Originally Posted by
acidfast7
how about you read the primary literature ...
what does this figure tell you about flashing vs. static lights?
That it made no difference. Overlapping error bars.
Originally Posted by
acidfast7
also FYI ... this is the body of the text:
There was also a significant main effect of bicycle light, F(2,21) = 15.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .60, such that the mean response distance was longer in the no-light condition (75.0 m) than in either the static (49.0 m) or flashing (52.1 m) light conditions. The static and flashing did not differ significantly. The primary reason for the significant main effect of bicycle light was that the light, whether it was static or flashing, decreased response distances in the vest, ankle and knee condition relative to the no-light condition. This pattern may have resulted from the bicycle light (mounted on the handlebars) acting as a glare source that reduced the drivers’ ability to see the reflective markings on the ankles and knees. Accordingly, there was also a significant interaction between clothing and bicycle light, F(4,19) = 5.14, p = .006, partial η2 = .52, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Post hoc interaction contrasts showed that the difference between the vest condition and the vest, ankle and knee condition was greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions. The difference between the vest and black condition was also greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions.
Another, more reasonable conclusion is that an active light made the use of reflective clothing superfluous. That's the point of using a light. If a driver sees a bicyclist's lights before he sees his own light reflecting back off reflective material, the active lights have done their job. The reflective material is a fill-in, secondary system and shouldn't be your primary system. We have a name for people who depend 100% on reflective material for night time riding...Squished.