John Phoenix

Whatever keeps you alive. ( LOL ) Road bikes can do 30. Racing bikes 40 to 45 mph. Many places do not have bike lanes. I have to share the street with the car riders. I cannot ride so close to the curb that my tires collect all the nails and junk that winds up there. I ride somewhere between that curb and the center of the lane but yet not in the center. If increased visibility will help save you life, then I'm all for it.

Most bikes only have tail lights. They do not get brighter when you stop. This can lead to a car plowing right into you. I have seen cars slow down and stop for small scooters some smaller than my bike when the stop light comes on. I have also seen cars almost hit bikes because there was no stop light. I believe you are more at risk without the extra lights.

Many people claim the lights made for bikes are too small to be of use. I see small lights on small scooters that are very effective.. because brake lights and turn signals are what drivers are trained to look for. I ride at night as much as I ride in the daytime. I say these are a must on all bikes. You just never know when it may save your life.

limeylew

+1

CritEastwood

hilarious

John Phoenix

I'm wondering.. just what is so funny about the above? Those are my true observations. In any event, extra lights can only help, they could not hurt.

mechBgon

For the lights to be visible at useful range at, say, 100 meters in direct summer sunlight, they'd need quite a bit of power. They'd also need to be visible from both the front and the rear, and you'd need potent centerline-reference lights and adequate physical separation of the turn-signal lights. It could be done, it HAS been done, but the result is something few would want. Heavy, bulky, ugly, power-hungry, unaerodynamic. Not to mention expensive. If you really want to do it, get some Nova BULLs or Whelen TIR3s.

Personally, I commute on everything from 60mph highways to rural highways to city arterials. I've done so for decades. I value visibility tremendously. But I do not feel a need to have electrical turn signals or brake lights on my bike. Arm signals work well enough, especially if you have... a TRON jacket



Oh, and if you think motorists are likely to plow into you, start off with just a single red Nova BULL or Whelen TIR3 in one of the emergency-vehicle flash modes, as a taillight. If people don't keep their distance from that, I'll eat my hat. And I don't even have a hat! Nova BULL in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3cy6KSr8wk

electrik

You do realize that retro-reflective stuff is radioactive...

sudo bike

Pretty much already been said, but... yeah, I would imagine electric turn signals would actually be less effective than arms anyway. Bike is narrow enough it would be hard for drivers to discern what the signal means, compared to the very obvious point of the arm (I'm going this way!). As for brake lights, I think a flasher on the back is more likely to increase visibility, hence safety, which pretty much renders a brake lamp useless.

I see no reason why it would increase safety.

chandltp

Well, I've tried searching and I can't find any evidence that the retro-reflective material used on clothing is radioactive. I saw one reference to highway paint, but that was about it. Do you have a link I can read regarding this statement?

Rollfast

A: So we have one more thing to complain they didn't see when we get hit.

Since you didn't come to dance with a 2-3 ton airconditioner with a stereo system, please treat them like dogs and stay out of their way.

Life is hard enough anyway.

genec

Not hardly. Do you understand what retro reflective is?

You may be thinking of "luminescent" which has been made of slightly radioactive materials... and hardly effective when seen in bright light.

mikeybikes

A) Retro-reflective is not radioactive. radioluminescent paint is on the other hand slightly radioactive.
B) Due to Colorado's relatively high Uranium deposits, I'm probably exposed to more background radiation than radioluminescent paint gives off.

P.S. Radioluminescent paint is rarely used anymore. Most glow-in-the-dark paints are phosphorescent.

rando

electrik

Come on, terrorists are accumulating thousands of fire-exit signs in an attempt to build a dirty bomb... I bet that poster mechbgone is one of them - just look at the way he glows in the dark.

mechBgon

Oh shoot, they're onto me!

dmac49

Ahhh sure....

genec

On the other hand...

While not mandatory (and heaven forbid that they should ever be "required" for all bikes...)

Perhaps bike shop folks should/could work a bit harder at making a complementary sale of some sort of lighting system when they sell a bike...

Helmets are pushed pretty hard at the point of sale, what about lighting systems?

"So do you think you might be on the road after dark..."

Oh and turn signals... Forget it. just too complicated and too narrow on a bike to be really effective.

BarracksSi

Maybe, but when people start to believe that they're invincible because they're lit up like The Human Torch, they're still really not any safer. It only takes one braindead idiot to ruin your day no matter how brightly you're lit.

crhilton

Unless you:
1. Have limited money to buy them and want to ride your bike, that you already own, somewhere but don't have 8 kinds of lights.
2. Have limited time and don't want to manage 8 kinds of lights on 8 kinds of bikes.
3. Find it obnoxious turning them all on and off in order to ride your bike 2 blocks.
4. Live in an urban setting with outdoor parking and don't like removing and reinstalling 8 kinds of lights for a 2 block ride; in addition to locking it with 2 locks.

Everything, EVERYTHING, has a cost.

wheel

Reflector as law.

If you want to go further then do it.

wsbob

For some time, I've thought that cyclists having the option of effective illuminated turn signals could be an advantage in some cycling situations, such as commuting, or in heavy traffic situations. It's a challenge to produce a turn signal device for bikes that would be effective, and not simply be, as an earlier commenter phrased it...' just more useless junk to load cyclists' bikes down with'.

The other night, I noticed a cyclist down the road, signaling, but the cyclists' arm was very difficult to pick out. I thought to myself...If the back of the cyclist's hand was illuminated with a strong amber LED flashing light, it could make the hand signal far more visible to other road users. A two and half inch diameter, ergonomically designed, circular light, attached to a glove or a strap, would fit about right on the back of my hand. A finger activated trigger switch for the light to turn it on when signaling. Since it would be on only when signaling, attery consumption would be low compared to tail lights and head lights.

This is something that could be done. I'd be curious what design students or professionals could come up with that would be lightweight, contoured close to the back of a riders hand, and not be uncomfortable to wear.

sudo bike

wsbob; There are gloves with reflective material on the back that are probably pretty helpful in increasing visibility, if that's an issue. Or, you could make your own with SOLAS tape or somesuch. I believe Alert Shirt has some such gloves, if you are interested.

Val

These: https://gloglov.com/ Tried 'em. They work.

Seattle Forrest

It's illegal to drive a car without working brake lights. I'm surprised that the "same road same rules" crowd is against requiring them of bikes ... but thinks Idaho stops are the work of Satan, because it erodes the "same road same rules" dogma.

electrik

Why don't we just get motorcycles?

genec

As far as I am concerned "same road same rules" IS dogma...

Bicycles are pollution free human powered vehicles with unique characteristics that should have unique rules based on a "green" priority.

We give car pools and hybrid cars special lanes on highways... Why can't bikes be given special rules too?