Why do cyclists?

Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

Alan

alan.holmes wrote:

Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

I think some German studies have shown that it's harder to track a
flashing bicycle light, which is certainly the way it seems to me when I
see one.

I think some people feel they are more easily seen when using flashing
lights, which might be true, but it's not necessarily the whole story.

Daniele

On 4 Oct, 20:11, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
alan.holmes wrote:
Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

I think some German studies have shown that it's harder to track a
flashing bicycle light, which is certainly the way it seems to me when I
see one.

I think some people feel they are more easily seen when using flashing
lights, which might be true, but it's not necessarily the whole story.

They may not be more easily seen, but they are extremely diagnostic of
'bike' - when you see one, you know at once what it is. In a cluttered
view with too many too bright lights and lots of glare, something like
that is an enormous safety benefit.

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:05:55 +0100, alan.holmes
wrote:

Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you
are
going.

Alan


You've obviously seen them, then ... and that's the point isn't it?


Seriously though I'm not mad keen on them either, but in half-light or
light fog I sometimes use the flashing mode to make sure I'm seen but not
waste all the battery.

In article ,
Simon Brooke wrote:
On 4 Oct, 20:11, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
alan.holmes wrote:
Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

I think some German studies have shown that it's harder to track a
flashing bicycle light, which is certainly the way it seems to me when I
see one.

I think some people feel they are more easily seen when using flashing
lights, which might be true, but it's not necessarily the whole story.

They may not be more easily seen, but they are extremely diagnostic of
'bike' - when you see one, you know at once what it is. In a cluttered
view with too many too bright lights and lots of glare, something like
that is an enormous safety benefit.

It's dubious. A driver may well know that there are bicycles there,
but not how many or how they are moving. I damn near clobbered a
cyclist for that reason, before I learnt how deceptive they are.

Cyclists concerned about their safety should never use those on
their own - they need a continuous light as well.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 4 Oct, 20:11, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
alan.holmes wrote:
Use those bloody stupid flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back, and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

I think some German studies have shown that it's harder to track a
flashing bicycle light, which is certainly the way it seems to me when I
see one.

I think some people feel they are more easily seen when using flashing
lights, which might be true, but it's not necessarily the whole story.

I expexct that many people who use them think that they
are making themselves safer. I think they are not. I find
flashing lights take longer to figure out than non flashing
ones. It might be different if the total energy emitted was
the same in both cases, i.e. the flashes were brighter
than the steady light to an extent that compensated for
the reduced duration of emission.

They are also cheaper - well they cost the same but the
batteries last longer.

The reality is that in town, nearly all the time, a driver will
see the rider long before they see the light, rendering the
presence of absence of a light irrelevant in practise.

Of course whether a driver processes that information
in a meaningful way is another question.

I would always choose a steady light. I would consider
using a flasher in addition to attract attention in the
tiny fraction of cases where this might be helpful.

In article ,
bod43 wrote:

The reality is that in town, nearly all the time, a driver will
see the rider long before they see the light, rendering the
presence of absence of a light irrelevant in practise.

Of course whether a driver processes that information
in a meaningful way is another question.

I fully agree. Anyone with normal eyesight can see an unlit
pedestrian or cyclist under average streetlights at 400 metres.
The usual problem is doing so against many kilowatts of halogen
headlights - and, frankly, no normal bicycle light is going to
make a damn of difference in that case.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote:
In article ,
bod43 wrote:
The reality is that in town, nearly all the time, a driver will
see the rider long before they see the light, rendering the
presence of absence of a light irrelevant in practise.

Of course whether a driver processes that information
in a meaningful way is another question.

I fully agree. Anyone with normal eyesight can see an unlit
pedestrian or cyclist under average streetlights at 400 metres.
The usual problem is doing so against many kilowatts of halogen
headlights - and, frankly, no normal bicycle light is going to
make a damn of difference in that case.

If that is so (and I know you believe it is so), why bother with sidelights
on motor vehicles whilst in built-up areas?

Simon Brooke wrote:

I think some people feel they are more easily seen when using flashing
lights, which might be true, but it's not necessarily the whole story.

They may not be more easily seen, but they are extremely diagnostic of
'bike' - when you see one, you know at once what it is. In a cluttered
view with too many too bright lights and lots of glare, something like
that is an enormous safety benefit.

They just add to the clutter, increasing the confusion. It can be hard
to distinguish, under certain conditions, between a flashing light and
one that's separated from you by some other object that intermittently
interrupts your view of it.

I also find point source lights harder to see than ones with a generous
area.

Daniele

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 20:05:55 +0100 someone who may be "alan.holmes"
wrote this:-

Use those bloody stupid

Ah, a nice non-confrontational question.

flashing led front and rear lamps. they cannot be
seen from the back,

On the contrary it appears they can be seen far more easily than a
steady light in the wash of too bright lights in built up areas.

In the countryside they can be seen more easily too, but it is
difficult to identify precisely where the light is. The latter may
or may not be considered a disadvantage, those in the latter camp
tend to use a steady light too.

In my view no road vehicles should be fitted with rear lamps. It is
up to people using vehicles to be able to stop in the distance they
can see to be clear.

and the front ones do not allow you to see where you are
going.

Not a problem in built up areas where there is street lighting.
Certainly a problem where there is no street lighting.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54