Why Do Cyclists Insist on Flashing Lights?

Strider590

People don't hate flashing lights, they hate non-conformity.

They hated the xenon halogen headlights before everyone had them, they hated DRLs before they became required my EU law.

Small minded people hate on anyone who doesn't conform to the majority.


As for the flashing lights, imagine its dark, your about to pull out of a side road, you look right, you see a car coming toward you at some distance, some idiot with a broken headlight!!!! You pull out and BANG, you now realise the oncoming car didn't actually have one headlight out, it was in fact obscured by a cyclist who was much closer to you and what you thought was a side light, was actually the cyclist.

Flashing lights set cyclists apart, so they're not mistaken for motorised vehicles.

esuhl

Cyclists don't insist on using flashing lights; they choose to.

There are plenty of obvious benefits:
They reduce power consumption.
They are more noticeable by inattentive motorists.
They identify the vehicle as a bicycle that (unlike the motorist) probably isn't breaking the speed limit.

I'd like to know why motorists "don't notice" cyclists on the road; why they overtake dangerously on blind bends and on narrow roads when there's oncoming traffic; why they accelerate above the speed limit to jump red lights, etc., etc.

If motorists were sufficiently skilled and trained to look out for and negotiate cyclists safely, then cyclists wouldn't feel the need to be lit up like Christmas trees. Honestly, the lengths cyclists have to go to...! And all because of inattentive drivers.

Cornucopia

Flashing lights were never about attracting attention, but always about battery life.

However, the question for me is: are they legal? (Yes, I know they have been around for 10-15 years, but that doesn't answer the fundamental question).

esuhl

Cornucopia wrote: »

However, the question for me is: are they legal? (Yes, I know they have been around for 10-15 years, but that doesn't answer the fundamental question).

Yes, they are.

Cornucopia

Yes, sounds like the law was changed a while back.

Retrogamer

Cornucopia wrote: »

Flashing lights were never about attracting attention, but always about battery life.

However, the question for me is: are they legal? (Yes, I know they have been around for 10-15 years, but that doesn't answer the fundamental question).

Depending on how pedantic you want to read into the legislation flashing lights are legal, but most of the ones in use or the way people use them is not.

Flashing lights are legal provided it flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1 – 4Hz)

If the flashing light has a function to switch to fixed mode only then it must conform to BS6102/3 standards when in fixed mode.

As flashing lights without the fixed option do not need to conform to the BS6102/3 standard it means you're then "illegal" by the fine line of the law as you aren't using a BS6102/3 certified light.

To stay completely legal (not that any police would ever fine you for it) you need a fixed light that conforms to BS6102/3 standards on all the time, whilst the flashing light is on also.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations

Strider590

Retrogamer wrote: »

As flashing lights without the fixed option do not need to conform to the BS6102/3 standard it means you're then "illegal" by the fine line of the law as you aren't using a BS6102/3 certified light.

The law isn't going to come after you for not having a certified light, BUT if there was an accident with a car driver, the defendant would probably get the charges dropped if it was found the bike didn't conform on even the slightest of details. Which is why drivers get away with what can often seem like horrendous and blatant cases of rage induced assault on cyclists.

RichardD1970

I was told that you should have a flashing light and a static one.

The flashing light is to draw attention and identify as a bike from a distance and the static one is to allow for a more accurate judgment on position and distance.

Quite aside from that, it's a bit of a silly thing to get annoyed at but at least the cyclist has been noticed even if it is a case of "bloody cyclists with their stupid flashing lights".

Johnmcl7

Strider590 wrote: »

The law isn't going to come after you for not having a certified light, BUT if there was an accident with a car driver, the defendant would probably get the charges dropped if it was found the bike didn't conform on even the slightest of details. Which is why drivers get away with what can often seem like horrendous and blatant cases of rage induced assault on cyclists.

Do you have any evidence to back this up as I don't believe that at all based on the legal cases I've seen, there's been more extreme cases where a car has hit a cyclist which had no lights at all yet the case still went to court (the driver was found innocent however). There's no way charges would be dropped due to a very minor technical detail such as the lights not flashing to the correct pattern or not being correctly certified (the latter is virtually impossible now as few if any light manufacturers certify to that standard) and it's also highly unlikely in a collision with a car and a cyclist where the driver was at fault, they'd successfully defend the case in court on a minor technical issue with the bike.

John

Nebulous2

Anything you can use to make sure you are seen helps, given the prevalence of SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn't see you) I subscribe to the two sets, one on solid and one on flash at each end. It also helps if one fails, to make sure you have a standby.

However I'm not at all convinced that it would be very common for lights to be examined unless injuries were life-changing or resulted in a fatality.

I was hit by a car and the police arrived quickly and cleared the scene but took no interest in my lights. My solicitor told me to keep the bike as it was in case the drivers insurer wanted to see it, but no-one showed much interest, other than looking for proof of purchase.