Looking for data on the preventative effect of cycle lights

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:53:06 -0400, "jtaylor"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident and injury
rates? When spring comes 'round here the local constabularies frequently go
on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to suggest that if they are targeting
cyclists that there is a more effective way to improve cycle safety.

Yes, but I haven't got references to hand - I will ask about. As I
recall the results of conspicuity research are equivocal at best, with
bright clothing and lights essentially making no measurable difference
most of the time.

But you are right, there is a massively more effective way for police
to improve cycle safety than a helmet binge. They could try enforcing
all traffic laws, rigorously and to the maximum extent allowed for in
law. All of them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Jack Taylor? said:

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident
and injury rates? When spring comes 'round here the local
constabularies frequently go on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to
suggest that if they are targeting cyclists that there is a more
effective way to improve cycle safety.

Next time try "preventive" maintenance. It's easier and easier to say
and it sure beats "nucular".

[email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jack Taylor? writes:

Next time try "preventive" maintenance. It's easier and easier to say
and it sure beats "nucular".

C'mon, Jobst, you aren't reduced to quibbling about the difference between
your preferred spelling and other valid forms on an international usenet
group, are you?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=62750&dict=CALD - look about
1/2 way down the page...

(and was your first "easier" an error or should it parse to a different
meaning from the second?)

Neil Brooks said:

jtaylor said:

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident

and injury

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rates? When spring comes 'round here the local constabularies

frequently go

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to suggest that if they are

targeting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists that there is a more effective way to improve cycle safety.

Allow me to introduce Frank Krygowski and Steven Scharf.

Boys: take it away. I'm outta' here....

(Mr./Ms. Taylor: you'll see what I mean shortly)

:-) I don't think either Steven or I disagree that lights are
valuable. Our dispute is about what level of lighting output should be
considered adequate.

I think it's going to be very difficult to find studies that correlate
use of lights with real-world accident reduction. The reason is, the
data collected at accident scenes is notoriously poor. (Riley Geary
can speak volumes about that.) I doubt that police forms correctly
note whether cyclists have lights, so I doubt you'll be able to
evaluate the effect of lights.

One experimental study is: Blomberg, R.D. et. al., "Experimental
Evaluation of Alternative Conspicuity-Enhancement Techniques of
Pedestrians and Bicyclists", Journal of Safety Research, Mol. 17, pp.
1-12, 1986. This involved drivers on a many-mile-long closed course,
with volunteer cyclists and peds using different types of lights and
reflectors. The results indicated that relatively minor use of
reflectors, low powered lights, etc. helped tremendously (for example,
a cyclist with a very low powered leg lamp was detected over 1/4 mile
away). Unfortunately, they didn't test the obvious: A standard
low-powered handlebar mounted bike headlight of the "be seen" variety.

In any case, it would be nice to have a "slam dunk" sort of paper if
you wanted to convince them to pay attention to lights. But I've never
found such a paper. If anyone else has, I'd be very interested in
reading it.

- Frank Krygowski

Wow, what an intro.

The earlier arguments were about what constitutes the safest lighting.

While you may find a study that looks at accidents with lights versus
without lights, I doubt that there is any study that looks at accident
rates with good lights versus poor lights. This is why you just have to
use some common sense, and listen to the experts.

Frank advocates dynamo lights, based on the advantage of not needing a
battery, and claims that they are good enough, while I tend to agree
with the experts such as Marty Goodman and the late Ken Kifer that
brighter, more visible lighting is safer.

i.e.

"For commuters, the best front light is the very bright rechargeable
lamp." (Kifer)

"With vastly more light available, night bicycling is qualitatively far
safer. The road can be lit both further ahead and, even more important,
far more brightly to the sides of the bicycle." (Goodman).

I suggest that the original poster read my site,
http://bicyclelighting.com, and especially the "Myths and Facts"
section at "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/myths.html"

One very positive development is the recent introduction of some
excellent rear LED flashers, that use high-brightness LEDs, and add
side pointing LEDs to correct the directionality problem that the older
LED flashers had. You can see four of these at the bottom of my
taillights page, at "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/taillights.html". I;ve
noticed a lot of cyclists with these newer taillights lately, which is
great, because some of the older LED lights were real [censored].