Should cyclists use daytime running lights? Plus the best front and rear daytime cycling lights

Miller wrote:

Not a fan of daytime lights for cyclists, as a cyclist I find them annoying, especially front lights. Certainly overkill on a bright day. On a dull day, or when starting early or finishing late, then yes of course.

As an aside, this conversation has already happened in the time-triallng world. TTing is of course done (mostly) in the daytime. Many testers are vocal about the desirability of a really bright rear light, Scorpion or similar, others less keen, but visit any TT and 90% of testers will have a rear light even though they are not mandated by the governing body.

 

If you find them annoying its proof these lights have attracted your attention.

Where I live a lot of routes are under tree cover and simply a cyclist in dark clothing would be hidden in the shadows. Whilst Ive sometimes spotted another cyclist with a GOOD rear light, literally miles ahead.

If only some drivers could be trusted, because they cant it means I have to take extra precautions. In fact there's some busy main A-roads that I will never cycle along

Bigmck64 wrote:

Has anyone else noticed how many cars have ONLY their daytime running lights in at night? Obviously seeing lights out front  fools the driver into thinking they have all their lights on when the reality is the rear lights aren’t on and the cars are unlit from behind? An unfortunate example of ‘enhanced’ safety proving to be anything but. My own thoughts are that the more automated you make any process, (sat nav, automatic gears, automatic lights) the less the driver is engaged. The side effect is they stop thinking for themselves and end up concentrating on other things ........like their phones. 

The problem is that in addition to the always-on DRLs many dashboards are now permanently lit (usually because they're entirely digital). Takes away a valuable visual clue as to when you should be turning your lights on - if its dark enough inside the car that I can't see my analogue clocks my lights go on. 

There's a related issue of DRLs washing out turn indicators. I know they're rarely used anyway on Audis but recent models have the orange indicator LEDs sandwiched between two rows of white DRLs (because styling) which makes them difficult to spot. Some manufacturers (Volvo definitely) have countered this by disabling the DRL temporarily whilst the turn indicator is flashing.

Both fine examples of unintended consequences.

Bigmck64 wrote:

Has anyone else noticed how many cars have ONLY their daytime running lights in at night? Obviously seeing lights out front  fools the driver into thinking they have all their lights on when the reality is the rear lights aren’t on and the cars are unlit from behind? An unfortunate example of ‘enhanced’ safety proving to be anything but. My own thoughts are that the more automated you make any process, (sat nav, automatic gears, automatic lights) the less the driver is engaged. The side effect is they stop thinking for themselves and end up concentrating on other things ........like their phones. 

TBH in built up areas (at night) you should only ever drive with side lights, anything else is too much, as always a lighting war ensues and we have ridiculously bright motorvehicle lights. Weve already seen that DRLs are an utter failure and haven't improved safety one iota.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

TBH in built up areas (at night) you should only ever drive with side lights, anything else is too much, as always a lighting war ensues and we have ridiculously bright motorvehicle lights. Weve already seen that DRLs are an utter failure and haven't improved safety one iota.

Where have we seen this utter failure specifically relating to DRLs? Please provide evidence, I would love to read it.

Grahamd wrote:

One of the first lessons I learnt as a motorcyclist was to make yourself visible through road positioning and use of lights. It is self preservation pure and simple and I use similar principles as s cyclist. 

Evidence it works?

Answer to the Q, NO, NO, Thrice NO.

Slippery slope that we've already seen with other BS 'safety' features.

Putting the onus on the vulnerable DOES NOT WORK ... EVER!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Evidence it works?

Answer to the Q, NO, NO, Thrice NO.

Surely the article refers to a paper that provides exactly that evidence?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Evidence it works?

Answer to the Q, NO, NO, Thrice NO.

 

I have evidence - a man stopped his car in front of me recently and said "without those lights on your helmet I would have run you over and killed you".

Case closed!

Jeffmcguinness wrote:

Surely the article refers to a paper that provides exactly that evidence?

Actually the link is only to an abstract. A fairly cursory glance at which shows that although the authors draws an inference of a 19% reduction in accidents due to running lights the basis for doing so is rather deeply flawed. The number of accidents were quite low so drawing statistical inferences from it is dodgy in the first place, but the biggest flaw is that there was no attempt to establish or identify a causal link between daytime lights and the accident rate. To establish a causal link would require examination of the circumstances of each accident and for each case to establish whether lights or absence were a contributing factor. Whilst that might well be impractical without it the study really doesn't provide any evidence.

It is a real bugbear of mine that the word "evidence" is so widely misused when discussing cycling safety - especially on line.

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

No daytime running lights.

Other obstacles that drivers must avoid are not equipped with lights, why should bikes be any different? We need to put lights on pedestrians, traffic furniture, animals, trees, trash bins, etc. if we are going to go this route.

I feel that once again this puts all the burden on cyclists, and none on drivers, who need to pay attention.

Or perhaps I shouls just accept that drivers are NEVER going to pay attention, and get lights.

What to do?

I understand the sentiment, but Volvo's run permanently with their sidelights on. I always drive with the sidelights on in my car (which I actively have to do because it's not a Volvo). 

I guess it's down to where you draw the line between principle (we shouldn't have to do this) and personal responsibility (I think this will benefit me so I'll do it). 

multimodal wrote:

I understand the sentiment, but Volvo's run permanently with their sidelights on. I always drive with the sidelights on in my car (which I actively have to do because it's not a Volvo). 

I guess it's down to where you draw the line between principle (we shouldn't have to do this) and personal responsibility (I think this will benefit me so I'll do it). 

Volvos run with side lights on because they are designed and built in Scandinavia, where they have much less daylight than here.

Since acquiring a tiny Cateye rear light and Lezyne front light, I have started to carry them for bits where there is lots of tree cover and hence shade, or long tunnels, or I get back later than intended, but I don't have them on all the time.

multimodal wrote:

I understand the sentiment, but Volvo's run permanently with their sidelights on. I always drive with the sidelights on in my car (which I actively have to do because it's not a Volvo).

I drive with dipped headlights, because sidelights during the day (or in mist) are a waste of time: they don't show up. You see the outline of the car before you see the lights! Cars without lights are a pain. Often I have been waiting to turn into a main road, see a car coming and think there's time to pull out, only to realise at the last moment that there is another, closer vehicle without lights that I didn't see straight away. Or I am passing a lot of parked cars and only realise when it's too late that I should have given way to a vehicle coming the other way, but as it had no lights it just looked like another parked car. (You can tell by the annoyed look on the driver's face as you pass.)

On balance I think it is probably a good thing that new cars have running lights and it would be better if all cars were required to show high intensity lights now, as those without any can be obscured by those that do. You can argue that the lights cause a problem that didn't previously exist -- they distract and claim attention when you should be noticing all vehicles -- but really the problem is the inconsistency, and at least lights help to distinguish moving from parked vehicles.

But it isn't particularly good news for cyclists. I figure that if I sometimes don't immediately see cars without lights, what chance do cyclists have? It does mean that cyclists have to keep up or risk not being noticed, so I cycle with flashing lights in the day. Perhaps sad, but it's today's reality. Now, if we had proper segregated facilities like in Holland, it wouldn't be a problem.

multimodal wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

No daytime running lights.

Other obstacles that drivers must avoid are not equipped with lights, why should bikes be any different? We need to put lights on pedestrians, traffic furniture, animals, trees, trash bins, etc. if we are going to go this route.

I feel that once again this puts all the burden on cyclists, and none on drivers, who need to pay attention.

Or perhaps I shouls just accept that drivers are NEVER going to pay attention, and get lights.

What to do?

I understand the sentiment, but Volvo's run permanently with their sidelights on. I always drive with the sidelights on in my car (which I actively have to do because it's not a Volvo). 

I guess it's down to where you draw the line between principle (we shouldn't have to do this) and personal responsibility (I think this will benefit me so I'll do it). 

Its not just Volvo's. Daylight running lights have been a legal requirement for brand new cars since Feb 2011 ! 

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

No daytime running lights.

Other obstacles that drivers must avoid are not equipped with lights, why should bikes be any different? We need to put lights on pedestrians, traffic furniture, animals, trees, trash bins, etc. if we are going to go this route.

I feel that once again this puts all the burden on cyclists, and none on drivers, who need to pay attention.

Or perhaps I shouls just accept that drivers are NEVER going to pay attention, and get lights.

What to do?

Well, as I'm not a tree or a lamp post, and I'm able to make a rational choice - in this case a choice to make being hit as difficult as possible for a inattentive drivers - I'm running flashing lights all day long.