Blinking Lights good this time of the year!

Wayne Pein writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
on faith.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:
Wayne Pein writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
on faith.

analyze jobst, analyze!!! yes, there is a displacement issue, but it's
overshadowed by the fact that the flashing light draws attention and
thus makes presence known - /far/ more important than precise position.

besides, regarding position, if a cyclist is traveling at 25mph across
the road, the maximum angular displacement relative to an oncoming
vehicle, and the blinky is operating at only 2 flashes per second
[somewhat conservative given today's multi-led, multi-flash units], then
the maximum displacement between flashes is about 5.5 meters. make that
bike travel in the same direction as the vehicle, and suddenly you have
a horizontal displacement measured in millimeters. if a vehicle is
aiming to miss your bike with only that clearance, i don't think whether
your blinky is in flash mode is going to be uppermost in your survival
agenda.

Hi there Jobst.

I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
more visible than red.

I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.

I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
those who do not will not.

May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.

Peter
----------------
I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
year, so I have a lot of experience in
this area. The most effective tool, is
to use reflective ankle stuff, and
reflective strips on your bike. You can
have two lights on the back, one
blinking, and one steady, but the
blinking light is for alerting drivers
from a distance that there is a hazard
ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
is the best when they are trying to
locate you when they get close. The
only bad thing about blinking lights is
with some drunk drivers. They seem to
fixate on the light, and drive towards
it, like a bug is attracted to a
bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
drives into the shoulder and then
corrects. That's why you have to wear
white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
open road, where speeds are higher, you
should get a powerful blinkie on the
back, because you want them to see you
as far away as possible, because of the
speed they are going 60 mph.

In article ,
wrote:

Wayne Pein writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
on faith.

Jobst Brandt

My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist noticed
at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most drivers have a hard
time locating the rider's position relative to their car. Personally, I
have no problem figuring out where a cyclist is once I've actually
spotted them, blinky light or no (or even no light at all, though that
can be tricky as the rider slips in and out of visibility).

Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move or
appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up motion,
or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid lights,
especially in urban environments with various types of extraneous
lights, sometimes look like just another small (and irrelevant) light.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object in
the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a blinky
and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I get noticed
at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously, can anyone here
report an accident they've even heard of where the rider was lit, the
crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't judge your location
properly?"

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing

Ryan Cousineau writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
position is deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
this on faith.

My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
in and out of visibility).

Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.

Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
irrelevant) light.

That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
judge your location properly?"

I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.

Jobst Brandt

On Oct 27, 2:24 am, wrote:
Ryan Cousineau writes:
Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
position is deceptive.
For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.
This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
this on faith.
My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"
Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
in and out of visibility).

Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
identifiable than a flashing light. For anything other than in-line
approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place. Even
spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.

Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
irrelevant) light.

That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines
and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
judge your location properly?"

I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.

Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hi there Jobst.

I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
more visible than red.

I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.

I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
those who do not will not.

May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.

Peter

On Oct 27, 3:53 am, Crescentius Vespasianus
wrote:
Hi there Jobst.

I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
more visible than red.

I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.

I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
those who do not will not.

May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.

Peter

----------------
I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
year, so I have a lot of experience in
this area. The most effective tool, is
to use reflective ankle stuff, and
reflective strips on your bike. You can
have two lights on the back, one
blinking, and one steady, but the
blinking light is for alerting drivers
from a distance that there is a hazard
ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
is the best when they are trying to
locate you when they get close. The
only bad thing about blinking lights is
with some drunk drivers. They seem to
fixate on the light, and drive towards
it, like a bug is attracted to a
bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
drives into the shoulder and then
corrects. That's why you have to wear
white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
open road, where speeds are higher, you
should get a powerful blinkie on the
back, because you want them to see you
as far away as possible, because of the
speed they are going 60 mph.

That is similar to the approach I use. Red reflective tape on the
seatpost and rear stays, white on the headtube and forks. A white
reflective ankle band, a white reflective arm-band near the shoulder.
As for lights a red blinking rear, and a white blinking front.

I have a neon-yellow vest with wide white reflective bands that I use
too if I'm going to ride in a dusk type light, but as I have a
reasonably aggresive position on the bike, I don't think this is very
effective. If I sat more upright it would be.

Joseph

On Oct 27, 7:08 am, "
wrote:
On Oct 27, 3:53 am, Crescentius Vespasianus
wrote:



Hi there Jobst.

I originally posted the suggestion of having at least a blinking rear
light when riding in the dark after I had read of yet another cyclist
being struck whilst riding in the dark. Since that post I have read
about two others who have been struck at night or very early in the
morning. My point is that the blinky is better than nothing especially
if one persists in riding in dark clothing. Remember these were in
unlit areas where many drivers do *NOT* expect to see a bicyclist.

BTW I prefer an amber blinky on the rear as well as the front since a
flashing amber light is a recognized caution device. Besides amber is
more visible than red.

I recently went for a drive in the country with my niece. We saw many
areas where an unlit cyclist would not be seen by an overtaking driver
due to the dips and rises in the roadway if the driver was travelling
at the speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.

The suggestion to use at least a blinky was done, based on
observations of their effectivemess ( I talked with motorists who had
seen my bicycle with them) in an effort to make night riding safer
than it is when bicyclists ride at night with out lights or
reflectors. BTW reflectors are mandatory on bicycles here in Ontario,
Canad. However very, very few people want them on their bikes.

I guess it is like the H***** debate - those who will use them do and
those who do not will not.

May you never be rear-ended by a motor vehicle.

Peter

----------------
I ride about 4000 miles in the dark a
year, so I have a lot of experience in
this area. The most effective tool, is
to use reflective ankle stuff, and
reflective strips on your bike. You can
have two lights on the back, one
blinking, and one steady, but the
blinking light is for alerting drivers
from a distance that there is a hazard
ahead. Wearing white, and the reflecto
is the best when they are trying to
locate you when they get close. The
only bad thing about blinking lights is
with some drunk drivers. They seem to
fixate on the light, and drive towards
it, like a bug is attracted to a
bug-light. Not many times, but I've had
to do some evasive moves, as the drunk
drives into the shoulder and then
corrects. That's why you have to wear
white, and have the reflecto stuff, for
them to put 2 and 2 together. On the
open road, where speeds are higher, you
should get a powerful blinkie on the
back, because you want them to see you
as far away as possible, because of the
speed they are going 60 mph.

That is similar to the approach I use. Red reflective tape on the
seatpost and rear stays, white on the headtube and forks. A white
reflective ankle band, a white reflective arm-band near the shoulder.
As for lights a red blinking rear, and a white blinking front.

I have a neon-yellow vest with wide white reflective bands that I use
too if I'm going to ride in a dusk type light, but as I have a
reasonably aggresive position on the bike, I don't think this is very
effective. If I sat more upright it would be.

Joseph

I like a mix of blinking and steady lights.
http://picasaweb.google.com/mike.a.schwab/NewBike

wrote:
Ryan Cousineau writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light
in an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front
of you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does
not appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing
object registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its
position is deceptive.

For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.

I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any
deceptive position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that
such deception results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further,
one could argue that ambiguity results in greater caution.

This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take
this on faith.

My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist
noticed at night. Having noticed a rider, I don't think most
drivers have a hard time locating the rider's position relative to
their car. Personally, I have no problem figuring out where a
cyclist is once I've actually spotted them, blinky light or no (or
even no light at all, though that can be tricky as the rider slips
in and out of visibility).

Rear ending is one facet of visibility and as I said, a continuous
oscillating light as a pedal reflector is far more visible and
identifiable than a flashing light.

except at dusk, and for drivers with no lights [remarkably common] and
of course, from a distance. blinkies are visible from 1km or more.
reflectors aren't.


For anything other than in-line
approach, a flashing light is disorienting and hard to place.

no, it attracts the eye and alerts to danger.

Even
spoke reflectors are better than a flashing light for side perception.

no, they attract the eye and alert to danger.



Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move
or appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up
motion, or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid
lights, especially in urban environments with various types of
extraneous lights, sometimes look like just another small (and
irrelevant) light.

That may be your perception. Bicycles don't move in straight lines

eh?


and even the normal excursions give a steady light motion.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object
in the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a
blinky and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I
get noticed at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously,
can anyone here report an accident they've even heard of where the
rider was lit, the crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't
judge your location properly?"

I think the fear of being rear-ended is like many other bicycle
hazards, not supported by the evidence but it makes a plausible story.

you don't ride at night or in the rain then.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Wayne Pein writes:

Visible is not the only criterion. Take that blinking red light in
an unlighted place and wave it slowly back and forth in front of
you at arms length. I think you'll notice that the light does not
appear where you know your hand to be. A moving flashing object
registers slowly enough in a dark environment that its position is
deceptive.
For this reason, people who have studied the phenomenon advise
using a steady light or better yet one that moves like pedal
reflectors. The rising and falling light of pedal reflectors is
unambiguous in position and what it mean to any observer.
I don't believe that a rapidly flashing blinky suffers any deceptive
position detection. And even if it does, I doubt that such deception
results in greater hazard to bicyclists. Further, one could argue
that ambiguity results in greater caution.
This is not a belief matter. Try it. I don't expect you to take this
on faith.

Jobst Brandt

My observation is that in most cases, the problem at night is not "I
didn't realize how close the cyclist was," it is "I didn't see him!"

Blinky lights do one thing, and one thing well: make the cyclist noticed
at night.

indeed. youdathunk jobst would recognize that blinking lights are so
effective as warnings, it's why turn signals blink, warning lights on
high towers blink, light houses blink, aircraft nav lights blink,
instrument alert lights blink, etc.

as for bikes, i've experimented with a number of different blinkies, and
one i have currently is by far the most effective i've ever used. on
average, passing cars give at least 3' extra clearance when it's
working. [i know this because i have two, one "standard" and the new
"special" one. if just the standard cateye is on, normal clearance. if
the http://ecom1.planetbike.com/3034.html is on, 3' extra. it's
awesome.] it's /extremely/ bright.


Having noticed a rider, I don't think most drivers have a hard
time locating the rider's position relative to their car. Personally, I
have no problem figuring out where a cyclist is once I've actually
spotted them, blinky light or no (or even no light at all, though that
can be tricky as the rider slips in and out of visibility).

Conversely, the problem with non-blinking lights is they don't move or
appear to move very quickly. Human vision is good at picking up motion,
or apparent motion. Blinking lights are conspicuous. Solid lights,
especially in urban environments with various types of extraneous
lights, sometimes look like just another small (and irrelevant) light.

All any light can promise is to make the rider register as an object in
the environment. If you're into a belt and suspenders, maybe a blinky
and a solid light is a nice choice. But I figure that if I get noticed
at all, the chances of being hit are low. Seriously, can anyone here
report an accident they've even heard of where the rider was lit, the
crash was at night, and the excuse was "I didn't judge your location
properly?"