Query

obi604

Just a general q here about cyclists at night and approaching them from behind in a car.
I note that some cyclists have a rear red light - flashing, always on etc.

And then some cyclists have high viz.
and some have nothing at all !!

Obviously the high viz and the rear light combined are best.

My casual observance is that the high viz seems to work better than the rear red light.

Which do ye think is best? High viz or the rear red light ?

TheBlaaMan

A light is a legal requirement. Hi viz is not
Wear what you feel comfortable in, but dont go out at or after dusk without a light

Plastik

Rear lights are better than high vis. This is why all vehicles have rear lights, not some high vis.

07Lapierre

Lights trump hi viz every time...

Cyclists is visible at 30 seconds.
Hi viz only becomes apparent at 2minutes..

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

obi604

07Lapierre wrote: »

Lights trump hi viz every time...

Cyclists is visible at 30 seconds.
Hi viz only becomes apparent at 2minutes..

https://youtu.be/57IOduT8hg8

Right. Don’t get the video. All very blurry etc was trying to look out for something at 30 seconds and 2 minutes, but tricky to see.

Plastik

We'll give you help. The red rear light that the cyclist is running becomes visible at 30 seconds. Their high vis only becomes visible at the 2 minute mark.

07Lapierre

Here's another one.

There are two cyclists in this video. One is wearing hi viz and has lights. The other cyclist has no lights and a hi viz waistcoat (unbuttoned and flapping in the wind)

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc

Hi-Vis doesn't glow in the dark like a rear light does, for it to be 'highly visible' requires a light source to be shining directly on it's reflective strip. When that happens depends on a lot of things like is the car running full beams or dips, is the cyclist coming from their right at a T junction ect.

TheChizler

A lot of drivers seem to focus on comparing lights and high vis close up. At that kind of range a jacket in the beam of your headlamps is going to have comparable visibility to the light, maybe be even more obvious cause of its larger area. But in that close up situation anything in the area is going to be visible to some extent, hence all the "invisible cyclists" that people keep seeing.

But the real value is being seen from a distance which that video shows. Not great being seen for the first time when you're a couple meters from someone, possibly less than their reaction time away.

Wildly Boaring

If hiviz is better than lights then
....
Cars would have a strip of reflective material on the back not red lights.

Lights and in particular a nice flashing one are the best.

I'd also argue the quality of the lights you run is important too. I've seem some pitiful excuses for rear lights these last few weeks. Good lights don't cost serious money.

John_Rambo

Bright red flashing rear lights like an F1 car in bad light (I'm sure they've done their research) are the way to go for cyclists & thankfully most are using them. I find them much much more visible than hi-vis in the car approaching cyclists.

I'm very surprised you find hi-vis with it's inferior light-reflecting properties more effective particularly with motorist confusion & ignorance regarding what lights are available too them & what they should use along with an infallible reliance on DLR lights. They'e also much more effective when competing with oncoming lights from other cars travelling in the opposite direction in low light settings that makes hi-vis useless.

obi604

John_Rambo wrote: »

Bright red flashing rear lights like an F1 car in bad light (I'm sure they've done their research) are the way to go for cyclists & thankfully most are using them. I find them much much more visible than hi-vis in the car approaching cyclists.

I'm very surprised you find hi-vis with it's inferior light-reflecting properties more effective particularly with motorist confusion & ignorance regarding what lights are available too them & what they should use along with an infallible reliance on DLR lights. They'e also much more effective when competing with oncoming lights from other cars travelling in the opposite direction in low light settings that makes hi-vis useless.

maybe its an eyesight thing for me
possibly the red lights I did see were just inferior quality


is it best to have if flashing? I have a light that offers always on, flashing , then some sequence choices





is it best to have if flashing or in a sequence etc

Macy0161

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd also argue the quality of the lights you run is important too. I've seem some pitiful excuses for rear lights these last few weeks. Good lights don't cost serious money.

It is, but with no standard in place it's left to the punter to decide.

Is it visible at whatever number of feet and yards the Irish Legislation is working too? All LED lights would probably fail the square inch definitions in Irish Law, including very good ones!

CramCycle

obi604 wrote: »

maybe its an eyesight thing for me
possibly the red lights I did see were just inferior quality
is it best to have if flashing? I have a light that offers always on, flashing , then some sequence choices
is it best to have if flashing or in a sequence etc

There are multiple schools of thought on this, all have their pros and cons. The truth is, have a decent light, so long as its bright enough to be seen a few 100m away, whether its flashing or not is a personal choice. Mine are on constant as that's what most vehicles use. Some people prefer flashing because they feel it IDs them as a cyclist and a host of other reasons. Like any visual aid, if they are not looking, they will not see you. There was a long thread on it years ago with very interesting takeaway points but by the end of the thread, those who preferred flashing before, used flashing after and the same for the constant crowd.

Macy0161

Battery life is the main reason I opt for a flashing rear light (at night and DLR) and "be seen"/ DLR front light. If I ever get around to that dynamo hub then it becomes a genuine question for me.

magicbastarder

re flashing/constant lights, i hedge my bets and have one of each.
i've heard that distance perception isn't as good with flashing lights, but flashing lights are slightly better at being noticed. so i've one of ach, both front and rear.

i do recall once seeing what my brain initially interpreted as a car heading towards me, and then realising it was a cyclist with two steady white lights on their handlebars, which made it look like a car at first glance.

CramCycle

Macy0161 wrote: »

Battery life is the main reason I opt for a flashing rear light (at night and DLR) and "be seen"/ DLR front light. If I ever get around to that dynamo hub then it becomes a genuine question for me.

When you say DLR, do you mean the sh1tty council ones?

TheBlaaMan

CramCycle wrote: »

When you say DLR, do you mean the sh1tty council ones?

DayLight Running lights, I presumed?

CramCycle

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

DayLight Running lights, I presumed?

Ah, I would call them Daytime Running Lights, DRLs, apologies, because those Dun Laoghaire Rathdown ones are sh1t.

I do the same and run mine during the day on my commute.

07Lapierre

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd also argue the quality of the lights you run is important too. I've seem some pitiful excuses for rear lights these last few weeks. Good lights don't cost serious money.

I think a lot of people use hi viz to compensate for poor lights! I’ve seen lots of people with crap lights who clearly feel their ok because they are wearing a hi viz jacket.

It’s also worth remembering that hi viz won’t help you see where your going, if their are no street lights.

obi604

So it’s the red light at the back. And the bright or clear light at the front of the bike?

this.lad

Ah stop

obi604

this.lad wrote: »

Ah stop

I have seen people with a red light at front and back. And people with the bright light at back.

CramCycle

obi604 wrote: »

I have seen people with a red light at front and back. And people with the bright light at back.

And they are wrong, white light for direction of travel, red for stop and other direction like every other vehicle.

obi604

CramCycle wrote: »

And they are wrong, white light for direction of travel, red for stop and other direction like every other vehicle.

Ok. That’s fair enough. Was just double checking.

The white light at front. Always On or flashing ?

CramCycle

obi604 wrote: »

Ok. That’s fair enough. Was just double checking.

The white light at front. Always On or flashing ?

As mentioned only a few posts before, either or is legally fine.