mcours2006

So glad you approve.

mcours2006

So glad you approve...doubly so, no less.

bobwysiwyg

How about the fact that there is far less vehicle traffic at night?

jon c. 

In rural areas, there is much less traffic and everyone can see everyone else from a long way off. In terms of interactions with cars, I have no concerns over riding at night. Road hazards and small animals are a bit more of a concern, but on balance I think it's safer overall.

AlmostTrick

Correct, I forgot to mention about the reduction of "pullouts" at night. I sometimes feel sorry for the drivers because they'll sometimes wait for me to pass when they have plenty of time not too. Around here motor speeds are always double or more cycle speeds, so they likely think I'm a motor bike or one headlamp car going much faster.

JoeyBike

The two things that concern me after dark is that many people don't see well at night and shouldn't be driving, but they do. Also, I suppose people may be more fatigued later in the day and night. So I am not in total disagreement with the other opinions here. In my case, I do have fewer problems at night overall.

B. Carfree

On semi-rural two-lane roads, particularly the kind that have logging trucks and other rigs, I have found that dark hour riding generally gets me safer passes. I assume it's because I'm more visible against the background for a longer period of time, there are fewer other issues to distract drivers, there's some CB communication about the person or people out on bikes between the rigs and there may be a sense of respect or camaraderie for someone who's out at 0-dark-thirty just like they are.

Those assumptions are based on the company radio conversations I was a part of while driving trucks on just such roads in the past.

Fargo Wolf

Depends on the time of evening/night. Most people work during the day, so by 5-6PM they will have, or be heading for home. After the evening Rush, traffic naturally drops off till the next morning. The only exception would be hockey, football, soccer or other major event. Even then, that would be fairly localized.

scott967

OP was asking about harassment, which is an intentional act, not safety which I assume is primarily unintentional acts. My hypothesis is that harassers want a reaction, and at night it is harder to see a reaction so they don't get the satisfaction they are looking for.

scott s.
.

MoAlpha

I have noticed it too, but the time I was actually run off the road intentionally and beaten up by a car full of teens was after dark and that was my most serious harassment event in >50 years on the roads.

wphamilton

The bright lights make us more visible from further away so they're not as surprised to suddenly see us and react negatively, and also it lends us the appearance of knowing what we're doing. Which I think is a big factor when some people decide to harass a cyclist.

grayEZrider

I agree. And the fact that after dark they have a much shorter time to figure out what you are and plan/execute harassment while trying to drive under the tougher night conditions. But after figuring that out several years ago and becoming somewhat impaired (eyesight and hearing) i neither drive or ride at night anymore. BUT.... thanks to this forum I have adapted to lights and a mirror mounted on the helmet. I enjoy mostly rural riding (with a weekly local shop run group ride) and the only serious crash in the last few years was on a MUP in Indy.

brianinc-ville

This seems possible, too.

wombat_alex

KraneXL

Do you think CBS would make up something like that? In any event, I didn't link it as a scientific validation, rather, as a credible news source. Its better than just me saying, "because I said it was so."

wombat_alex

KraneXL

You still didn't answer the question. It is you who has to provide sufficient evidence to show why a credible news source would intentionally deceive its viewers. Conversely, if it is the interpretation that you believe is misleading, then you would still need to clarify that as well, e.g. explain how it is a "misconception."

The inference of the possibility of the lack of credibility alone is insufficient. Particularly since you haven't proven they would have anything to gain from such a deception. Instead, the added possibility of discredit to the news organization and its disreputation would shortly follow.

JoeyBike

The majority of motorists are out in the daytime. And between midnight and 4 a.m. there are very few "amateur" motorists on the road and far fewer vehicles in general. So the Day vs. Night statistics are tilted due to many hours every night were accidents don't happen due to lack of participation.

On the other hand, the last new motorcycle I purchased was in 1982, and at that time there was no switch to turn the headlamp on or off. It just came on when I hit the ignition. The motorcycle manufacturers were so convinced that riding with the lights on during daylight hours was safer that they gave the operator no choice in the matter. I suspect the motorcycle industry had some cold, hard statistics to base their actions upon and not just some hearsay from a few enthusiasts. Nowadays, several car and truck models leave the lights on by default. This can be overridden, but the lights WANT to come on day and night. I rent a lot of cars so I know.

Auto and motorcycle manufacturers just assume we will turn on the lights after dark. So why make the lights come on by day? Because it makes us easier to be seen and reduces accidents during daylight hours. After dark, any vehicle with good headlamps lit up is easier to see than the same car during daylight hours with or without the lights on. It's called CONTRAST. Easiest to see lights at night, somewhat better to see them lit by day, worse to see them with lights not lit day or night. Ergo...it is safer at night based on SEEING the vehicle lit up. The catch is that it becomes more difficult to judge the speed and distance of a pair of headlamps without points of reference. So assume they are closer and faster than they look is a good idea. "Noticing" the other vehicle on the road is top priority. All is lost if you don't even see them. It is much easier to see headlights by night than any car by day.

Spoonrobot 

Please provide statistics for this assertion. What I have seen shows that daylight injuries and fatalities for motorcyclists have increased during daylight hours: https://www.iii.org/table-archive/20482

JoeyBike

More people are riding motorcycles in and around urban areas, including motor scooters. And many more women.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...floor-you.aspx

Research has consistently shown that the use of headlights during the day can greatly decrease the risk of an accident by making vehicles more visible to passing motorists. One study found that four out of five daytime accidents that occur in intersections are caused because one driver failed to see the other vehicle. - Use the Google Luke!

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

A common complaint of street riders is that other motorists fail to observe them. Motorists who violate motorcyclists’ right-of-way frequently state, “I didn’t see him,” or “He came out of nowhere” (Hurt, 1981).The problem of other motorists failing to observe motorcyclists apparently exists on several levels (see Motorist Awareness, page 31). An important Hurt Report finding was that conspicuous motorcycles and riders were less likely to have their right-of-way violated by other vehicles.A variety of recognized tactics exists to make motorcycles and their riders more conspicuous: lighting, surface color and size, and rider traffic strategy. Lighting factors include:

• Since 1979, most motorcycles sold in the United States have been equipped with automatic-on headlamps to meet some state requirements. This seems to have been an effective method of making them more conspicuous and reducing right-of-way violations. Currently, 86 percent of motorcycles on the road have their headlights on during daytime (Turner, 2000).

• Using the high beam of a motorcycle’s headlight during the day also helps to prevent violations of the motorcyclist’s right-of-way (Hurt, 1981).

• In the cruising and touring categories, auxiliary headlights, usually of reduced wattage, are gaining popularity. Many sportbikes are equipped with dual headlights.

• Recently, some automobiles have started using daytime running lamps (DRL), which may reduce the effectiveness of motorcycle automatic-on headlamps.

• Headlight modulators, which cause the light to alternate between a higher and a lower intensity during the day, also increase conspicuity (Hurt, 1981). Headlight modulators are federally regulated lighting devices and as such, all state laws governing them are preempted. Motorcycle headlight modulators have not been studied to determine their effects on other motorists.

• Many modern street bikes are equipped with position lamps in their front turn signals. This may help other motorists to identify the vehicle as a motorcycle and to better judge its distance and speed.

- Motorcycle Safety Foundation

Safety on two wheels STARTS with BEING SEEN. Proper lights help other road users notice you. This seems like common sense, which gets less common every day it seems.

Spoonrobot 

"Use google" is the saddest of failed rebuttals. You have posted something you believe to be fact, it is your responsibility to back it up. Especially in the face of contradictory statistics.

I also did not find the quoted text you posted, in the link you posted.

What link is the quoted text from?

What are you doing JoeyBike?

Spoonrobot 

Ah, an edit appears.

Unfortunately the information you linked is badly out of date. Using studies and stats from the 1980s? The newest reference is from 2000, how old is that webpage? Come now, it's 2018! The information I posted spans 2006-2015 and shows a definite trend, from the USDOT/NHSA.

Hmm:

What has transpired that may or may not contribute to this reduction in effectiveness over the past 17 years?

"I didn't see them" is a lie motorists tell to avoid culpability, stop perpetuating this lie.

JoeyBike

So you believe that a motorist SEES the bicycle or motorcycle and PURPOSELY causes an accident? You think they want to be delayed with all of the followup, meeting the cops, going to court? "I didn't see them" means exactly that, unless the motorist is a professional hit man. This may be the dumbest thing I have seen on the Internet in a long time - the claim that motorists are seeing us and running us over on purpose. Is this your claim here??

JoeyBike

I don't believe this issue has a shelf life. The research is DONE. It is CONCLUSIVE. No need to keep doing it over and over. Everyone (but you) agrees, so it's over, action has been taken. Time to move on.

Research on cell phone users killing motorcyclists is the next big step that needs to be taken IMO. Seems like NOT looking through the windshield AT ALL has cancelled out the noticing of daytime headlight use to some degree. More common sense.

Spoonrobot 

That is not what I said, please do not construct stupid things then point out how they are stupid. It does nothing to further the dialogue. Motorists see motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians and do not have the skill or judgement to maneuver with them, around them or near them appropriately. In many cases they may also not care to do so.

There is only the most minimal skill requirements to become a licensed driver and the skill required to accommodate both one's own moving vehicle and another slower, vulnerable vehicle stretches many motorists abilities. This is compounded by distractions inside the vehicle, physical issues such as fatigue/emotional effects and environmental effects.

Are you working to refute the earlier arguments and questions I posted or do you plan to ignore them?