yellow tape with which I augmented my reflectorless pedals.
To return briefly to the thread topic versus the content of the first post, I assume the light panels are primarily intended for seeing/filming by rather than being seen.
For a recent study on night visibility, check out the following:
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38338/1/c38338.pdf
The aged correlated decline in ability of drivers to identify ninjas at night is striking, as is the ability of humans to recognise human movement using very minimal reference points (ankles, wrists, etc) - illustrated by common "dancing spots of light" videos. Apparently we can even tell the sex and age/health of the person based on this sort of minimal information!
Robert
I use a cherry bomb (sometimes two!) and a (non-yellow) jacket with lots of retro-reflectives. Tbh I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving.
If they can't see an adult on a bike in broad daylight what chance a child crossing the road?
I do however worry sometimes that my rear lights are *so* bright and annoying that they are an incentive to overtake as soon as possible simply to avoid being behind them :-/
"Tbh I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving"
I tend to think this way. Although I also think that if someone fails to observe/is careless/is dangerous and runs me over that moral high ground isn't going to offer me much protection...
"I fail to see why I should dress up in hi-vi clothes to attempt to make up for another road users failure to observe/careless/dangerous driving.
If they can't see an adult on a bike in broad daylight what chance a child crossing the road?"
Quite.
If Governments were serious about 'road safety' they would insist on regular eye tests - and police would have some quick eye-tester as well as a breathalyser.
@Anth, Very true. I also believe however that positive, assertive defensive riding is a greater contributor to my safety than *any* quantity of garish clothing.
I can only hope my sample of one continues to prove me right ;-) :-p
@anth - agree entirely, I was referring to all cyclists rather than those in stealth mode. I may not have answered the question set, reading back.
I use a magicshine rear under the seat pointing down to make the entire back of the bike and road glow red, plus a Smart Lunar R2 thingy pointed rearwards on its fairly unaggressive pulse mode. Clothing is generally not hi vis, but my rain jacket has neon + reflective arms for signalling which work well.
I see my brickie tabard, lights, indicating, observing reds, predictable cycling style etc, as making it easier for drivers to exercise their duty of care to me-as-other-road-user.
That duty of care still extends to erratic ninjas, but as recombodna demonstrated that's bloody hard unless like him you're quick to pull the moves on attractive younger men.
I suspect I'm glad of invisible dervish cyclists since they remind drivers what they're meant to be looking out for, but since I'm aiming for the atmosphere in Kaputnik's dog tandem infographic, I like to be nice and make it easier for them to look out for me.
I'm pretty sceptical about hi-viz TBH. When my wife and I used to commute along the A90 (mainly together in the morning, separately at night), we bought DHB jackets from Wiggle, mine in charcoal and hers in hi-viz yellow.
She complained of many more close passes and cut-ups than I experienced, so many that she sometimes considered using NCN1 instead. I found that I never had the slightest issue with close overtakes on that road.
What I would attribute this to I'm not sure. I'm a man and more scary? She looked more "pro" and didn't need to be given as much consideration? At 40-50mph there's not too much time for motorists to make nuanced decisions surely!
Yet, if she was hit, she'd be defended as having taken a sensible precaution, while in my case people would say I deserved it.
The same thing applies to i.e. flashing lights. I don't see that identifying yourself as a cyclist is useful around town, and prefer a big solid beam. We both have non-cyclist front lights and I'm certain far less head-on related issues than when I was running 2x 1W EBC blinkies.
Of course, sample size of 2 here!
Dave/wife grey/yellow are of course 'anecdotal', but not the first time I've heard similar.
I understand the logic about not using flashing lights but i feel/think/believe that drivers have them wired into their brains now (though of course seeing/knowing that there is a bike in front doesn't result in care/consideration/wide berth!!!
ANECDOTALLY my perception used to be that when flashing rear lights first came out drivers (especially in taxis) actually came closer!
Of course I could not have proved it and it would be impossible to do a control now.
As long as I didn't get knocked down (I didn't) I could deal with 'inquisitive' cars.
Yeah, I don't think it's possible to argue that hi-viz doesn't make you more contrasty, or that flashing lights aren't synonymous with bikes, because I'm sure they are.
What I really doubt, personally, is whether a significant proportion of collisions happen because drivers looked but didn't see (i.e. with hi-viz on they might have "seen" not just looked), or whether collisions happen because drivers either didn't look at all, or saw you perfectly well, but did something silly anyway (my vote).
@Smudge I agree - my defensive and agressive (progressive?) cycling style has definitely saved my ass more times than I care to think about.
"What I really doubt, personally, is whether a significant proportion of collisions happen because drivers looked but didn't see (i.e. with hi-viz on they might have "seen" not just looked), or whether collisions happen because drivers either didn't look at all, or saw you perfectly well, but did something silly anyway (my vote)."
This is what I think too. I wear a variety of different colours from lime green to black over the years and have never noticed any difference in driver behaviour at all (also anecdotal!). The article posted yesterday about strict liability stated in the second paragraph that cyclists wearing hi-viz are less likely to get killed but didn't cite any evidence for it. I have seen that stated elsewhere, also without evidence.
It kind of reminds me of the oft quoted "fact" that cyclists wearing unmentionable protective head gear take more risks that those who don't. I have only once seen a study cited along with that "fact" and it was to a study about children going over assault courses, those with elbow, knee pads and helmets took more risks that those who didn't. Not exactly comparable!
I mean if there is evidence then fine. I just haven't seen it. Has anyone else?
@Min - I've not seen helmet specific research either, but have seen "risk compensation" pretty well established in both playground and road studies. The former with the spongy mat-style surfacing now favoured not actually reducing the number of injuries, and the latter with either the "improving" of roads also not reducing accidents, or the increase of non-occupant injuries with the increased use of seat-belts.
It thus seems fairly likely that we all have an in-built risk threshold/preference and will increase risk taking in "safer" circumstances to reach our preferred level (of adrenaline?).
Of course, these thresholds are variable even in the individual - as we age, I suppose we get more risk adverse!
Robert
True but likewise with the children I can't help feeling that comparing drivers (who have masses of protective gear for their whole body) with cyclists (who have a wee piece of polystyrene on their bonce) is not really a fair comparison. Does anyone think that getting mangled below the neck isn't painful/life changing/life removing?
I think it needs proper research anyway, not just extrapolation.
Risk homeostatis suggests that you choose a given level of risk (which I think we can all accept - i.e. at some point on the way down a hill you will start dragging the brakes), but goes as far as to say that this process is basically subconcious so changes are compensated for (bad surface on hill = go slower, good surface on hill = go faster?)
The hill example might seem obvious, but I understand that the point is you don't *choose* to go slower or faster based on thinking about the road surface - you adapt to the perception as a subconcious process.
Hence the idea that if you wear a helmet (sold, and often discussed, as the panacea to cycling injury) you may subconciously take more risks as a result.
Quite separate to the parallel debate that since relatively few people die of skull fractures but lots die of gross trauma (or maybe rotational injury), it might be better to forget about the h-word and focus on not being driven over ;-)
The Munich taxicab experiment is a must read, and was what really converted me to the idea.
Gosh! I did not mean to spark quite a debate as this. But some interesting points all the same.
I have often wondered what the roads (in street-lit) areas would be like if cars did not use lights in the dark. I don't think that the car-lights do much to illuminate dangerous bits of road, but they do dazzle (so pedestrians crossing the road are essential invisible to other drivers if they're in front of someone else's lights) and also I think that drivers just look for lights, not for large (or small) moving objects - so I think people drive faster and less observantly because they use lights at night. If NO ONE used vehicle-mounted lights, maybe things would slow down and all road users would be more observant. 20mph limit, I'd guess. And you can turn your lights on when going through Holyrood Park :)
Don't worry Gary, that is normal for here!
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts