Re: EU to force daytime use of headlights?



A

Alan Holmes

Guest
"John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
> drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights - as
> happens now in the dark.


But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when they
have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be clearer.

Alan
 
Alan Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
> > drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights - as
> > happens now in the dark.

>
> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when they
> have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
> lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be clearer.


'Proper' lights have very poor range compared with LED lights.

I'm not convinced that having them flashing helps, but it can't do any
harm.


--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
 
SteveH wrote:
> Alan Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when they
>> have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
>> lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be clearer.

>
> 'Proper' lights have very poor range compared with LED lights.


I agree.. and have had cars dip their headlights on country lanes
because they have seen my front light illuminate the chevon sign as we
approached the same corner :)

> I'm not convinced that having them flashing helps, but it can't do any
> harm.


I think for a back light it helps draw attention (and I generally use
mine in such a mode), but what I don't understand (as a cyclist) is a
flashing front light, it would drive me mad!

(follow ups set to uk.rec.cycling only)
 
Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to
> use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights
> would be clearer.


I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody on the
road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when they
>have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
>lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be clearer.


Every study I've seen quoted says that flashing lights are more noticeable
in the first place, but harder to localise. So non-flashing lights might be
clearer in some sense, but likely to be seen later, not sooner.
 
mblewett wrote:

> I think for a back light it helps draw attention (and I generally use
> mine in such a mode), but what I don't understand (as a cyclist) is a
> flashing front light, it would drive me mad!


I think flashing mode on a front light is useful in built up areas with
strong street lighting as an aid to being seen. It's useless though for
illuminating the road.

--
Dave...
 
"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mblewett wrote:
>
> > I think for a back light it helps draw attention (and I generally use
> > mine in such a mode), but what I don't understand (as a cyclist) is a
> > flashing front light, it would drive me mad!

>
> I think flashing mode on a front light is useful in built up areas with
> strong street lighting as an aid to being seen. It's useless though for
> illuminating the road.
>

The strobe effect of a flashing front light makes it dangerous for the rider
to use in the dark, as the resultant 'freeze frame' ruins the ability to
judge speed and distance. To demonstrate this, you need a darkend room with
a strobe light. If you run towards someone, lit only by the strobe, you will
be astounded by how quickly you reach them.

--
David Lloyd,
The pub is responsible for my opinions.
 
SteveH wrote:

> 'Proper' lights have very poor range compared with LED lights.


LEDs are definitely better than filament lamps for cyclists.

> I'm not convinced that having them flashing helps, but it can't do any
> harm.


It is much harder to get a "fix" on a flashing light. With a steady
light, you can quickly work out exactly where it is, which way it is
going and how fast. With a flashing light, that takes a lot longer,
and is likely to distract your attention away from other potential
hazards.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
 
"Alan Holmes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I've sent this to uk.rec.cycling as cyclists are concerned about the
> > drivers who can't see anything that doesn't have two bright lights - as
> > happens now in the dark.

>
> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when

they
> have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
> lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be

clearer.
>

Reply from a contributor to uk.rec.cycling

Anybody who knows anything about visual perception will know that a flashing
light is more easily seen than a static light. Flashing lights simulate
movement, thus indicating a moving object, which is more easily seen than
something that is static. You just have to watch enough wildlife programs to
know that this is true. Small prey species that cannot out-run the hunters
will use camouflage and remain still, in the hope that they will not be
spotted. This is why indicators on cars were changed from static lights to
flashing lights.

Before anyone thinks 'Oh no, here's a cycling nut/car hater trying to start
a flame war', I'll tell you that I am a Design Engineer in the automotive
industry and that I designed the bonnet and trunk hinges and the fuel filler
flap an the Jaguar XK8, the bonnet and trunk hinges on the Aston Martin DB7,
the fuel flap, bonnet and all tailgate hinges on the Range Rover P38A. I was
the launch Engineer for the front seat slides in the original Ford Focus and
I redesigned the Freelander rear seats to take isofix child seat anchorages
for the North American market.

If this legislation goes through, car drivers will soon stop looking for
real hazards and start to just look for lights instead, thus having the
opposite effect to the stated aim.

Whilst I'm here, I might as well say that I don't jump red lights, I think
the police should jump on those cycling at night without lights and
pavements are for walkers. I'll also leave you with a link to a picture of
one of those beautiful cycle paths that sardine can dwellers think cyclist
should compelled to use.

url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-corrd.jpg

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

I posted the above to uk.rec.driving, but didn't want to continue the
cross-post. Alan Holmes seems to know nothing about visual perception.
Thanks for putting up the picture of the tree lined cycle path, Tony, I
think more should be planted in the middle of roads.
 
dkahn400 twisted the electrons to say:
> I think flashing mode on a front light is useful in built up areas with
> strong street lighting as an aid to being seen. It's useless though for
> illuminating the road.


Not to mention those (fortunately reasonably rare) cyclists using
flashing orange LEDs on the front ... No chance of confusion there!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
On 14/10/2006 12:22, Alistair Gunn said,

> Not to mention those (fortunately reasonably rare) cyclists using
> flashing orange LEDs on the front


Easily mistaken for a guttering candle :)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Stevie D wrote:

>
>
> It is much harder to get a "fix" on a flashing light. With a steady
> light, you can quickly work out exactly where it is, which way it is
> going and how fast. With a flashing light, that takes a lot longer,
> and is likely to distract your attention away from other potential
> hazards.
>


Best slow down then.
 
David Lloyd wrote:

>
> Before anyone thinks 'Oh no, here's a cycling nut/car hater trying to start
> a flame war', I'll tell you that I am a Design Engineer in the automotive
> industry and that I designed the bonnet and trunk hinges and the fuel filler
> flap an the Jaguar XK8, the bonnet and trunk hinges on the Aston Martin DB7,
> the fuel flap, bonnet and all tailgate hinges on the Range Rover P38A. I was
> the launch Engineer for the front seat slides in the original Ford Focus and
> I redesigned the Freelander rear seats to take isofix child seat anchorages
> for the North American market.


But your qualifications / experience in lighting and perception?

Just asking.
 
"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
>> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to
>> use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights
>> would be clearer.

>
> I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody on the
> road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.


What the hell are you talking about?
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Alan Holmes
> wrote:
>>
>>But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when
>>they
>>have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
>>lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be
>>clearer.

>
> Every study I've seen quoted says that flashing lights are more noticeable
> in the first place, but harder to localise. So non-flashing lights might
> be
> clearer in some sense, but likely to be seen later, not sooner.


I take your point, but wouldn't it be better for everyone if they used both?

Alan
 
Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
>>> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to
>>> use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights
>>> would be clearer.


>> I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody on the
>> road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.


> What the hell are you talking about?


Did you not say
>>>> If you cannot see anything unless it has lights on it, you sould not
>>>> be out driving, as small children and others which are not iluminated

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
 
"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>>>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
>>>> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to
>>>> use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights
>>>> would be clearer.

>
>>> I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody on the
>>> road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.

>
>> What the hell are you talking about?

>
> Did you not say
>>>>> If you cannot see anything unless it has lights on it, you sould not
>>>>> be out driving, as small children and others which are not iluminated

> Message-ID: <[email protected]>


Unless your are not aware, the subject is about the EU forcing us to use
lights during the day, and my comment is based on that, that if you cannot,
in daylight, see a huge object like a car, or any other vehicle, then you
will not be able to see a child, so you should not be on the road.

Alan
 
Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>>>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
>>>>> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they
>>>>> were to use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as
>>>>> the lights would be clearer.


>>>> I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody on
>>>> the road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.


>>> What the hell are you talking about?


>> Did you not say
>>>>>> If you cannot see anything unless it has lights on it, you sould
>>>>>> not be out driving, as small children and others which are not
>>>>>> iluminated

>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>


> Unless your are not aware, the subject is about the EU forcing us to
> use lights during the day, and my comment is based on that, that if
> you cannot, in daylight, see a huge object like a car, or any other
> vehicle, then you will not be able to see a child, so you should not
> be on the road.


In that case, my apologies. It's still an over-simplifaction, and it was
FAR from clear that that was what you meant given the context (using dip
instead of sidelights in poor light, to be seen rather than to see), but I
broadly agree with that.
 
"Alan Braggins" wrote in message
> In article Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>>But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen when
>>they
>>have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they were to use proper
>>lights they would be able to be seen sooner as the lights would be
>>clearer.

>
> Every study I've seen quoted says that flashing lights are more noticeable
> in the first place, but harder to localise. So non-flashing lights might
> be
> clearer in some sense, but likely to be seen later, not sooner.


Any light on a cycle at night would be a step forward from the current
typical situation of no lights at all. Although I don't suppose that is
typical of the keen cyclists who subscribe to a NG about cycling.

Ian
 
Alan Holmes wrote:
> "Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Alan Holmes ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
>> like they were saying :
>>
>>>>> But a large number of cyclists seem to think that they can be seen
>>>>> when they have stupid flashing led lights at the back, if they
>>>>> were to use proper lights they would be able to be seen sooner as
>>>>> the lights would be clearer.

>>
>>>> I thought lights were of no use to *be seen by*, since everybody
>>>> on the road has bionic powers of vision? Make your mind up, Alan.

>>
>>> What the hell are you talking about?

>>
>> Did you not say
>>>>>> If you cannot see anything unless it has lights on it, you sould
>>>>>> not be out driving, as small children and others which are not
>>>>>> iluminated

>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>

>
> Unless your are not aware, the subject is about the EU forcing us to
> use lights during the day, and my comment is based on that, that if
> you cannot, in daylight, see a huge object like a car, or any other
> vehicle, then you will not be able to see a child, so you should not
> be on the road.


So people with bad eyesight are not allowed out and about on foot?

Not everyone "on the road" is driving a motor vehicle nor riding a bike.