Capt, not trying to pick a argument, but when the choice comes down to irritating some drivers opposed to my skinny butt, I am sorry!!

What I am saying is, bicyclist NEED to be seen. How long is a bicycle going to be facing you, or even in your view? I will say a couple seconds at the most, whereas, being seen is paramount and lifesaving for cyclist. You being fed up.. Ha, that a a joke..:D

Check this example out, wish the deceased was running the brightest in the world, she would still be here instead of being dragged several miles, because the car driver didn't see her..


http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09...v-while-cyclin

In addition, I think the majority of the drivers out there are not professional.

BTW, I run a PB Blaze 2w up headlight, with a PB Beamer flashing on my helmet. With a PB turbo superflash in the rear. Getting ready to add too more rear lights too. Getting hit by a cage is BAD, REAL BAD. Nobody is out to blind peeps or irritate them. But, we MUST BE SEEN..:beer:

My B&M IQ Cyo has exactly the same set-up and very good it is too.

Not trying to pick argument either :beer:

I fully understand where you are coming from, and I did not mean to imply that it was being done on purpose (of course there are those out there who would do it on purpose, but they truly are the minority). But there are a lot of cyclists out there who have there light pointing at oncoming traffic. And we all know it only takes a split second for an accident to occur.

We can all quote newspaper stories to validate our points of view - for example http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...nd_run_driver/ - this guy WAS lit up like a Christmas tree and still was not seen, and is lucky to be alive.

Just to qualify one more point - the fact I am a professional driver does not just mean I drive for a living (I drive buses), but that I have had to take a more extensive test than the standard motorist. This does not in itself make me a better driver however, and I am far from the best out there, but I like to think I am better than a lot of them out there - and being a cyclist as well means I look out for them more as I know what to expect.

You can have all the lights in the world, but if someone is not looking they will not make the blindest bit of difference. However, I would still maintain that seeing the edge of a solid or flashing beam, correctly aimed, is safer for both parties than a beam aimed straight at oncoming traffic. Its like lighting up the road in front of you - there is such a thing as too much light - where the reflection and refraction can obscure defects in the surface and destroy night vision. The same is true with a mis-aimed blinky. Flash needs to only be 0.5 of a second or less - but the blinding effect lasts longer than the flash and then your night vision needs to restore itself - by which time the light has flashed again.

This is the reason I have a high solid lights with a cutoff and low flashing lights - highly visible but neither irritating nor dangerous.
Peace

Society is not going to care about bicyclists as long as there is a perception that they are poor,
since "cost to society" when somebody is killed by something are calculated by lost wages.

For that reason, it pays to dress well - have a nice bike, if you have a job, make it clear that you have a job, and that time you spend in a hospital is a financial loss for both you and your employer, if you get hurt.

Typically, money lost by an employer if their employee is injured is whats looked at the most when deciding if something needs to be changed. If lots of well paid people commuted by bicycle, society would eventually recognize the need to make a larger effort to accomodate their needs.

We on the same page.. ;) Also, if you drive buses, you are indeed a professional driver. In my opinon, I think the offending bikers are in the minority and they are like you stated, they don't do it on purpose, it is mainly not knowing. In time, I think all bikers catch on and get on board. I am a newbie, I am just learning about bike lighting, the do's and the don'ts.. One last bit on the side of the bikers and being seen. We all see cages taking out bicycles and bicyclists getting killed, it is a fact of life. We NEVER see bicycles taking out cages and killing people, never. That doesn't give the bikers a blank check, but it supports the fact, that bicycles must put being seen as a #1 priority.

I am learning... ;)

Merry Christmas to you... :beer:

Lots of bikers do have lights, but even so, they get hit- I suspect often the driver was travelling at 50 MPH, maybe often talking on a cellphone -so despite their efforts to be visible, the driver's mind was distracted and so they just didn't notice them.

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-conten.../12/bway-1.jpg

Also, there for a long time has been a movement in the corporate world to speedup, to increase worker output, but now its become almost a religion in some circles.

Workplace pressure is probably the cause of a lot of accidents.

A worker doesn't get as much finished, they get written up, creating a paper trail. Then they are let go.

Just had to highlight that one comment - unfortunately it is NOT true. Admittedly it is rare, but incidents do happen. Years ago my brother rode his bike into the side of a car, denting the door (OK, not a right off, but even so he was at fault not the motorist).

Re the death comment -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...herts-12816829
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/ny...r-streets.html
http://www.baycitizen.org/bikes/stor...-womans-death/


I know its very rare (compared to deaths from motorised vehicles), but I am afraid to say that it never happens is unfortunately untrue.

Merry Christmas

My wife always gets on me with my use of the word "never". ;) I think you understood what I meant.. Rare is a better description..

Like I said before, we on the same page...

Safe riding to you, :beer:

The cycling community should somehow have some way of speaking up when things like the above three incidents happen to make it clear that we feel the same way about "bicyclists" riding recklessly as we feel about car and truck drivers who do so.

Ive recently been wondering, why isn't there some kind of national organization of cyclists in the US - as there is in some other countries?

A lobbying organization.

Like the League of American Bicyclists? http://www.bikeleague.org/

While their strength waxes and wanes, and they haven't always been the clearest in their messaging, they've been a national cyclists' lobbying organization for more than a hundred years.

It's not about a motorist being upset, it's about a motorist being unable to see your current location accurately because a second ago you flashed a blinding light in his eyes, and he's now driving half-blind while recovering.

Cyclists don't just need to be seen, they need to be seen, identified as vehicles, and accurately placed in the context of traffic. A dazzling light in the driver's eyes can short-circuit all those processing elements, leaving you an unknown object somewhere on the road.

The laws regulating automotive lighting grew out of exactly these issues -- cars with blindingly bright headlights were causing accidents for themselves and others. Bicycle headlights have already progressed well beyond the intensity at which automotive rules would ban round beams aimed at drivers' eyes, and it's just a matter of time until Legislatures in the U.S. move to fill the regulatory gap. Until then, the glare hazard from poorly-designed and poorly-aligned bicycle headlights will continue to be a growing issue for cyclists and motorists alike.

Very good points, and I am sure that is the case. Also, bicycle lights technolgy has skyrocketed. However, just like bad-mannered cyclists, blinding cars from bicycle lights is small compared to cars running over bicyclists. Also, the damage from getting hit (not being seen) is small to the discomfort of blinding lights for a second or two. Look, I am not running blinding lights, or aiming the ones I got upward toward drivers. All I am saying is bicyclists must put BEING SEEN #1. On my motorcycle, I run PIAA Extremes, and they stay on high beams all the time. Sometimes clocking over 25,000 miles a year on motorycles, I have seen the "I didn't see you" too many times.

In addition, bicyclist don't have all that metal cage and protection around them protecting them. It is the bicyclist bare butt up against cold steel and asphalt. My point was when the choice comes down to car drivers being discomforted for a few seconds oppose to me being seen, that should be no brainer.

Again, you points are valid, just giving my opinon from being on two wheels. BTW, I run low level lights pointed downward, front and rear!! ;)

BTW, any stats on car drivers hitting bicyclists because of blinding lights, opposed to car drivers hitting bicycles because they didn't see them. I am sure the latter is about 1000 to 1. Just my opinion.

When I had a few decades less driving experience, I nearly had a head-on collision with a motorcycle whose headlight kept me from seeing the center line of a two-lane highway. I couldn't judge his position or my own, even when I put my own high-beams on to try to see past his headlight glare. (Of course, the stock high beams on a '65 Country Sedan were nothing like today's high beams.) I was well over the center line when we passed each other, but I didn't know it, and at the time I was too young and stupid to have simply stopped in the middle of the road until I could see again.

Those are three interesting articles. However it wasn't made clear and I don't understand why the cyclist in the third article surrendered his bicycle to the police. Would a motorist be required to surrender their vehicle to police after being involved in a crash?

You've heard of the League of American Bicyclists, right?

A friend of mine was hit by an SUV recently while riding his bike. The police were going to take his bike but I got there just before they were going to load it up and was able to take it. But there's something that said he had to give up possession of his bike to the police unless somebody could take it for him before they loaded it up. This confuses me still but I was able to save his bike for him.

It's bs tho he was lit up like crazy and she hit him "I didn't see him" and he got ticketed. He's still dealing with court trying to get the charge dropped and make the gal pay for the damages to his bike and himself (his knee got really missed up)

If you mow down a pedestrian in a crosswalk with your car, there's a good chance your car will be impounded as evidence for the investigation and trial. Presumably a bike would be treated in a similar fashion, allowing the medical examiner to match wounds on the victim's body to specific impact points on the vehicle.

Thank you - thats what I was trying to say.

And the point here is that the cyclist is endangering him/her-self as much as s/he is endangering other road users.

I really don't get the issue your (USA) police have with cyclists, I would like to think our (UK) police have a much broader view. I do know I successfully made an insurance claim off a car driver who knocked me off my bike years ago - the drivers insurers paid out without any argument whatsoever (and I had no insurance at all).

I do know our police are trying to crack down on dangerous or reckless cycling, cycling without lights and on the pavement &c. (I know that last one is contentious). On the whole, I think they do get treated more fairly over here - and I wouldn't say we have a massive cycling population. I spose its not too bad though, on my commute to and from work I normally see a few, and in the course of driving around all day I probably see between 20 & 50 depending on where I am driving (more nearer universities and schools) - I must say it does appear that for the large majority cycling is only on the agenda until they can drive. It certainly seems that there are more teens and children out on biles than adults.

generally speaking, bicyclists are ostensibly concerned with "bicycle safety issues" and it fosters an "us vs them" attitude: we're right, they're wrong. this is NOT the best way to win friends and influence people.

IMHO, we (collectively) should be focused on "road safety issues" and agree that unsafe bicyclists need education and/or incentives (eg tickets) to encourage safe bicycling. someone should get a ticket for doing something unsafe & illegal regardless of whether they're operating a bus, truck, car, bicycle or sneakers.

part of that problem is the gap between safe and reasonable on one side, and legal on the other side. idaho stops are a good example of a law that's about 100 years behind the technology.

Look, we are on the same page!! I agree 100% on keeping lights downward and not blinding. My point is, on the bicycle we are out there dam near naked. No protection whatsoever, except for a flimsy helmet. Cars are taking out bicycles a lot, that is a fact. Bicycles blinding motorist, sure that might happen some, but that is not the norm. Also, even the outlaw bicyclists (bicylists that don't obey the laws)maybe irritating to some, and even if they do cause some accidents, they are really in the low numbers. What is in the big numbers? Bicyclist getting hit by cars! That's a biggee..

On the motorcycle, I am old enough, wise enough, not to go for "oh I didn't see you" and I am flat out on the ground. Not going that way. I am preventive all the way. PIAA Extremes on high, and even then I get some that don't see me..

The reason I say bicyclists must make being seen priority one, is because we have no protection!! Even if we fall on our own, it is a bad show, and to come in contact with 3000+lbs of moving steel, it is big time bad for the cyclists, and I think the stats will back me up on that.. I learned a lot in this thread. I for one, will make sure even my rinky-dink lights are not up in anyone eyes, but are giving up enough light in the right direction for them to know I am there..


Again, points well taken.. :beer:

I think one of the big problems is enforcement of the laws. Of all the people I've known that ride at night without lights only one has gotten the $50 ticket for no lights at night.
The other problem I've noticed here is cops don't give a care about bikes unless they can slap them with a $100 or more ticket. And don't care much if one gets hit by a car.

I've been hit around 20 times since Ive been biking and all when I've had right of way and only one cop cared to get the camera footage from the intersection and tracked the guy down and issued him a ticket. I've lost more wheels this way. Most times I've been hit were when I had more lights (multi head, tail, side lights, wheel lights, tube lights on frame) and should be easier to see.

Long story short safety and enforcement are what's needed.

Ah, the famous words spoken when a person on two wheels is laying on the ground, hopefully alive. The person that put them there, states! I DIDN'T SEE HIM/HER!!

IMO, that scernrio should be avoided at all cost. In plain talk, make sure you are seen!!

I think you missed cehowardGS' point. He wasn't talking about different incidents and/or accidents. His post should have read "We NEVER see bicycles taking out cages and killing people [in the cars]..." Denting a door is far different than killing the driver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wY02pNU1Xg

TBF, cops (at least where i currently live) generally don't issue tickets (to bicyclists or motorists) for driving without lights at night. they'll make a traffic stop as a reminder to turn on the lights and check if the driver is drunk, stoned, etc.

if a bicyclist doesn't have lights, they'll (usually?) ask the bicyclist to continue on foot.

i'd like to think they'll issue tickets for repeat offenders, and i'm sure they're happy to issue a ticket to anyone with a rotten attitude.

for this offense, i think that's reasonable enforcement for MVs, and also for bicycles. i'm happy to see both modes of transport being essentially treated equally, at least for this type of offense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-4UGUlbL1s - read the description :notamused:

getting footage from an intersection camera (or 3rd party camera) requires effort, time, paperwork... resources, which are usually stretched too thin for most police. unless there's a serious injury or fatality, you won't get those videos[1]. i provide my own footage when i file complaints, and i'm still pissing in the wind.


1- IIUC, some jurisdictions consider video recorded with public funds to be publicly accessible; this effectively means that police don't have monopoly access to the video, and it's harder for video to "get lost" when someone gets their ass kicked by rogue cops. it's also easier to get video of traffic incidents for civil cases (which cops are very eager to not get involved in!).