Lost in the light

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:25:47 -0000, in
<[email hidden]>, Colin Blackburn

Quoted message said:

I'm not excusing not seeing him but it did make me wonder about myself when I'm riding in this
situation. Would front lights have helped or would a 2.4W lamp have been just as lost in the other
lights? Would flashing lights stand out more or high-powered lights? What I did wonder about also
was whether all these cars actually needed headlights on, it was a well lit street and presumably
side lights would have been okay legally and would not have created such light pollution, yet
almost every car driver drives with headlights in urban areas.

Maybe 2.4W would be lost. 20W of Cateye lamp possibly wouldn't. I think more importantly, if the
cyclist had overtaken on the right hand side he would have been more noticeable. I find that moving
objects in my driver side mirror are noticeable even when I'm looking straight ahead since the
mirror is in my peripheral vision. The passenger side mirror is not in my peripheral vision so
unless I am actually making an effort to look in that mirror, I won't see moving objects.

I myself am unclear about using side/headlights in urban areas. <Looks for highway code>. Is using
only sidelights in urban areas legal?

Many cyclists seem to think that the back light is far more important than the front. I'm not sure.
Although I don't condone riding without both front AND back, I believe the front is more important.

Love and lumens from Rich x

--
I remember when the internet was only in black & white. It only had a few pages but at least they
all worked. Email: Put only the word "richard" before the @ sign.

Colin Blackburn said:

Last night my other half an I were driving home through the rush hour streets of Newcastle (the
big one in the north.) We were crawling along an urban dual carriageway at 5-15 mph, stop-start
sort of stuff. At one point we were moving at less than 10mph in the left hand lane when a cyclist
appeared alongside us, undertaking. The car wasn't that far from the kerb and as we were moving at
the time his manouevre was, naturally, a little tight. Also, as my partner said she hadn't seen
him until he was alongside us the car's line was not the most accommodating. Anyway, he passed but
rode on shaking his head, presumably at us. We noticed he was very well lit, three rear lights,
reflective hi-viz jacket, reflectives on the bike. As the motor traffic started to pick up speed
we passed him, giving him plenty of space but on looking back in the mirror he had disappeared. He
had no front lights on the bike at all and with the light of the car behind's headlight he
couldn't be seen until he was alongside again, though this time his passing was anticipated.

I'm not excusing not seeing him but it did make me wonder about myself when I'm riding in this
situation. Would front lights have helped or would a 2.4W lamp have been just as lost in the other
lights? Would flashing lights stand out more or high-powered lights?

How about a blue-LED headtorch? They stand out a little due to the colour of their light, and
generally point wherever the danger's greatest.

Kit

"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists seem to think that the back light is far more important than the front. I'm not
sure. Although I don't condone riding without both front AND back, I believe the front is more
important.

In well lit urban areas I'd say front is FAR more important than rear, as without a good front you
are just *asking* to be knocked off at a junction.

Rear would be very important on a fast unlit road however, especially in poor weather.

Colin Blackburn said:

I'm not excusing not seeing him but it did make me wonder about myself when I'm riding in this
situation. Would front lights have helped or would a 2.4W lamp have been just as lost in the other
lights? Would flashing lights stand out more or high-powered lights?

I'm a bit worried about high-powered lights. Effectively what we've got on the roads is an arms-race
between people (mainly motorists) using higher and higher powered lights in order to be seen against
the visual clutter, and the consequence is that the visual clutter is getting worse.

What we should perhaps be campaigning for is an absolute maximum (in lumens rather than watts) of
light that a vehicle may emit, with a requirement that if foglights are fitted, when they are
switched on the main bulbs of the headlight should automatically switch off.

This 'my light's brighter than your light' game really will, in the end, leave everybody blind.

Quoted message said:

What I did wonder about also was whether all these cars actually needed headlights on, it was a
well lit street and presumably side lights would have been okay legally

I thought it was no longer legal to drive on sidelights only? I may be mistaken. In any case I agree
with you that in many cases, less light may mean better safety.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

Richard Bates said:

I myself am unclear about using side/headlights in urban areas. <Looks for highway code>. Is using
only sidelights in urban areas legal?

Well, the HC states:

""" 93 You MUST

use headlights at night, except on restricted roads (those with street lights not more than 185
metres (600 feet) apart and which are generally subject to a speed limit of 30 mph)

use headlights when visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 201).

ensure all sidelights and rear registration plate lights are lit at night. """

This would suggest that sidelights should be used if the road is "restricted". The road we were on
road certainly fits the bill with regard to the street lights but its limit is more than 30mph. The
"generally" there would seem to suggest that restricted roads are somewhere else defined as being
restricted since the above rule doesn't give an absolute definition. I can't find any other
definition of restricted in the HC, does anyone know what it actually means?

Colin
--

"Adrian Boliston" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Many cyclists seem to think that the back light is far more important than the front. I'm not
sure. Although I don't condone riding without both front AND back, I believe the front is more
important.

In well lit urban areas I'd say front is FAR more important than rear, as

without

Quoted message said:

a good front you are just *asking* to be knocked off at a junction.

Rear would be very important on a fast unlit road however, especially in

poor

Quoted message said:

weather.

I'd go with that. I found myself in a situation where I ended up with both lights broken (and I mean
broken, i.e. couldn't attach to bike or switch on - don't ask!!) and no reserves onboard. I did
however have plenty reflective / fluoro stuff on. The problems I experienced were all approaching
junctions with traffic waiting to pull out. I actually slowed and confirmed acknowledgement before
proceeding, such was the worry. I could actually see that they hadn't seen me without the light. I
normally use a Smart 3 led 'white light' front light in flashing mode. I know it's illegal but have
had many comments regarding just how visible I am with it. I also get cars in jams moving out of the
gutter to let me by their insides, thus confirming definable recognition. Cheers, Dave.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:

: What we should perhaps be campaigning for is an absolute maximum (in lumens rather than watts) of
: light that a vehicle may emit, with a

This would be *such* a good thing. It's why the original 50W limit existed I assume but technology
has left that far behind.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

In "]news:[email hidden],
Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

What we should perhaps be campaigning for is an absolute maximum (in lumens rather than watts) of
light that a vehicle may emit, with a requirement that if foglights are fitted, when they are
switched on the main bulbs of the headlight should automatically switch off.

part of Highway Code 132 paraphrased

You should use dim-dip lights (if fitted) on well lit roads to avoid glare (dim dip is when the
dipped headlight is on, but restricted to 10-20% of the output power. It is normal on most UK
spec cars).

Quoted message said:

I thought it was no longer legal to drive on sidelights only? I may be mistaken. In any case I
agree with you that in many cases, less light may mean better safety.

You are mistaken (HC rule 131). You may use sidelights if it is within half an hour of sunrise or
sunset, or if the road is lit (& the lights are less than 185m apart). You're advised not to on
roads where the speed limit is in excess of 50mph

Simon Brooke said:

What we should perhaps be campaigning for is an absolute maximum (in lumens rather than watts) of
light that a vehicle may emit, with a requirement that if foglights are fitted, when they are
switched on the main bulbs of the headlight should automatically switch off.

That's certainly very sensible for urban areas where the very bright lights (and I'm thinking of the
Xenon lights on BMWs and their ilk here). But when driving on genuinely dark rural roads (for
whatever value of genuine you feel is appropriate for anywhere in the UK) there is much more need
for something to show you a greater distance in front.

For the urban road user - cyclist or motoris - lights for reflection (to be seen) are far more
important and necessary than lights for illumination (to see with).

Quoted message said:

I can't find any other definition of restricted in the HC, does anyone know what it
actually means?

In the great tradition of usenet I guess confidently that restricted means it has a speed limit
lower than the national speed limit for that type of road -
i.e. lower than 60 for a single carriageway road, lower than 70 for dual carriageway.

Whether I'm right or not is another matter.

Colin Blackburn wrote: [...]

Quoted message said:

I'm not excusing not seeing him but it did make me wonder about myself when I'm riding in this
situation. Would front lights have helped or would a 2.4W lamp have been just as lost in the other
lights? Would flashing lights stand out more or high-powered lights? What I did wonder about also
was whether all these cars actually needed headlights on, it was a well lit street and presumably
side lights would have been okay legally and would not have created such light pollution, yet
almost every car driver drives with headlights in urban areas.

I definately agree with the importance of good front lighting. I an urban environment I concider
them much more important than the rear.

I mentioned here a little while back that I drove to work recently and was pleased to see how
those new blue/white front flashers really got my attention by flickering in the wing mirror. This
worked better for cyclists who where overtaking rather than those who were undertaking. Someone
else has mentioned that a driver's off-side mirror is in periferal vision, whilst the near-side
mirror is not.

--
Cheerful Peddling John Mallard

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:43:35 -0000, Mark Thompson

(change warm for hot) said:

Quoted message said:

I can't find any other definition of restricted in the HC, does anyone know what it
actually means?

In the great tradition of usenet I guess confidently that restricted means it has a speed limit
lower than the national speed limit for that type of road -
i.e. lower than 60 for a single carriageway road, lower than 70 for dual carriageway.

That's what I would have thought too but it doesn't tie with the wording,

"...except on restricted roads (those with street lights not more than 185 metres (600 feet) apart
and which are generally subject to a speed limit of 30 mph)"

Colin
--

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can't find any other definition of restricted in the HC, does anyone know what it actually
means?

In the great tradition of usenet I guess confidently that restricted means it has a speed limit
lower than the national speed limit for that type of road -
i.e. lower than 60 for a single carriageway road, lower than 70 for dual carriageway.

That's what I would have thought too but it doesn't tie with the wording,

"...except on restricted roads (those with street lights not more than 185 metres (600 feet) apart
and which are generally subject to a speed limit of 30 mph)"

ah, found a bit on it:

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.... the Act states that a road which has a
system of street lights (not more than 200 yards apart) is defined as a 'restricted road', along
which it is illegal to drive at more than 30mph. Of course, not all roads with street lights have a
30mph speed limit: the Act gives highway authorities the power to remove restricted road status from
a road with street lights and to impose a different speed limit.[1]

[1] abd.org.uk30.htmOpen ↗ (not exactly authoritative, but it's the first bit I came across).

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden] (change warm for hot)>
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[1] abd.org.uk30.htmOpen ↗ (not exactly authoritative, but it's the

first

Quoted message said:

bit I came across).

Amazing. A page on the ABD website about 30 limits! Oh, wait. It's how to tell if the limit you were
nicked in is technically illegal - not that this affected your choice to speed, just that you might
be able to get away with it.

Ah well.

Reminds me of the magistrate who let those police off on the grounds that the camera sign was
"illegal" - nothing wrong with the speed limit, no suggestion that they were not speeding, simply
that the sign notifying drivers that illegal behaviour might be punished did not have the right
coloured border.

I despair sometimes.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writed in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I thought it was no longer legal to drive on sidelights only? I may be mistaken. In any case I
agree with you that in many cases, less light may mean better safety.

I'm sure I've heard the advice that they should no longer be refered to as 'side lights' but rather
as 'parking lights' which IMHO is a buch better description. As a sometime motorcyclist I would hate
to go back to the days of the glow-worm front light!

Flashing front blueish/white LEDs for bicycles seems the way to go as far as I am concerned!

Mike - LEicester