Rob_E

I understand where you're coming from. I think for many of us commuters, the Netherlands is an example of an ideal situation. From what I gather (I've never been there) bicycles are so common that drivers expect them and know how to react to them. It's my understanding that studies show that bicycling becomes safer the higher the percentage of the population cycles. Why? Because people are accustomed to cyclists and know how to deal with them. A Dutch driver might see a lone taillight on the edge of the road and think, "That must be a cyclist." There's probably enough of them that the idea of cyclist being on the road at night seems perfectly natural. This is not the case in the United States, unfortunately. That is why so many topics mention flashing rear lights, reflective tape, and reflective clothing. In the United States, you don't want a single, steady light to tell the motorists, "Excuse me, but there's a guy on a bike here." Too many drivers will not get the message. A single, steady light may well register in the back of their minds as "Not a car. Not my problem." That's why we blink and shine in every way possible. It's meant to eye-grabbing. It's meant to yell, "Hey! Keep alert! There's a bike here! It's not a car, but it's on the road, and it's moving. Don't hit it!"

I like you're way better. It's more respectful, and it's less obtrusive, and I wish it were practical, but I have to agree with all the pro-blinking comments. Until we can have the same percentage of people on the road as Holland have, motorists will not expect to encounter bikes on the road at night, and we're probably not going to be as safe with a solid tail light. Although I do like the idea of solid/blinking combo.

Rob_E

Yes and no. It would be nice if everyone had lessons in how motorists should treat cyclists and how cyclists should ride, but it's probably not going to happen, at least not with the current number of bikes on the road. If you, as a motorist, encounter bicycles riding with you in traffic every day, you may pay attention to how you should drive. If someone in your Driver's Eduction class tells you what the rules are concerning bicycles and how to react, you might remember because you'll use that information every day. But it cyclists remain uncommon, then those facts are not going to stick in people's heads. If someone says, "You can't turn right if there's a cyclists to your right who is going straight." And every time you're on the road, you find yourself yielding the right-of-way to a cyclists, you will probably remember the lesson. If, on the other hand, it isn't until two months later that you actually find yourself wanting to turn right when there's a cyclist on your right, you have probably already forgotten that lesson.

More could be done to educate motorists (and cyclists) about the rules of traffic where bikes are concerned, but as long as there are so many more cars than bikes on the road, it probably won't happen. You have to get the bikes on the road first before anyone is really going to care.

AlmostTrick

A blinking light along with a steady one seems best to me. When riding streets with lots of lights and traffic, the brighter light goes on blink. With so many other lights in a motorists view, a bright flash is needed to attract their attention. When on dark roads with little traffic, the brighter light goes on steady. In this case the bright steady / lower power blinking combination is more than enough to attract attention without the blinding effect of a high power flash.

Besides, you should always have more than one light, "just in case".

dhofmann

Besides making it more difficult to judge distance, I worry that flashing lights might also attract so much attention that drivers (especially those of the intoxicated variety) fixate on you. If fixating on obstacles can cause you to bike into them, does the same phenomenon apply to driving?

ItsJustMe

See, the problem is, you need to be noticable to ALL drivers. Including the 17-year-old who's looking over his shoulder to see what kind of cool car that was back there, while talking on his cell phone, and to the 27-year-old soccer mom with 2 fighting kids in the back who's on the phone trying to figure out where they're supposed to be in 5 minutes, and the lightly drunk guy trying to even see the road.

POLICE CARS WITH LIGHTS ON have been run into by people who "didn't see them."

Sorry, you attentive drivers will just have to deal.

FWIW, i run a combo; one steady, one flashing, plus a very bright reflective vest and DOT-rated reflectors on my bike plus the stock reflectors. I agree flashing only is irritating, so I mitigate it by having a steady one too; steady lights are easier to judge distance and speed to, flashing is to attract attention.

ItsJustMe

Yes, it does, especially with drunk drivers. That's why you should run BOTH blinking and steady. Personally I think there should be some physical separation between the two; perhaps blinkie on the helmet, steady on the bike. Right now I have the two only about 3 inches apart but I'm going to build a bracket soon, and get another Superflash for my helmet.

markhr

If I had the money I'd run lupine betty 12 lights front and rear (with a red filter). Now that would blind everyone.

https://www.lupine.de/content/main_html.php?lang=uk

chephy

I am sorry but I fail to see how that helps in this case. A solid light doesn't cancel out the effects of the blinkie, after all.

allan_dunlop

I agree that a rapidly flashing light can be overly distracting. There's an important difference between getting someone's attention, and taking up too much of it.

One option no one has mentioned is the third available on a lot of rear lights--the side-to-side movement of the diodes (or up-down, depending on how you mount it). i.e., instead of flashing all on/off together, the diodes flash one at a time in sequence across the unit, then back again.

The Vista light I use has this and it seems way less distracting, while still being attention-getting.

Flashing lights are great for being noticed, but it helps to have a steady one as well (front and back) so people can track your path and judge speed. Has anyone else noticed how hard it can be to do this with a cyclist using only a flashing light?

Allan

MrPolak

Is the blinking taillight the cycle equivalent of a motorcycles loud pipes? Not at all. We do not use blinkies because we need bigger winkies. Blinkies do not wake neighbors and most blinkies are not bright enough to affect your retinas.

Strobing LED brakelights on the SUV directly in front of me at 6:30 am in the dark are different.

sping

Is there a bike lane, or does the cyclist have the right to pass on the right where you are?

Here in MA, USA, I believe that we cyclists don't have any right to pass cars on the right hand side unless there's a bike lane [Edit: I was wrong! See below]. Of course, we do it anyway (I'm not going to wait in line for 3 phases of the lights just to carry on), but my attitude, as with any time I break the rules, is that I have to yield to everyone while I do it.

Then, if I'm in a bike lane, I'll still be ready to yield my right of way for simple self-preservation, as you're talking about, because cars will cut across without looking in Boston.

This sort of randomness is a fact of life in Boston driving, which is infuriating. A significant minority take the right of way whether they have it or not, and then half of the rest of people are too timid to take their right of way because they fear that first set are about to cut them up, or they want to be "nice". It means the place is a bizarre mix of ultra-rudeness, and misplaced excessive politeness - both of which make it more dangerous and more unpleasant. Everything runs much more smoothly if everyone follows their responsibilities and rights more rigidly.

Hmmm, this is completely off topic isn't it. Anyway, I run one solid light, and one blinking superflash. I know the flash is kind of annoying, but an elementary skill of driving is learning not to stare fixedly at lights ahead of you, and I don't think people register the solid light unless they're actively looking.

landstander

Personally, I prefer a mix of the two. I typically run a Cateye TL-LD500 in blinking mode... it has a rather distinctive triple-blink pattern, which seems to be especially good at getting a person's attention. I also use a Cateye TL-LD1100 set in steady mode, to provide something a bit easier to focus on. Finally, I supplement those with a pair of bar-end lights which are also used in steady mode... their purpose is mainly to provide an indication of the bike's width.

I modify this strategy somewhat when visibility is impaired (fog, rain, snow, etc.), by setting the top row of LEDs on the TL-LD1100 to blinking instead of solid. It's considerably brighter than the TL-LD500, which I feel is worth the trade-off in that scenario.

ItsJustMe

I think part of the reason for having a steady on light is to allow greater depth perception, and it's worth it for that reason alone. It's hard to judge distance to a strobing light.

I don't have any evidence or studies that having a steady next to a blinkie reduces hypnosis, but that's "folklore" that's often repeated around here, and it seems reasonable; you can more easily identify "bicycle" with the steady light due to the motion, and someone in an alcohol stupor might get it through their skull what that is, instead of staring at it until they hit it.

In any case, can't hoit. Right now I'm running a superflash on blink and an LD1000 on steady. I plan to get another superflash and build a bracket across the back of my rack to hold the LD1000 in the middle and the blinkies on the sides. Or maybe it should be three Superflashes, two on the sides steady and a blinkie in the middle? Or in the daytime I could run all three on blink?

fender1

I run a rear rack mounted wired tailight (Dynohub powered) PB superflash on my helmet. Blackburn 3.0 on my pannier mounted on the non-drive side and have reflective tape covering my rear mudflap and fender.

As a driver I as well have noticed that a single blinkie is not very effective. I recently came upon a cyclist at night with a seat post mounted blinkie and pedal reflectors. As a driver I saw the pedal reflectors before the blinkie. I think you need both types to caputer people's attention as so many folks drive distracted these days. FWIW I am going to install some rear pedal reflectors as well.

The Human Car

All I know and care about is that drivers are giving me a wider birth now that I have upgraded to bright and annoying flashing tail lights. Do I really want them to be able to easily figure out where I am in the road so they can pass me with inches to spare? I really don't think so. YMMV

SDRider

Has ANYONE ever heard of this actually happening because of a bicycle light? I know that theoretically it is possible but in real life?

SDRider

Personally, I think all bets are off when it comes to drunk drivers. Blinkie, no blinkie, 50 blinkies...you might still get hit and you can't really draw any conclusions from it either. Trying to predict the behavior of drunks is like trying to bathe a cat.

bike_boy

See article by Steve Sevaly on Blinking vs steady (solid-lit) lights:
https://www.riversidebicycleclub.org/...Nov2006web.pdf

I don't quite belive his 3rd reason would work in all supported ride cases...

I also read somewhere (roadbikerider newsletter ?) recently that you should use
solid-lit lights in fog and low light (dusky) conditions due to driver depth/distance
perception of cyclist. Other than, that blinking lights should be used in the dark.

vincentpaul

AmsterDan: Here's a shocker - you may very well be right that a blinking red light is unsafe at night. I work as an administrative law judge in Oregon and recently finished a five year stint doing DUII license suspension hearings. The National Transportation Safety Admiministration and other regulatory/safety are bodies are rethinking the wisdom of flashing lights at night as a warning device. At one time, it was believed that officers conducting roadside investigations should "obviously" use their flashers. Studies are now questioning that conclusion, and officers have had annecdotal evidence for years that impaired drivers (the most dangerous drives) are attracted to flashing lights. The betters studies seem to indicate that the best margin of safety goes to a steady light. To understand why, you need to understand that primary dangers on the road are related to impaired and/or inattentive drivers. Drivers are conditioned to not rear-end a steady light and to judge distance by a steady light.

Morning rush hour is probably one of the safest times of day to be on a bike. Drivers are alert, freshly rested, pumped with caffeine. Late afternoon through evening is the most dangerous. Drivers are tired, sleepy, inattentive and have stopped ingesting caffeine. Sleepiness is actually more impairing than early alcohol induced impairment (i.e., a sleepy driver is more dangerous than someone at .10 BAC). There's now good research showing that impaired drivers (sleepiness or intoxicants) are attracted to flashing objects. This makes sense, because they're not behaving rationally - THEY'RE IMPAIRED.

jyossarian

Great. Blinking lights may draw drunk and sleepy drivers like moths to a lightbulb. Maybe we should run a combo of blue, red and white strobes to make drivers think we're cops. That might make them slow down and focus more.

vincentpaul

Do a Lexis/Nexis search on officers conducting DUII investigations whose cars were rear-ended during their investigation. They're usually running a light show when they're rear-ended.

I was talking to a fellow ALJ/cyclist about this, and they pointed out that when talking to new cyclists you have to point out that if you want to avoid an object, you don't look at the object, you look at the path around the object because humans instinctively steer to our line of sight.

jmartinez

Correct me if I'm wrong but

https://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/mass.htm

seems to indicate that passing cars on the right hand side is legal. It doesn't seem to mention the bike lane requirement for passing, but maybe I'm just not reading the legalese right.

For the record, I use two blinkies. One goes on me and one goes on the bike. I don't check the batteries as often as I should and I want the redundancy in case one dies. Also, I figure that if I do end up lying in the street I'd prefer that the next car down the road doesn't run over me or my bike.

Saintly Loser

I see your point, but I come down on the side of blinkies (meaning actually blinking red lights in the rear) for two reasons.

First, here in the US, a small blinking red light means "bicycle" to most drivers, whereas a steady red light does not immediately signify that the light is on the rear of a bicycle. So the blinkie delivers the necessary information to the driver better than a steady light would.

Second, at least in big cities, where bikes share urban streets with cars, trucks, motorcycles, delivery scooters, and just about anything else you could think of, a steady read light is just one more in a sea of red lights. There's nothing to identify the carrier of the light as a bicycle.

It may also be true that in the US (again, at least in big cities), drivers are so used to bikes having blinkies that they're not as annoying and distracting to drivers as they might be in Holland (or other places in Europe, for all I know).

sping

Wow, I was wrong, thanks for that (the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way). I just read the MA driving manual that said that bikes have all the responsibilities of other road users (with some caveats, not including this), and thought that was that.

That's good news! So now the only law I regularly break is failing to observe traffic lights and stop signs. My self-justification is that it's just like jaywalking, which everyone does, and I yield to everyone then doing it.

JTGraphics

I think you've answered your own question, the blinking lights work's and did what it was meant to do, you were attracted to it enough to not like it.