Drinky wrote:
Although I'm under no delusions that I'm safe from motor vehicles, do people
believe that the number of near misses would reduce and my overall safety
increase if I switch on the stealth instead of my lights?

There's a black (sic) joke in the old motorists' complaint that "I saw
loads of unlit cyclists dressed in black last night, are they trying to
kill themselves?"

There were some studies done [1] that suggested that given a standard
legal lighting setup, vehicles overtook and left most room if you were
wearing a full retroreflective yellow/orange jacket, less room if just a
waistcoat or Sam Browne belt, and least room with nothing
reflective/bright. (And some unofficial studies have suggested that
cars give you most room of all if you look like a policeman. :-)

If your near misses aren't overtaking but pulling out into your path,
then much brighter (than legal minimum) front lights seem to do the
trick, but road positioning is also important - don't hog the gutter,
position yourself in the middle of the lane and you'll be where drivers
are looking.

The other problem with dressing in black is that if you do have a crash,
the other guy's insurance is likely to try to use that against you and
apportion some blame your way for not being lit up like a Christmas tree.

Personally, I think it depends on your route, your riding style and your
preferences. If you ride on well-lit and reasonably quiet suburban back
streets, where drivers are generally (ha!) more sedate and have more
time to think about their driving, you can probably get away with
minimum (but legal) lighting if you don't hog the gutter. Conversely if
I cycled in the back of beyond on unlit country roads, or did the Swiss
Cottage Rotary in the rush hour, I'd prefer to be lit up (and
retroreflectived up) to the eyeballs.

R.

[1] References not to hand, but something DETR-ish.