On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2021 8:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:22:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 19:23:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 6:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 16:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 2:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I have yet to see a DRL that's visible to me BEFORE the bicycle and bicyclist are. The only time I notice a bicyclist with a headlight or tail-light on during the day is if they are in deep shade or if it's heavy overcast.

The VAST MAJORITY of bicyclists do NOT repeat, do NOT, need a DRL.

Agreed! Also, if cyclists ride more prominently in the lane, they're
even less likely to not be noticed by motorists.

The problem is, when people who buy a DRL get noticed, they say "Oh, he
noticed me because of my DRL" even if they would have been noticed
anyway. Confirmation bias in action.

But I have seen situations where a DRL was noticeable. The other day
we were driving back from Bangkok and because of the holiday traffic
started very early in the morning - sun just peeping over the horizon
- and met a bloke on a bicycle and yes the DRL did make him much more
noticeable.

As I've said, you can sometimes spot a bicyclist farther away because of
a DRL. But I've never observed an incident when the DRL made a
_practical_ difference. A cyclist doesn't need to be seen at the horizon.

I have. Twice. Each time it was cyclist riding the wrong way on the
side of the street. Both times were very early in the morning and if
he had some sort of light I would have seen him further enough away to
have easily avoided him rather then an "OH MY GOD" situation.

In my state, lights are required from sunset to sunrise. That's actually
a bit more strict than the law was a few years ago, when lights were
required from half an hour past sunset to half an hour before sunrise.
(Not that the laws are adequately enforced, mind you.) DRLs are lights
in use outside those times, or outside similar conditions.

If you're talking about "very early in the morning," so early that the
cyclist was not visible, he may well have been in violation of the law.
But that's a separate issue from "DRLs always for safety!"

Frank, whether or not the two bikes that I almost hit may or may not
been in violation of the law is meaningless, at least to me. But,
really, does that make a difference? Laying there with the broken leg
does one really feel better knowing that the guy what done it broke
the law?

As for DRL's I did research the subject and I find studies dating back
to the 1970's and which showed that the use of DRL's did reduce the
frequency of vehicle accidents, although the level of decrease did
vary from study to study.

But, perhaps more to the point you blithely ignore the fact that a
number of studied of bicycle accidents have shown that, in some cases
more than 50% of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Wouldn't
it be more productive, rather then rant and rave about DRL's, to
advocate riding a bicycle safely?

Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the
U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as
these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the
traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most
people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further
training?

About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and
motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles
but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this
because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long
distances?


And about the personal incidents you alluded to: I'm strongly in favor
of headlights and taillights during darkness or other low visibility
conditions. That's the pertinence of your crashes being caused by
illegal behavior, rather than lack of a _Daytime_ Running Light.

You are encroaching on Toms thesis... I said it and therefore it must
be true.

--
Cheers,

John B.