Advocacy & Safety - Argument against rear blinkers

In auto safety there is the proposition that if you are stranded with a dead car at night on the side of the road, well out of the traffic lane, you are best off turning off all your lights and leaving the blinkers off.

The reasoning is that drunk drivers will home in on blinking red lights and rear-end your car. If drunk enough, they will see the red lights but not notice the blinking, and think it's the back of a car on the road.

They use the tail lights of cars in front of them as homing beacons to keep themselves on the road.

Would cyclists be safer without rear lights during certain night riding situations?

Last year during the LA Wheelmen's Grand tour, father and son cyclists were slammed from in back by a drunkard while driving at night, presuambly with safety their lights on. Father was killed, son seriously injured. Whether the tragic accident could have been prevented by not having lights on the back of the bikes is of couse unknown.

All this in consideration, I would stil have great pause at riding at night without a red blinkie in back. Maybe if I was on a road with a w-i-d-e shoulder and stayed all the way to the right (were most of the broken glass resides!).

One possible solution, albeit illegal, is to have a white blinkie in back. The drunk will think it's a car coming toward him and run himself off the road instead of hitting the cyclist. Besides being illegal, it could be confusing to non-drunk motorists.

Lots of reflective tape in lieu of a light might help. It would probably look less like the back of a car to a drunk driver than a red light.

I see no easy solution here. But I think this is a matter worth discussion.

Where I live, most drivers are not drunk.

That's an interesting argument I've never heard before. It makes sense, though I'm not sure if it would really matter. I suppose it would also matter on the color of your blinkers. My rear blinkers are yellow, not red so I don't think drunks would home in as if they were brake lights. If you really believe that you should shut the lights off, I'd say turn on your interior lights. And if you have DRL/Fogs that don't turn on your rear lights, turn those on too. That way it will let everyone, drunk or not, know that something's there so people aren't taken by surprise as they drive into the breakdown lane for whatever reason.

white[/U] blinkie in back.


Well, here in Cali you're required to have a rear red reflector but not required to have any rear light

But what about folks who have a flat tire, and are pulling onto the shoulder. If you don't have a light on, they might run right into you. They won't see you until the last second.

Any light is better than no light.

What about slightly drunk folks-don't you want them to know you are there, so they can drunkenly stay clear of you??

Besides, exactly how far is "well out of the traffic lane."

I see the plausibility of your argument, but you don't have any numbers to back it up(no testing of what drunks actually do, no testing of what non drunks actually do).

Even if it offered slight drunk protection, it would probably increase your risk of being hit by a non drunk who was pulling onto the shoulder-or who was falling asleep.

there are more NON drunk drivers on the street than drunk drivers, so thanx ill keep my light blinking

Since most of my night riding is done around 6 pm, my chances of meeting up with a very intoxicated motorist is a little less than at 1:30 am. At the 6 pm time frame, I more focused on inattentive motorists still thinking about work or what to have for that night's dinner, hence a red rear light (in conjunction with reflective material) works fine for me.

the OP has a point about the drunk driver homing in on the light but I think I would worry more about the 100's of non-drunks passing me on the road. Last week a person got hit while bike riding at night with out any lights by a driver that was not under the influence of any substance.

I've often thought about this since there do seem to be a number of accidents at night where it doesn't make sense that a motorist would veer onto the shoulder right where a cyclist was riding. Similarly, there was an incident locally where a legally blind driver struck a cyclist on a wide shoulder. My guess is that he was attracted to the cyclist's rear light.

I think it generally makes more sense to use a light and impose the death penalty on drunk and blind drivers.

I've often thought about this since there do seem to be a number of accidents at night where it doesn't make sense that a motorist would veer onto the shoulder right where a cyclist was riding. Similarly, there was an incident locally where a legally blind driver struck a cyclist on a wide shoulder. My guess is that he was attracted to the cyclist's rear light.

I think it generally makes more sense to use a light and impose the death penalty on drunk and blind drivers.

The reasoning is that drunk drivers will home in on blinking red lights and rear-end your car. If drunk enough, they will see the red lights but not notice the blinking, and think it's the back of a car on the road.
This theory isn't uncontroversial.

There is no data that indicates the prevalence of this happening. It's possible that the number of drunk drivers who avoid blinking lights is higher than the few who do not.

Without more data, this "argument" against blinkers fails.

The basic problem with drunk drivers is that there isn't much you can do to avoid being hit by them.


Well, here in Cali you're required to have a rear red reflector but not required to have any rear light
Keep in mind that this requirement isn't an indication of what is best. It's just easy and cheap.

If people do home in on red lights, then perhaps everyone should use a mirror. I'm constantly checking mine, a couple of trucks full of hay near my house don't like cyclists much it seems, one of them would have smushed me if I didn't see it coming in the mirror. I think the moral here is to not rely on other people to see you, ever, but rather to see them, and be ready to act if they do something stupid.

Thats why if I get a flat on my truck I ride the rim to safety. Ill keep the light flashing on the bike.

Well, here in Cali you're required to have a rear red reflector but not required to have any rear light

While true, it's generally not legal to have rear-facing white light for any vehicle, in part due to the very reason the OP thinks it might work. But you should be able to get away with amber, no problem.


there are more NON drunk drivers on the street than drunk drivers, so thanx ill keep my light blinking


But what about folks who have a flat tire, and are pulling onto the shoulder. If you don't have a light on, they might run right into you. They won't see you until the last second.

Any light is better than no light.

What about slightly drunk folks-don't you want them to know you are there, so they can drunkenly stay clear of you??

Well, you will note the OP did not say "All the time, in all situations". The OP said "In certain circumstances" in night riding, and that's a fair point. Riding with no rear light at 8pm, you're probably risking a rear-end collision more with a non-drunk driver than a drunk one; At 1am in some places, now you could be making more of a case of good risk aversion. So, for some night riding, in some cases, it's at the very least an observation worthy of note. IMO, I think an amber would be better than no blinkie though, and I've actually considered doing this since most of my riding is late night riding.


I see the plausibility of your argument, but you don't have any numbers to back it up(no testing of what drunks actually do, no testing of what non drunks actually do).

Even if it offered slight drunk protection, it would probably increase your risk of being hit by a non drunk who was pulling onto the shoulder-or who was falling asleep.

I don't know about existing numbers, but I do know it's in driver's ed 101 here. It's no replacement for cold hard evidence, but I think it's reasonable to take what you've learned in driver's ed and apply that information elsewhere. YMMV.


Since most of my night riding is done around 6 pm, my chances of meeting up with a very intoxicated motorist is a little less than at 1:30 am. At the 6 pm time frame, I more focused on inattentive motorists still thinking about work or what to have for that night's dinner, hence a red rear light (in conjunction with reflective material) works fine for me.

Exactly. Most of the time, for most riders, you are probably putting yourself at more risk by riding without a light. But for those riding around last call, you could make a case for lowering your risk of being rear-ended by riding without (or at least without a red) blinkie.

Food for thought, anyway. Good on the OP for giving something to think about.

I've got a light mounted on the back of my saddlebag, and I can reach it while riding, so, if need be, I'll be able to turn it out.

How do you know that drunks use lights to stay on the road, and especially that they follow blinkers? No offense or anything, but people assert lots of things about human ( and animal ) behavior that turn out not to really be true. Whenever I hear X group does Y, my spider sense usually goes off.

In any case, I like having lots of lights on my bike when I ride in the dark. Maybe it's a good idea to add a few in odd colors. All of these have worked out pretty well at avoiding left hooks, but don't do much for the rear view:

http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=158570&d=1278440864

amber may work

If drunk drivers are attracted to blinking lights like moths to a flame, we need blinkers on the side of the road every mile or so, with some kind of contraption to disable the car.

How do you know that drunks use lights to stay on the road, and especially that they follow blinkers? No offense or anything, but people assert lots of things about human ( and animal ) behavior that turn out not to really be true. Whenever I hear X group does Y, my spider sense usually goes off.

*shrug* Like I said, it's just taught in driver's ed here. It seems fairly reasonable, but a few half-hearted Google attempts yielded nothing.

If drunk drivers are attracted to blinking lights like moths to a flame, we need blinkers on the side of the road every mile or so, with some kind of contraption to disable the car.

That is an awesome idea! Prove that drunks follow lights and nab them in one fell stroke! :D

My argument about the moth effect is all of those (red) flashing lights on posts that signify a stop sign is ahead. You typically see these in rural areas where there is an intersection with a busy highway.....places where it's not always practical to put in a street light (financially or logistically). If the moth effect is so prevalent, then why do you not see those posts being taken out constantly? Not that they don't, but you would think they wouldn't be able to keep them in the ground. After all, they're a flashing red light that's on the side of the road. Nobody has ever been able to explain that away.

I suppose you could argue the flashing rate is a factor? Slower blinkies perhaps not having the same effect (similar to the rate of the flashers on the posts I referred)? I'm not sure. Color me skeptical at any rate. I agree with those that argue not being noticed by the lion's share of drivers (by not having a light or even by not having a flashing one) is potentially more unsafe than worrying about a drunk driver that might randomly hit you no matter what you do.

... well out of the traffic lane...

I don't ride well out of the traffic lane, so I will continue to use my rear light. I use a dyno powered light though, so it is solid red.

My argument about the moth effect is all of those (red) flashing lights on posts that signify a stop sign is ahead... If the moth effect is so prevalent, then why do you not see those posts being taken out constantly?

Perhaps because the flashing is so far from the roadway and therefore can easily be ignored. A beacon on a police cruiser is closer to the ground.

Perhaps because the flashing is so far from the roadway and therefore can easily be ignored. A beacon on a police cruiser is closer to the ground.

The height of a stop sign isn't that different than lights on the top of a cruiser. I doubt drunk drivers are able to discern the small difference.

==============

1) There is no evidence that drunk drivers are attracted to anything in particular.
2) Drunk drivers crash into all sorts of things, with or without flashing lights.
3) While there are some cases of drunk drivers (and sober ones too!) oddly crashing into things that flash, there is nothing that indicates that these are the majority of drunk drivers. That is, it's possible (even likely) that flashing lights work better at deterring drunks than not.
4) The risk posed by drunk drivers, at the times people are typically riding, is much smaller than other risks, like not being seen by sober drivers.

1) There is no evidence that drunk drivers are attracted to anything in particular.


Yes, or at least if there is I've never seen it.


2) Drunk drivers crash into all sorts of things, with or without flashing lights.

Yes, but that doesn't really have bearing on the question...


3) The risk posed by drunk drivers, at the times people are typically riding, is much smaller than other risks, like not being seen by sober drivers.

Yes, in most situations, in some places. However, in a place where DUI's are prevalent, and riding at 2am, risk assessment is undoubtedly different than 7pm (i.e., far more likely to encounter drunks at that time). If it is indeed true that drunks tend to follow lights (which is the million dollar question), then there may be something behind the argument for certain situations.

*shrug* Myself, I don't know if all drunks necessarily follow lights. But, I have no doubt some do as a "stay on the road" technique. Some do that, some line up their fingers with the road, some "ride braille", etc. The question is all about the risk assessment.

1) There is no evidence that drunk drivers are attracted to anything in particular.

... other than hooch, anyway ...

Speaking of risk assessment, if you are riding on a dark road at night and see two lights coming directly toward you, you should try to go right between them, as they may well be two motorcycles. *


;)





* this advice is not based upon any data whatsoever.

1) There is no evidence that drunk drivers are attracted to anything in particular.

Well, booze maybe.

Given a choice of having a blinkie light attracting a drunk driver and being struck or being hit by a driver in any condition while not having a blinkie, I think I'll go with the flashing light. The odds, admittedly subjective, of the drunk driver collision seems to be much lower.

This theory isn't uncontroversial.Indeed.

Have there been any studies, scientific or otherwise, whatsoever that support this theory? So far, I've only heard is presented as fact with no data or citations to support it.

... we need blinkers on the side of the road every mile or so, with some kind of contraption to disable the car.

Excellent! I suggest a PB SF blinky nailed to a tree. That would be cheap and effective. Let the Darwin effect take over.

The height of a stop sign isn't that different than lights on the top of a cruiser.

A stop sign is 50% taller than a police cruiser. But that's irrelevant, because we aren't talking about stop signs. We're talking about "flashing lights on posts that signify a stop sign is ahead."

My argument about the moth effect is all of those (red) flashing lights on posts that signify a stop sign is ahead. You typically see these in rural areas where there is an intersection with a busy highway.....places where it's not always practical to put in a street light (financially or logistically). If the moth effect is so prevalent, then why do you not see those posts being taken out constantly? Not that they don't, but you would think they wouldn't be able to keep them in the ground. After all, they're a flashing red light that's on the side of the road. Nobody has ever been able to explain that away.

I suppose you could argue the flashing rate is a factor? Slower blinkies perhaps not having the same effect (similar to the rate of the flashers on the posts I referred)? I'm not sure. Color me skeptical at any rate. I agree with those that argue not being noticed by the lion's share of drivers (by not having a light or even by not having a flashing one) is potentially more unsafe than worrying about a drunk driver that might randomly hit you no matter what you do.

Doh,

I started really thinking after your post. I know of cyclists who are concerend about this. Then it hit me. BLINKING red lights are different than red lights. Follow the car, solid red lights. Perhaps some drunks home in on anything. But then what are the odds they will get a cyclist instead of a streetlamp?

Solid red seems like it might be a reasonable (or is it unreasonable risk). The drunk or tired may think it is a car or motorcycle and follow, perhaps even figuring it out before impact, but too late.

Point of information. The roads used for the Grand Tour are no where near wide enough that one could ride well away from traffic. I found them wide enough years ago, but no where near that wide. My bike setup at that time included reflective tape on hte wheels, which meant a silver/white reflection that would rapidly come and go. I always hoped that with any potential problem driver that would result in something like thinking I was a UFO or at least a WTF from the driver. If you are unsure you slow down.

Yes, but that doesn't really have bearing on the question...
Of course, it does. The fact that drunk drivers, once in a while, crash into things that have flashing lights isn't at all surprising because they crash into all sorts of peculiar things. You could easily argue that drunks are strangely attracted to trees, for example.


Yes, in most situations, in some places. However, in a place where DUI's are prevalent, and riding at 2am, risk assessment is undoubtedly different than 7pm (i.e., far more likely to encounter drunks at that time).
Yes, for some people (as I implied), when they ride might be an issue.


If it is indeed true that drunks tend to follow lights (which is the million dollar question), then there may be something behind the argument for certain situations.
Even if this was true, you'd still have to compare it to other risks.


The question is all about the risk assessment.
Yes. The OP's concern is only looking at one risk among many.

A stop sign is 50% taller than a police cruiser.
That's not that big of a difference and, the farther away you are, the less the distance matters.


But that's irrelevant, because we aren't talking about stop signs.
There are a few stop signs with flashing lights surrounding the perimeter.


We're talking about "flashing lights on posts that signify a stop sign is ahead."
These aren't that tall.

That's not that big of a difference and, the farther away you are, the less the distance matters.

But you have to be very close to it to hit it.

But you have to be very close to it to hit it.

You have to be very close to anything you hit!!

Keep in mind that people are trying to explain a phenomenon that hasn't been established as being real.

Of course, it does. The fact that drunk drivers, once in a while, crash into things that have flashing lights isn't at all surprising because they crash into all sorts of peculiar things. You could easily argue that drunks are strangely attracted to trees, for example.


Yes, for some people (as I implied), when they ride might be an issue.


Even if this was true, you'd still have to compare it to other risks.


Yes. The OP's concern is only looking at one risk among many.

We're pretty much on the same page.

Of course, it does. The fact that drunk drivers, once in a while, crash into things that have flashing lights isn't at all surprising because they crash into all sorts of peculiar things. You could easily argue that drunks are strangely attracted to trees, for example.


+1

Here (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/motheffect.html) is some evidence. To summarize, when you lose visual cues about your heading because it's dark or you're driving in bad weather, and you look off to one side (perhaps to look at a flashing light), your brain has to calculate your heading based on your eye position. When you're tired or drunk, you'll miscalculate this and fail to correct your direction of travel to maintain your lane position as you normally do every second or so.

There is no proof that rear lights help or hurt. Most drivers will see you fine without any lights as cars have very bright lights. It is not clear that a little red light means much, an impaired drive may not see it or misjudge its distance.

I would say bright clothing is most important in identifying you as a cyclist.

There is no proof that rear lights help or hurt. Most drivers will see you fine without any lights as cars have very bright lights.

Do you drive? Because my experience as a driver says that a flashing red light makes a big difference.

Here (http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/motheffect.html) is some evidence. To summarize, when you lose visual cues about your heading because it's dark or you're driving in bad weather, and you look off to one side (perhaps to look at a flashing light), your brain has to calculate your heading based on your eye position. When you're tired or drunk, you'll miscalculate this and fail to correct your direction of travel to maintain your lane position as you normally do every second or so.

That's a somewhat misleading summary of the source. For example -



The moth effect seems to have two enabling conditions. The first is minimal optic flow information, as when a driver is on a dark road at night or perhaps traveling in bad weather. The second is an intense attentional fixation on a roadside target. The lack of optic flow likely removes the normal source of heading information, forcing the driver to rely on a sense of egocentric direction relative to a landmark - the fixated object.
While the effect becomes more likely with tired or boozed up drivers, the above is still required.

I know that my lights and relfective jersey make it easy for a driver to see me, but harder to see the ninja that I am passing. I guess it is the ninja's fault and problem. I want to be seen and I am sorry if I eclipse others.

Based on my own experiences with drunk drivers and as a drunk driver (when I was still young, stupid and bulletproof), drunks more commonly tend to avoid flashing red lights or attempt to sober themselves up temporarily when they spot one they can't avoid. Why? Because the last thing a drunk driver wants to deal with is a cop. ;)

There is no proof that rear lights help or hurt. Most drivers will see you fine without any lights as cars have very bright lights. It is not clear that a little red light means much, an impaired drive may not see it or misjudge its distance.

I would say bright clothing is most important in identifying you as a cyclist.

This is not my personal experience......even in urban settings with street lights and at dusk a cyclist with rear blinker and or front light/blinky is much more visible from a greater distance than those without lights. Same with reflective materials.....the more there is the higher on the bike or person the more visible I see them far earlier and can be aware of them.

bottom line is cars hit lots of objects because "I didn't see it" personally i stack my odds by being visible.

Really I think this whole argument is more about why we should be against drunk drivers... they seem to be the problem, not the blinkers.

As a driver and someone who works dogs in the woods offlead at night (wher guaging location and distance is important). No problem with a blinking light to draw attention, BUT - it is much easier to guage distance and direction of a moving object when someone has a steady glowing ight.

I do think lights make a huge difference! I have had some close calls with bicyclists (and pedestrians) that I did not see until I was right up on top of them. When I was a bicycle commuter, my evening portion of the commute was usually after dark and it was actually one of the safest times for me.

I would also highly recommend a reflective vest (Tractor Supply has good ones) - Those suckers really light up when the headlights hit and I know the first thing that came off of my bike was the reflectors. (Though I like the stripe on the Schwalbe Marathon tires)

This article is FAQ for lighting systems for working dogs - I am including it because the same info is relevant to humans - as it has some info on how humans deal with lighted objects at night . I have found this info to be true.

http://www.auroralites.com/faq.asp

I think it generally makes more sense to use a light and impose the death penalty on drunk and blind drivers.

You know - I know this was tongue in cheek but I completely agree with serious serious penalties for folk who drive impaired, or use cell phones while driving (which I think should be jammed somehow), participate in rude driving behavior etc. Driving is a privelege and not a right - somehow people seem to forget that. Since repeat offenders tend to blow off the fact that they hav a suspended or revoked license then whoever lets them use their car should face similar stiff penalties.

Maybe we need to push fo rmore wide shoulders and put all these folks to work keeping them clean as part of their restitution. Let them be out there with cars buzzing by.

What you are weighing is the 99% of night drivers who are not drunk and will now be able to see you because of the light, versus the 1% of them who do happen to be legally drunk, and the fractional percentage of those people who might be so drunk as to cause an accident, and the fractional percentage of that subset who might be susceptible to the "ooh look flashing light, I'll steer right at it" phenomena

I'll take my chances with the light.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a yellow light. Not only because of the possible drunk homing missile thing, but just in general. Seems like it might grab motorist attention more. Like, drivers see red taillights all the time over the course of a night, more so than the yellow of turn signals. Not only would yellow stand out more, yellow tends to give the message "Caution" (construction, checkpoints, other "warning" signs, etc), and I think may be more likely to grab a driver's attention...

I need a new rear light anyway, so maybe I'll give it a shot.

I need a new rear light anyway, so maybe I'll give it a shot.Makes sense.

Do be careful though -- many state laws explicitly require that bikes have a red rear light or reflector. Cops rarely bother people for the wrong color tail light, but it's always a possibility.

(You could also possibly comply with the letter of the law by having a small red led with your much brighter yellow light, or perhaps a red reflector ... it would depend on exactly what the laws require.)