Why Do Cyclists Insist on Flashing Lights?

Retrogamer

I think you'd only draw attention to yourself if your lights were dazzling other traffic or similar. Even then it would probably only be traffic police that would have enough knowledge to enquire about the standards of the lights. Even then it's not something they have to deal with often so the knowledge might not be fresh in their mind.

It would only void the motorist of negligence in the event of an accident if the lights were so bright they caused them to be dazzled or else the lights were so poor they couldn't be seen.

I'm both a cyclist and motorist but my person pet hate is forward facing helmet lights.
Some people run them and only them so when they look in a different direction they're suddenly unlit at the front and when they look towards your car you're often dazzled due to the angle on the light.

Norman_Castle

As its only cyclists who use flashing lights they give extra information to other road users. I find them very effective in heavy slow moving traffic especially when its raining. In heavy traffic the wet mirrors will show numerous white lights. If one is flashing I understand its a cyclist who may be filtering.

If the flashing lights aren't too bright why would other road users be annoyed by them?.

brat

Traffic cops are generally only interested if vehicles have no lights or if the lights dazzle too much. They're not particularly interested in the number of lumens or candelas, as long as they work well.

For me, flashing lights distinguishes a cyclist from other road users. It allows motorists to know instinctively that the vehicle ahead is a bicycle, and as such is likely to be travelling more slowly. I wouldn't ride my bike without a flashing rear light.

Although they have been used for sometime, they only became legal in 2005 when the 1989 RVLR (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations) were amended to allow cyclists to use flashing front and rear lights.

esuhl

Retrogamer wrote: »

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

No -- if your light is "approved", then you can use it by itself in flash mode.

And of course, between sunrise and sunset, you can use unapproved lights.

Richard53

I am a car driver, motorcyclist and cyclist.


I was convinced by the flashing lights thing a couple of years ago, when I was driving on a country road near me on a bright, sunny day. I saw a bright flashing light ahead of me, and slowed down. There were two cyclists coming towards me who were completely concealed in the shade of some trees, but the flashing lights made them very noticeable. I wouldn't have seen them until I was much closer without the lights - given the bright sunlight, a steady light might have been mistaken for a patch of sunlight.


I commute by bicycle half the time (still building up fitness to do it every day) and this is on rural roads which are unlit after dark. I have a low-power flashing red light at the back (to identify me as a slow-moving cyclist from behind) and a bright flashing white light at the front (to alert oncoming drivers on narrow roads). I take care to angle the front light downwards as it is very bright. After dark, I supplement this with a steady red to the rear and a steady white to the front. So far, no near misses and most cars pass at reasonable distance and speed.


I don't think I annoy anyone, and it is certainly not in my interest to dazzle oncoming traffic. The increased battery life is a bonus, but not the main reason for me.

skintpaul

RichardD1970 wrote: »

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".

As I understand it, a flasher(!) on its own is 'illegal', though I doubt anyone will be pulled over for it..


One static is OK, though more the better, imo.

[Deleted User]

skintpaul wrote: »

As I understand it, a flasher(!) on its own is 'illegal', though I doubt anyone will be pulled over for it..

It used to be illegal to show a flashing light on a pedal cycle (at any time of day) but not any more.

If you want to ride on a public highway at night, the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations say that you must use an 'approved' light front and rear. Approved means one that meets either:

a) BS6102/3
b) Statutory Instrument 2559
or c) An equivalent European Standard.

There haven't been any test cases to decide which European standards are legally deemed equivalent yet, and SI2559 is only applicable to a few lights which have no continuous mode, so that just leaves BS6102/3.

As long as you're showing a pair of approved lights, you can supplement them with any other lights so long as they're the correct colour.

The risk in using non-approved lights that is not that you'll get nicked, but if an accident leaves you in a wheelchair any defence lawyer worth his salt will try and use your lights as an excuse to get your compensation reduced.

Johnmcl7

jack_pott wrote: »

The risk in using non-approved lights that is not that you'll get nicked, but if an accident leaves you in a wheelchair any defence lawyer worth his salt will try and use your lights as an excuse to get your compensation reduced.

Do you have any evidence to support this occurring aside from internet hearsay? How is a defence lawyer worth their salt going to argue that the lack of certification alone on the lights is a contributory factor to an accident particular when many lights far exceed the performance of certified lights due to the only certified lights being older models.

Due to the lack of legally certified lights and the fact it's not unusual for bikes to be missing pedal reflectors and similar (particularly those running clipless pedals) it should be easy to find all these cases where there's been an automatic get out due to the lack of certified lights or similar.

John

agarnett

In Northern Europe where the need for cycling infrastructure and protective rules seems more highly respected, it seems that solid lights are becoming old hat.

The most frequently used and seen on sale seem to be the magnetically driven ones mounted low near the wheel hubs.

I myself use the solid ones but feel more vulnerable in town where I think the flashing is perhaps more important - perhaps same reason they put flashing lights on the back of F1 cars - when visibility is poor e.g. in rain, and when traffic is busy, a flashing light gets attention much more readily than solid.

Having said that, I agree that a combination of both might be preferable - and that's what I have used previously until I ran out of batteries and started money-saving :money: SPLAT!!:eek:!

Mankysteve

Retrogamer wrote: »

I'm both a cyclist and motorist but my person pet hate is forward facing helmet lights.
Some people run them and only them so when they look in a different direction they're suddenly unlit at the front and when they look towards your car you're often dazzled due to the angle on the light.

Biggest problem with head touches is because there above your eyes they remove the shadow you get on the back wall of pot holes.