lesiz

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.

Dan The Man

Where I live, most drivers are not drunk.

Unreasonable

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.

hairnet

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

phoebeisis

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.

kandyredcoi

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

dynodonn 

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.

Dodgensince74

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.

unterhausen

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.

unterhausen

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.

njkayaker

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.

Keep in mind that this requirement isn't an indication of what is best. It's just easy and cheap.

serra

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.

68venable

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

sudo bike

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.

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 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.

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.

Seattle Forrest

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:

kandyredcoi

amber may work

dhofmann

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.

sudo bike

*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.

sudo bike

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

ccd rider

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.

DogBoy

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.

dhofmann

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.

njkayaker

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.

sudo bike

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

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

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.

Seattle Forrest

... other than hooch, anyway ...