nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Flashing lights on cyclists?

MorningStar

I notice a lot of people using the flashing lights when cycling but I herad they are both dangerous and illegal. I have noticed that the flashing lights make it more difficult to judge the distance and the direction the person is moving (other than the colour). Is there any study stating this for sure.
And anybody who cycles without lights should explain themselves too. I am a cyclist myself so I can't understand how those without lights don't notice how hard it is to see somebody without lights

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Trampas

Its not just good enough to simply have lights.

Everyone should have the high vis jackets on also on not just the strip

parsi

I always thought LEd-based lights were illegal on vehicles but plenty of buses have them now and a few BMW 7-series (???) as well.

AndrewMc

Many years ago I asked a Garda about it at a traffic checkpoint on Pearse Street. He said legally they're not supposed to blink, but really given how bad the unlit-cyclist problem can be they were just pleasantly surprised I'd got any lights at all...

As for which is actually best, I don't know.

MorningStar

Trampas wrote:

Its not just good enough to simply have lights.

Everyone should have the high vis jackets on also on not just the strip

Good lighting would surfice as I don't see the back of cars painted in luminous paint.;) Hi vis jackets are good idea but between the two a light is best and lack of light is not compiensated by such jackets as some think.

Trampas

How many of the lights you see out there are working properly.

A lot of them can be weak and hardly able to been seen from any distance.

How many cars are out there that have all lights on there car working??

I know rear lights can go and not been notice until you check your lights every week but no excuse for a headlight going and not been changed

MorningStar

Trampas wrote:

How many of the lights you see out there are working properly.

A lot of them can be weak and hardly able to been seen from any distance.

How many cars are out there that have all lights on there car working??

I know rear lights can go and not been notice until you check your lights every week but no excuse for a headlight going and not been changed

Yes it is a problem along with many others but not exactly what I am trying to find out.

strassenwolf

I've always understood that it was illegal to have them blinking. The reason, I believe, is that blinking lights can temporarily "hypnotise" motorists, which the continuous light would not do.

(I recall seeing a TV programme about the channel tunnel where something similar was mentioned. Apparently as the train passes through the tunnel, the lights every 20 metres or so can have the appearance of one continuous blinking light and can hypnotise the drivers. They had a remedy for this in the design of the trains or the tunnel, but I can't recall what it was).

It is amazing how many cyclists do not have lights at all, let alone hi-vis belts, etc. I think a lot of them mustn't realise how difficult it is to see them in the dark if you're driving a car.

loyatemu

If you are driving a car, it is very difficult to pick out a relatively weak bike-light against all the car headlights (particularly if it is wet and there are reflections)

For that reason I think the flashing green and yellow lights are best, they draw your attention in a way old-style bike lights do not.

as for cyclists with no lights - do they not realise they are practically invisible? It is suicide to cycle around the city without lights and reflective clothing.

Alun

What's intersting to me is why someone had the bright idea of making flashing lights for cyclists? Is it because they thought they were more visible as a result (hint: they're not!), or is it to increase battery life (hint: buy rechargeable batteries instead), or is it just to look "cool" (hint: also not!)?

I mean, what was actually wrong with plain old fashioned non-blinking lights that were seemingly Ok for decades?

I find the blinking lights make it difficult to track the cyclist's movement and estimate their speed.

FergusF

MorningStar wrote:

I notice a lot of people using the flashing lights when cycling but I herad they are both dangerous and illegal. I have noticed that the flashing lights make it more difficult to judge the distance and the direction the person is moving (other than the colour). Is there any study stating this for sure.

I've also heard that but don't have a reference to any data that proves or disproves it.

Not sure about Irish law but flashing lights were recently made legal in the UK - up to last month they were illegal. http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4071 . I guess the consensus is that a flashing light is more visible than no light at all!

parsi

strassenwolf wrote:

I've always understood that it was illegal to have them blinking. The reason, I believe, is that blinking lights can temporarily "hypnotise" motorists, which the continuous light would not do.

(I recall seeing a TV programme about the channel tunnel where something similar was mentioned. Apparently as the train passes through the tunnel, the lights every 20 metres or so can have the appearance of one continuous blinking light and can hypnotise the drivers. They had a remedy for this in the design of the trains or the tunnel, but I can't recall what it was).

/

The side windows of the drivers cab were covered (more or less) so that there wouldn't be peripeheral vision in the tunnel stretches.

loyatemu

Alun wrote:

What's intersting to me is why someone had the bright idea of making flashing lights for cyclists? Is it because they thought they were more visible as a result (hint: they're not!)

I think they are more visible - a static white or red light on a bike is useless when you are surrounded by cars with much brighter white and red lights on them.

MorningStar

Alun wrote:

What's intersting to me is why someone had the bright idea of making flashing lights for cyclists? Is it because they thought they were more visible as a result (hint: they're not!), or is it to increase battery life (hint: buy rechargeable batteries instead), or is it just to look "cool" (hint: also not!)?

I mean, what was actually wrong with plain old fashioned non-blinking lights that were seemingly Ok for decades?

I find the blinking lights make it difficult to track the cyclist's movement and estimate their speed.

The same reason people come up with new ways to do things all the time. It maybe an improvement.
I am asking for definitive truth whether they are better or worse. I thought I heard a study saying the lights blend into surrounding lights but I don't know for sure.

strassenwolf

parsi wrote:

The side windows of the drivers cab were covered (more or less) so that there wouldn't be peripeheral vision in the tunnel stretches.

So that was the remedy? Clever. I remember the programme said they had some remedy, I just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks.

Alun

MorningStar wrote:

The same reason people come up with new ways to do things all the time. It may be an improvement.

Doesn't always work that way though ... sometimes people invent new ways of doing things just because they can, and new is not always necessarily better.

I am asking for definitive truth whether they are better or worse. I thought I heard a study saying the lights blend into surrounding lights but I don't know for sure.

Definitive truth? So if some multi-million euro study by some boffins at a road research facility somewhere after years of study concludes that they're better, but I, and many other people I know, still think they're crap, where does that leave us?

rubadub

loyatemu wrote:

I think they are more visible - a static white or red light on a bike is useless when you are surrounded by cars with much brighter white and red lights on them.

I find them more visible too. I never used the flashers on mine since I thought they were illegal, in fact I am 99% they are not supposed to be used here. But after driving in a car I noticed how much more visible people were, for the reason stated above.
Plenty of gardai have seen me and not said a thing. Many would be happy just to see the lights at all. Most turn a blind eye, or more likely are ignorant of the law. Most gardai have very little knowledge of the laws they are supposed to enforce, fu cking disgraceful

MorningStar

Alun wrote:

Doesn't always work that way though ... sometimes people invent new ways of doing things just because they can, and new is not always necessarily better.

Not saying new or old or better just pointing out why people try new things.

Alun wrote:

Definitive truth? So if some multi-million euro study by some boffins at a road research facility somewhere after years of study concludes that they're better, but I, and many other people I know, still think they're crap, where does that leave us?

I am sure studies have been done already. What you think is differnt to what others think is the problem so scientific testing seems to be the only way to be conclusive. There are people saying drinking 2 pints has no effect on their driving when it is known that it does. MOst flashing lights here have have both funtions available so the best of both worlds is avilable.

lostinsuperfunk

The LEDs, even if not flashing, used to be illegal in the UK, but only due to an archaic system where the output of lights was classed by their power consumption, not the light power output. LEDs, being so power-efficient, failed this test! I think the standard has changed now in the UK, but I don't know about here.

There is an advantage in using LEDs (apart from power consumption) for car brake lights. They light up almost instantaneously when the power is applied whereas standard incandescent bulbs can take 0.1-0.3 seconds to come to full brightness. At 100 km/hr this delay could add 8 metres extra stopping distance for the driver behind.

However, I think those LED lights for bikes are great. Most of them have a continuous mode, I think the only motivation to have them flashing is to save batteries, but as they're so efficient anyway you're talking about very little money saved. It scares me how many cyclists cycle with no lights at all + dark clothes + dark bike.

Alun

However, I think those LED lights for bikes are great. Most of them have a continuous mode, I think the only motivation to have them flashing is to save batteries, but as they're so efficient anyway you're talking about very little money saved.

Exactly. I have an LED torch and a LED headtorch for hillwalking and even with continuous use, they quote something like 120hrs lifetime for a set of 3 AAA batteries for the headtorch. And if you use rechargeables there's no problem anyway.

robfitz

A bicycle is required to have a front white (or yellow) light, a rear red light and a rear red reflector. There is no standard of light required (i.e. Irish or British Standard) or minimum power rating for the lights, just "visable ... for a reasonable distance". The lights on a bicycle are not allowed to flash.

The cyclist is not required to ware a high visiblity strip, belt or vest. I believe it is ok for the cyclist to ware a second flashing light.

Here is the relevant legislation for the lighting of pedal cycles.

S.I. No. 189/1963: ROAD TRAFFIC (LIGHTING OF VEHICLES) REGULATIONS, 1963.
...
Pedal cycles.

29. (1) Every pedal cycle shall at all times while ridden, or wheeled by a person on foot, in a public place during lighting-up hours be equipped with and, subject to sub-article (2) of this article, show duly lit a front lamp complying with the provisions of sub-article (3) of this article and a rear lamp complying with the provisions of sub-article (4) of this article.
(2) The requirement in sub-article (1) of this article that the front and rear lamps be shown duly lit shall not apply if and so long as the cycle is stopped in course of traffic or is being wheeled by a person on foot as near as possible to the left hand edge of the roadway.
(3) A front lamp fitted to a cycle shall—
(a) when lit, show to the front of the cycle a white or yellow light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,
(b) be fitted on the centre line of the vehicle or to the right of that line,
(c) be fitted so that no part of the illuminated surface of the lamp is more than 5 feet from the ground.
(4) A rear lamp fitted to a cycle shall—
(a) when lit, show to the rear of the cycle a red light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,
(b) have an illuminated area of at least 2 square inches and of such a shape that a circle of 1 inch in diameter may be inscribed therein,
(c) be fitted—
(i) on the centre line of the cycle or to the right of that line,
(ii) so that no part of the illuminated surface of the lamp is more than 3 feet or less than 12 inches from the ground,
(iii) so that it is not more than 20 inches from the extreme rear of the cycle.
...
Obligatory rear reflectors.

33. (1) Every vehicle shall at all times while used in a public place be equipped with either one or two (as may be required under sub-article (4) of this article) rear reflectors (in this Part of these Regulations referred to as "obligatory rear reflectors") complying in all respects with the provisions of this Part of these Regulations.
...
(4) (a) In the case of a pedal cycle or a mechanically propelled bicycle used without a side-car, one obligatory rear reflector shall be fitted to the vehicle.
...
Restrictions on flashing lights.

42. No lamp (other than direction indicators) fitted to a vehicle shall show or be constructed or adapted so as to be capable of showing a flashing light unless such light is invisible to persons outside the vehicle.
...

Borzoi

robfitz wrote:

Here is the relevant legislation for the lighting of pedal cycles.

Indeed, that's why a static red on the bik is good, and a flashing light on the cyclist;)

strassenwolf

Alun wrote:

And if you use rechargeables there's no problem anyway.

But can you beat the oul' dynamo?

Trampas

strassenwolf wrote:

But can you beat the oul' dynamo?

They were great. If you were into a gale of a head wind. You may aswell have no light as you couldnt cycle fast enough to get it to power.

John_C

strassenwolf wrote:

But can you beat the oul' dynamo?

Yes, with a light that stays on when you're stopped.

I use blinking mode at the back because I think it's more visible. The main piece of information a driver overtaking me needs is that I'm a bicycle and he needs to move out the correct ammount to pass. I use solid mode on the front because cars facing me need to be able to judge my speed and distance, if they're making a turn for example, and also to light the ground in front of me in the dark.

Mucco

You'll notice that the legislation is from 1963, predating LED lights - it is more important to be seen than to obey some out-dated law.
Personally, I think a flashing and a static rear light is best. I find the flashing more visible, and also identifies the vehicle as a bike. The static is for those with dodgy eyesight who can't judge speed/direction from a flasher.

M

Capt'n Midnight

Like robfitz posted flashing lights on a bike aren't legal but AFAIK there ain't a law against cyclists wearing any number of flashing lights.

Most of the LED lamps are not bright enough / are not visible enough from all directions to be used as the only bike lights by themselves. Years ago CAT-EYE made some nice lights that had 2 C batteried and a quick release strap to hold them onto the handle bars or seat pillar - but they had to redesign their really bright halogen lights to provide more side illumination.

Alun

The static is for those with dodgy eyesight who can't judge speed/direction from a flasher.

I'm not sure it's got anything to do with dodgy eyesight ... I think it's just more difficult for the brain to judge the movement / speed of a flashing light, and as anyone that knows me will tell you there aint anything wrong with my eyesight, thank you.

Victor

strassenwolf wrote:

It is amazing how many cyclists do not have lights at all, let alone hi-vis belts, etc. I think a lot of them mustn't realise how difficult it is to see them in the dark if you're driving a car.

It is amazing how many motorists do not have lights at all or dive on parks, or only have one headlight working or one working and the other kinda working.

John_C wrote:

Yes, with a light that stays on when you're stopped.

They are available.

robfitz

Anybody wishing to make there own bicycle lights might want to subscibe to the bikecurrent mailing list.

Here is a link to an article (download costs 1 pound) about circuit for a dyanmo light which charges a capacitor which powers the light for about a 1 minute when your stopped.

TempestSabre

Victor wrote:

It is amazing how many motorists do not have lights at all or dive on parks, or only have one headlight working or one working and the other kinda working.

Which is easier to see. A car with no lights or a cyclist? Obviously both should have a hefty fine for it. But whats you point. Cars to it so its ok for cyclists? its their funeral.

This evening I had a cyclist coming up on either side of me going between the lines of cars, both with no lights both in dark clothing. I was looking back to change lanes, and looking back at cars with headlights on, a cyclist between then was invisible. As usual the 10ft wide bus/cycle lane they could have used was completely empty. :mad:

To be honest you'd probably have less chance of hitting a cyclist by driving in the cycle lanes than on the road.