Law changes for cylists starts - flashing lights now legal

monument

As posted on the Infrastructure forum by Sponge Bob...

S.I. No. 487 of 2009.

ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES)
(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2009.

The Minister for Transport has made the above Regulations.

The effect of the Regulations is to make it legal, with effect from
14 December, 2009, for pedal cyclists to use the flashing front
and rear lamps that are in common usage.

Nice to know that I am now not breaking the law in one less way every day for my safety (the other ones I can think of is taking the lane which breaks the drive to the left rule and breaking mandatory use of cycle lanes).

More laws relating to cyclists are due to be changed soon, including the mandatory use of cycle lanes.

CamperMan

does this mean day and night??

monument

CamperMan wrote: »

does this mean day and night??

It just means flashing lights are legal. Using flashing lights was not legal before Monday. Day time use is up to you, the law only requires any lights at the hours of darkness.

tudlytops

monument wrote: »

As posted on the Infrastructure forum by Sponge Bob...



Nice to know that I am now not breaking the law in one less way every day for my safety (the other ones I can think of is taking the lane which breaks the drive to the left rule and breaking mandatory use of cycle lanes).

More laws relating to cyclists are due to be changed soon, including the mandatory use of cycle lanes.

As a driver and my daughter a keen cyclist, I actually find the flashing lights less visible then the static lights, especially the front ones, maybe just me.

CamperMan

tudlytops wrote: »

As a driver and my daughter a keen cyclist, I actually find the flashing lights less visible then the static lights, especially the front ones, maybe just me.

true... the flashing lights should be much brighter, in poor weather conditions, it cann be difficult to see these lights

penexpers

Flashing lights are too distracting for drivers in my opinion. I have one front and three rear lights and they are all solid.

Bunnyhopper

tudlytops wrote: »

As a driver and my daughter a keen cyclist, I actually find the flashing lights less visible then the static lights, especially the front ones, maybe just me.

I think that can be a problem, particularly when it's raining, in urban areas when there's lots of lights around.

Are LEDs strictly legal or are you still supposed to have an incandescent bulb etc.?

monument

FROM: http://www.irisoifigiuil.ie/currentissues/Ir111209.PDF

S.I. No. 487 of 2009.
ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES)
(AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2009.
The Minister for Transport has made the above Regulations.
The effect of the Regulations is to make it legal, with effect from
14 December, 2009, for pedal cyclists to use the flashing front
and rear lamps that are in common usage.
Copies of these Regulations may be purchased directly from the
Government Publications Sale Office, Sun Alliance House,
Molesworth Street, Dublin 2, or by mail order from
Government Publications, Postal Trade Section, Unit 20,
Lakeside Retail Park, Claremorris, Co. Mayo.
Price: \1.27.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT.

There's always a bit of a delay before SI etc are put online.

Paul Kiernan

More laws relating to cyclists are due to be changed soon, including the mandatory use of cycle lanes.

I hope you're joking. Cycling is dangerous enough without this.

monument

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Are LEDs strictly legal or are you still supposed to have an incandescent bulb etc.?

It would seem that LEDs are now strictly legal.

CamperMan wrote: »

true... the flashing lights should be much brighter, in poor weather conditions, it cann be difficult to see these lights

penexpers wrote: »

Flashing lights are too distracting for drivers in my opinion. I have one front and three rear lights and they are all solid.

Quite a difference of opinion there.

I know cycling in traffic I would always want drivers to see me so if they are a little too distracted so be it, better that than not seeing cyclists.

tudlytops wrote: »

As a driver and my daughter a keen cyclist, I actually find the flashing lights less visible then the static lights, especially the front ones, maybe just me.

Many lights in general, flashing or not, are not bright enough. Too many people just buy the cheapest set of lights they can get (but I suppose that's better than all the ninja cyclists out there).

monument

Paul Kiernan wrote: »

I hope you're joking. Cycling is dangerous enough without this.

Just to clarify: Mandatory use of cycle lanes is due to be removed.

tudlytops

monument wrote: »

It would seem that LEDs are now strictly legal.





Quite a difference of opinion there.

I know cycling in traffic I would always want drivers to see me so if they are a little too distracted so be it, better that than not seeing cyclists.




Many lights in general, flashing or not, are not bright enough. Too many people just buy the cheapest set of lights they can get (but I suppose that's better than all the ninja cyclists out there).

I don't know what it is, I just find that i see the static lights (sry if this is not the correct name) better then the other lights.

The new laws should include some sort of test, before cyclist are allowed on the road, i know a lot of drivers don't pay any attention to cyclists but by God some cyclists just don't have a clue.

lescol

The new laws should include some sort of test, before cyclist are allowed on the road, i know a lot of drivers don't pay any attention to cyclists but by God some cyclists just don't have a clue.[/QUOTE]

A test exists for motorists, doesn't seem to do much for them as some drivers just don't have a clue

monument

tudlytops wrote: »

The new laws should include some sort of test, before cyclist are allowed on the road, i know a lot of drivers don't pay any attention to cyclists but by God some cyclists just don't have a clue.

Maybe we should first have it where drivers need to be tested before they take to the road?

And after we are testing cyclists, next we can ask pedestrians to take a test before using our roads?

DirkVoodoo

I actually find that due to the weak output of a lot of cheaper LED lights used by commuters, a solid light becomes lost in the background noise of street lights and other car lights. A flashing light is much easier to spot and for me, anything that makes drivers notice you more is a good thing.

Obviously if you have high powered lighting then this is not really necessary and may add to "driver distraction".

tudlytops

monument wrote: »

Maybe we should first have it where drivers need to be tested before they take to the road?

And after we are testing cyclists, next we can ask pedestrians to take a test before using our roads?

Say a cyclist crushes into me, no one gets hurt but it damages my car and they have no money to pay for the damage, then what I'm left with the bill.

Or like it happen to a friend of mine a cyclist crust into her, she was walking, broke her leg was out of work, had to pay doctors (not hospital) etc, she had to pay not the cyclist. the cyclist in question was very sorry picked up the bike and went.

or worse say they cause a major accident witch some may very well do, because they have no lights, visible jackets nothing, then what.

To me anything that is used on the road should have a test and insurance

penexpers

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I actually find that due to the weak output of a lot of cheaper LED lights used by commuters, a solid light becomes lost in the background noise of street lights and other car lights. A flashing light is much easier to spot and for me, anything that makes drivers notice you more is a good thing.

This light is 3 pounds. 3 pounds! And it's plenty bright.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=14828

Buy three of them, stick one on your seatpost and the other two on chainstays and you have a really good setup for about 10 euro with no need for flashing.

penexpers

tudlytops wrote: »

To me anything that is used on the road should have a test and insurance

To me, you should stop there, do a search, and see this topic has been done to death.

penexpers

monument wrote: »

I know cycling in traffic I would always want drivers to see me so if they are a little too distracted so be it, better that than not seeing cyclists.

I think you can distract a driver too much through flashing lights. I would have no problem with the simple flash on/off pattern (so long as it repeated slowly) but some of the flashing patterns on lights (especially rear ones) are pretty ridiculous.

Someone recently made the point that flashing lights also make it harder to gauge distances.

tomasrojo

penexpers wrote: »

Someone recently made the point that flashing lights also make it harder to gauge distances.

I've heard this mentioned before. I use one flashing, on my person, on the centreline of my back, and one attached to the seatpost,steady. I've seen a few people use this system. I assume it's the best of both worlds. But, of course, maybe many of these popular theories of perception are not true.

tomasrojo

Glad that the SIs are finally changing to reflect what is surely acceptable usage (e.g. flashing lights and eschewing ludicrous cycle facilities).

DirkVoodoo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I've heard this mentioned before. I use one flashing, on my person, on the centreline of my back, and one attached to the seatpost,steady. I've seen a few people use this system. I assume it's the best of both worlds. But, of course, maybe many of these popular theories of perception are not true.

I do the same, 2 Smart 1/2 Watt lights: one constant and one flashing. Front light is a flashing Cateye because it is pretty weak and good enough only to be seen with (waiting for the correct handlebar mount for a Fenix).

From my own driving experience, I find flashing lights, especially front ones (which is the one you are going to be looking at when making a right/left turn that is statistically most likely to cause an accident) and a constant front white LED can be smothered by street lighting, car head lights, rain on your window, whatever else might lead a driver not to see a pretty weak light. A flashing light grabs your attention, which is part of the reason why emergency vehicles, hazard lights, etc. all flash.

concussion

I always use one flashing (Blackburn Mars 3 on my pack) and a steady Blackburn Mars 1 on my seatpost. Flashing for attention and steady to comply with the (now out of date) legal requirement and to take advantage of the better range estimation it may offer. I also use a Scotchlite/Led strap for better daytime visibility.

On the front, in wet dark conditions where I'll be coming up alongside a lot of cars I always have a flashing one. Many motorists (a minority, but enough to cause a large amount of accidents) don't indicate left turns, so I want to do everthing I can to catch their eye before the turn. Having said that, if motorists don't indicate they probably don't check their inside mirror either.

Doctor Bob

I'm aware that permission to use flashing lights has been an important matter to some people for quite a while, but in light (ha!) of the varying opinions posted here thus far, I'd ask one question: Was this decision based on any empirical research?

My guess is that some people believe that flashing lights are more visible (but, but... they're flashing!!), and so use them that way because flashing ones are available. Whether this is a sound basis for a change in legislation is open to debate.

(Don't get me wrong, it may well be the case that flashing ones really are better. But I'd like to see the evidence.)

FWIW, I use fixed front and back, but that's because they're built into the bike and they don't have a flashing option.

tomasrojo

For the front, I have a Cateye EL530, which doesn't flash, but I have amber BBB LEDs flashing on my wrists. This allows me to raise visiblity to a very high level at will, I think. A flashing light moving in an arc is very visible. Or a light that turns and points directly at you. Mind you, it does mean that you don't have both hands on the brakes when you're waving or turning the amber LEDs, but you are reasonably visible from either side when the hands are on the brake hoods.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

(Don't get me wrong, it may well be the case that flashing ones really are better. But I'd like to see the evidence.)

It's a very good point.

This is interesting, but it doesn't distinguish between lamps and flashing lights in the abstract.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003438.html

The authors of this Cochrane review looked for studies which showed how effective visibility aids are for protecting pedestrians and cyclists.
[...]
The authors found no studies that compared number of crashes but to date they have found 42 studies which compare driver detection of people with or without visibility aids. These studies showed that fluorescent materials in yellow, red and orange improved driver detection during the day; while lamps, flashing lights and retroreflective materials in red and yellow, particularly those with a 'biomotion' configuration (taking advantage of the motion from a pedestrian's limbs), improved pedestrian recognition at night. Although these visibility measures help drivers see pedestrians and cyclists, more research should be done to determine whether the increased visibility actually does prevent deaths and serious injuries.

tomasrojo

The Wikipedia page has this, but it's marked "Citation needed". So that's just more repetition of conventional wisdom, really.

Most LED lights will work in either flashing or steady modes. Flashing lights have been shown to be three to five times more visible than a steady light of equivalent brightness. But it has been found that people tend to underestimate the distance to flashing lights and that drunken drivers are attracted by them, and there is evidence that they are harder to place than a steady light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_lighting

BostonB

penexpers wrote: »

Flashing lights are too distracting for drivers in my opinion. I have one front and three rear lights and they are all solid.

That implies they can see the lights though...

BostonB

Just because a light is flashing isn't enough. Half the lights you see around Dublin on bikes are useless because they are so dim. Probably never changed the batteries.

Some flashers are definately very noticeable. I have mix of steady and flashing.

There must be a reason why aircraft lights, emergency vehicles all flash. Lights on runways don't I assume for depth of perception.

Bunnyhopper

tudlytops wrote: »

Say a cyclist crushes into me, no one gets hurt but it damages my car and they have no money to pay for the damage, then what I'm left with the bill.

Or like it happen to a friend of mine a cyclist crust into her, she was walking, broke her leg was out of work, had to pay doctors (not hospital) etc, she had to pay not the cyclist. the cyclist in question was very sorry picked up the bike and went.

or worse say they cause a major accident witch some may very well do, because they have no lights, visible jackets nothing, then what.

To me anything that is used on the road should have a test and insurance

Here's another version:

Say a pedestrian steps out into me, no one gets hurt but it damages my bike and they have no money to pay for the damage, then what I'm left with the bill.

Or like it happen to a friend of mine a pedestrian stepped out in front of him, he was on his scooter, broke his collarbone was out of work, had to pay doctors (including hospital, physio, etc.) etc, he had to pay not the pedestrian. the pedestrian in question was very sorry picked herself up and went.

or worse say the pedestrian causes a major accident witch some may very well do, because they have no lights, visible jackets nothing, then what.

To me anything that is on the road should have a test and insurance

The incident with the pedestrian did happen to a scooter-riding friend of mine. So, should pedestrians who want to cross the road be required to take a test and have a licence and insurance?

Bunnyhopper

Back on topic - I think the best option is to have a combination of constant and flashing. I have one constant front light, and two rear lights, one constant one flashing.

When I'm in a car I find the flashing lights very hard to pick out in wet weather. Because of all the beads of rain etc. on the windows a flashing light seems to get lost amongst all the other lights.

This is particularly a problem with the view in wing mirrors. You're looking through a window with rain droplets on it, into a mirror with rain droplets on it, at a view that has in it the line of headlights of the cars behind you, all with rain falling past: a flickering light tends to get lost, I find. I know drivers (should) look over their shoulder before turning, but even then a cyclist would have to be already very close to the turning car before they could be seen.

The more important point is that cyclists really should have decent, bright lights in the first place.

silvo

I got this rear light (7 LED for £5) recently and it is amazingly bright: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=14821 Teamed up with one of the little backup lights (knog style) on the chain stay I rarely worry about being crashed into from behind.

Gavin

A powerful front and rear light on steady do the job. A flashing light on one's person in the event of an unexpected ejection from saddle is probably a good idea.

Flashing lights are very misleading in terms of distance. It is difficult to tell if the light is coming towards you or away in the pitch black.

Mind you, better than nothing. I go a little bit insane every time I encounter someone cycling the wrong way on a cycle lane in the Phoenix park, with no lights, in the pitch black.

blorg

Gavin wrote: »

Flashing lights are very misleading in terms of distance. It is difficult to tell if the light is coming towards you or away in the pitch black.

If it's red, it's moving away. That's the "theory" anyway.

souter

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a very good point.

This is interesting, but it doesn't distinguish between lamps and flashing lights in the abstract.
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003438.html

...particularly those with a 'biomotion' configuration (taking advantage of the motion from a pedestrian's limbs)...

That's very interesting. A constantly flashing led may be perceived as an artifact of the viewer e.g. seem through wipers. A moving light attached to a limb may subconsciously trigger recognition of a person. I've got vague recollection of experiments where neonates could recognise people reduced to a couple of light points.
As an aside, flashing lights double your battery time - maybe that's another reason for their popularity. (yes, I'm Scottish).

seamus

penexpers wrote: »

This light is 3 pounds. 3 pounds! And it's plenty bright.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=14828

I have two of these, and they're suprisingly bright for the size. You also get loads of hours out of two AAA batteries.

BostonB wrote: »

Just because a light is flashing isn't enough. Half the lights you see around Dublin on bikes are useless because they are so dim. Probably never changed the batteries.

Some flashers are definately very noticeable. I have mix of steady and flashing.

I think the problem, particularly for vehicles following in traffic, is that our poxy 0.5W can't compete with the much larger rear lights (and brake lights) of cars and they can be drowned out. At least one solid light and one flashing light is probably best - the flashing light should draw their attention to something standing out from the sea of red lights and the solid light will give them an idea of distance.

For front lights, I've noticed that the only way to get a front light noticed is to have one that's insanely bright and pointing directly ahead (i.e. not at the ground). Having a flashing front light doesn't seem to make a huge difference in getting it noticed. I think a lot of us here are using this, which is plenty blinding for urban use, but I wouldn't rely on it for riding where there are no street lights.

el tel

I hate flashing lights on bikes when I'm driving a car at night, especially the red rear ones - you can barely judge how far away the bike actually is, what its trajectory is and how quickly you are gaining on it. Between flashes the bike is effectively invisible which is never a good thing. I think they should only be allowed in the day light and/or in conjunction with a permanent light at night.

RedPlanet

Actually i've read it's best to have 2 flashing lights, front and rear.
Why?
Since they are flashing and in relative proximity to one another it causes a motorist to spend a fraction more time observing, as their brain rules out a pattern of blinking.

Vélo

It's all well and good the laws having been changed but will they be enforced?

tomasrojo

souter wrote: »

That's very interesting. A constantly flashing led may be perceived as an artifact of the viewer e.g. seem through wipers. A moving light attached to a limb may subconsciously trigger recognition of a person. I've got vague recollection of experiments where neonates could recognise people reduced to a couple of light points.
As an aside, flashing lights double your battery time - maybe that's another reason for their popularity. (yes, I'm Scottish).

Cyclecraft doesn't rate reflectors very highly (unless you have no lights, in which case they're better than nothing), but it does rate pedal reflectors, for this reason.

rflynnr

el tel wrote: »

I hate flashing lights on bikes when I'm driving a car at night, especially the red rear ones - you can barely judge how far away the bike actually is, what its trajectory is and how quickly you are gaining on it. Between flashes the bike is effectively invisible which is never a good thing. I think they should only be allowed in the day light and/or in conjunction with a permanent light at night.

Given how brief the gap between flashes is (we're talking milliseconds) here, it seems an overstatement to imply that the bike is "effectively invisible" half the time. It implies goldfish-like* retention of objects on the part of drivers.
My Smart 2.1 pulses approximately 3.4 times a second (I filmed it next to a watch, then replayed the film at half speed). Each pulse has a duration of about 200 milliseconds. Add to that the effect of persistence of vision (objects are retained for anything between 50 and 200 milliseconds) and even the most conservsative assumptions would suggest that the light should be visible at least 75% of the time.

If a driver is unable to make a judgement regarding the distance/trajectory of other traffic on the basis of that information, i.e. is dramatically reducing the gap between him/herself and a bike in front in the milliseconds between pulses, it - almost by definition - suggests that car is going too fast for the surrounding traffic conditions.


* Yes I'm aware that goldfish actually have much better memories than is popularly supposed.

tomasrojo

rflynnr wrote: »

I filmed it next to a watch, then replayed the film at half speed.

I'm very impressed.

tomasrojo

Vélo wrote: »

It's all well and good the laws having been changed but will they be enforced?

I'm not sure whether you're joking, but I guess the change is just to encompass and legalise current behaviour. It's a bit silly having the law implicitly forbid something that the Gardai regard as a good idea (flashing lights).

seamus

Vélo wrote: »

It's all well and good the laws having been changed but will they be enforced?

Absolutely. The Gardai will still continue to ignore what lights cyclists do or do not have, except that now it's OK for them to ignore some of them.

cdaly_

blorg wrote:

If it's red, it's moving away. That's the "theory" anyway.

Ha! I met a cyclist coming the other way one day with a red flashing light on the front...

I use twin flashing both front and rear and have just mounted a steady on my helmet for that "shine the light in the driver's eyes" effect...

Also, in my experience driving, I spot a flashing light and identify it as 'cyclist' sooner that I will identify a steady as a cyclist.

w123

rflynnr wrote: »

Given how brief the gap between flashes is (we're talking milliseconds) here, it seems an overstatement to imply that the bike is "effectively invisible" half the time. It implies goldfish-like* retention of objects on the part of drivers.
My Smart 2.1 pulses approximately 3.4 times a second (I filmed it next to a watch, then replayed the film at half speed). Each pulse has a duration of about 200 milliseconds. Add to that the effect of persistence of vision (objects are retained for anything between 50 and 200 milliseconds) and even the most conservsative assumptions would suggest that the light should be visible at least 75% of the time.

If a driver is unable to make a judgement regarding the distance/trajectory of other traffic on the basis of that information, i.e. is dramatically reducing the gap between him/herself and a bike in front in the milliseconds between pulses, it - almost by definition - suggests that car is going too fast for the surrounding traffic conditions.


* Yes I'm aware that goldfish actually have much better memories than is popularly supposed.

I love reading this forum - the nerdiness is exquisite - however this takes it to a completely different level.

Good work!

SerialComplaint

I have two front flashers, angled slightly off-centre in each direction. I've noticed that it is not unusual that when I'm coming along the inside of a line of slow moving traffic, I find that a few drivers pull out to the right to give me more room.

I was in the car yesterday, and I realised that these flashers are fairly noticible in the wing mirror, and also reflect of the side panels of the car, making them even more noticeable.

Raam

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I have two front flashers, angled slightly off-centre in each direction. I've noticed that it is not unusual that when I'm coming along the inside of a line of slow moving traffic, I find that a few drivers pull out to the right to give me more room.

Yup, I notice the same. I find most drivers are very courteous and will give you room to slip by.

Ryaner

seamus wrote: »

For front lights, I've noticed that the only way to get a front light noticed is to have one that's insanely bright and pointing directly ahead (i.e. not at the ground). Having a flashing front light doesn't seem to make a huge difference in getting it noticed. I think a lot of us here are using this, which is plenty blinding for urban use, but I wouldn't rely on it for riding where there are no street lights.

I used to always have my front light on full and pointed up when in the dark, however I go sick of being flashed at and have started pointing it down somewhat. It is still bright enough to slow some cars down coming towards me.
City streets w/lighting and I change to the flashing mode. Even at 240w output, the light is easily invisible to drivers.

recedite

tomasrojo wrote: »

For the front, I have a Cateye EL530, which doesn't flash, but I have amber BBB LEDs flashing on my wrists. This allows me to raise visiblity to a very high level at will, I think. A flashing light moving in an arc is very visible. Or a light that turns and points directly at you. Mind you, it does mean that you don't have both hands on the brakes when you're waving or turning the amber LEDs, but you are reasonably visible from either side when the hands are on the brake hoods.

LOL I hope you are riding on a fixed wheel so you can still have some braking ability; I can just imagine you riding along at full speed waving your arms in the air like a maniac having spotted some problem up ahead !

I know of several motorists (outside the city) saying they slowed down to the speed limit on seeing a blueish flashing light up ahead thinking it might be a Garda with one of those light sabres they sometimes carry at a checkpoint. Turned out to be a cyclist, who was given a wide berth.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I know of several motorists (outside the city) saying they slowed down to the speed limit on seeing a blueish flashing light up ahead thinking it might be a Garda with one of those light sabres they sometimes carry at a checkpoint. Turned out to be a cyclist, who was given a wide berth.

Although blue lights would be awesome, that's one of those times I think you'd be guaranteed to get noticed by the Gardai. It would be illegal afaik.