Daytime running lights seem more common.....

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using
daytime running lights are considerably more numerous. Has
anybody else noticed the same thing? Last year at this time
I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white
front light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the
norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I
encounter seems to be running with its headlight on. But I
see a few roadies running daytime headlights, and more of
them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a
headlight when out on a lonely country road in bright
daylight? That's a "good thing" only for the companies
involved in the light sale. It does no real good for the
cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable
would be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more
noticeable" there must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit.

Well, "two blocks" is covered pretty darn quickly at highway
speeds, so perhaps there is some benefit in being seen at greater
distance.

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA

On 10/4/2020 4:56 PM, bob prohaska wrote:
In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using daytime running lights
are considerably more numerous. Has anybody else noticed the same thing? Last
year at this time I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

In my area (SF Bay Area, I'd estimate that more than 50% of commuters
and more serious recreational cyclists use DRLs.

But I'd say that it's not so much that they bought a DRL specifically,
it's more that they have a light that includes a DRL mode and they just
turn it on whenever on the bike.

The DRLs that have a "breathe" mode for the DRL are really nice as they
are less harsh than a strobe because it's a lower intensity and not
flashing all the way on and off. It's similar to what motorcycles do
with a modulated headlight in the daytime.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001009456851.html is the battery
powered light I'm using the most. I also have dynamo wheels on two
bicycle so for short rides I can always be ready to go.

For my mountain bike/gravel bike I'm using a 26650 single cell
flashlight https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MP9RTHM but no breathe mode. I
use it on low-power steady mode because the strobe is too annoying. I
built a mount for it out of two conduit clamps and heat-shrink tubing,
and it's super secure on the handlebars, much better than often flimsy
plastic mounts.

As a driver I really appreciate cyclists that use DRLs, it makes a big
difference in their visibility in most situations. Which is of course
why most states have had laws requiring DRLs for motorcycles for many
decades.

It's safe to say that anyone riding a bicycle but not using a DRL is
standing in the way of human progress :-7 .

On 10/5/2020 3:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip

Exactly.Â* Before mandating, Germany required a verification test.Â* After
the failed varification test, Germany chose not to have a legal
requirement for DLR (but was forced to allow the usage of DLR; prior to
that, Germany required DLR or permanten lights-on on motorbikes and
disallowed use of lights when not necessary for cars, such as to
maximize the potential contrast between cars and motor bikes).

Yeah, I always wondered about that. When every car has DRLs then
motorbikes don't really stand out. In the U.S., one carmaker (GM) tried
to get the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to
mandate DRLs for motor vehicles, without success. The data for the
effectiveness of DRLs for cars is not compelling, unlike the data on the
effectiveness of DRLs for motorcycles and bicycles which is pretty
compelling.

I know some people demand multiple double-blind studies before they'll
believe anything and they'll be disappointed that there aren't any
entities clamoring to conduct more of these studies. Sometimes it's just
necessary to use some common sense and understand that making yourself
more conspicuous to cars, when on a bicycle or motorcycle, is a good
idea, whether it's via lights, fluorescent clothing, or whatever.

A big issue with some of the DRL implementations in the U.S. was that an
automaker (GM) decided that the proper way to do DRLs, on the cheap, was
to connect the high beam lamps in series, so they'd be lower intensity
while not reducing the life-expectancy of the low-beam bulbs. This
generated a lot of complaints from motorists because the high-beam,
lower-intensity, DRLs were still bright enough to be annoying.

An even bigger issue, that we still see A LOT with DRLs, is when the
DRLs are on at night the driver often doesn't realize that they haven't
actually turned on their headlights. When they don't turn on their
headlights, their tail lights are also not on. I see this all the time
and it's very dangerous. After all these years, very few cars have a
sensor that warns the driver to turn on their lights at night.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using daytime running lights
are considerably more numerous. Has anybody else noticed the same thing? Last
year at this time I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white front
light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I encounter
seems to be running with its headlight on. But I see a few roadies
running daytime headlights, and more of them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a headlight
when out on a lonely country road in bright daylight? That's a "good
thing" only for the companies involved in the light sale. It does no
real good for the cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable would
be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more noticeable" there
must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit. As I said,
I've never seen a situation where there was any indication the cyclist
would not have been noticed in plenty of time. We are not invisible.

To this day, I've never seen a DRL that made a _practical_ difference.
In almost every situation, I've seen the bicyclist before the light,
whether headlight or taillight. The very few times I've seen the
headlight first, it was far enough away or in such a situation that it
couldn't have mattered - like when I glimpsed a friend's flashing light
through the trees as she stood on a sidewalk talking to someone.

Strangely published studies show daylight running lights have reduced
the frequencies of both auto and motorcycle collisions and it must be
mentioned that the famous Odense Study demonstrated that even tiny
magnet powered fore and aft lighting reduced bicycle accidents.

Certainly and there are studies that show that cyclists wearing
helmets tend to take more chances than those that are bare headed. If
one is taking part in a safety "test" one very likely does take more
care in riding and one that feels protected by a helmet might well
take more chances and don't forget that some studies have shown that
the cyclist is at fault in, in the case of one study, more than 50% of
the auto.bicycle collisions were the fault of the bicycle so the
mental state of the cyclist probably does have a large effect on
his/her's safety.

Yes, and that study showed that the cyclists who were given those tiny
lights for free, as part of the study, reported even fewer SOLO bike
crashes. IOW, put the tiny light on your bike and you won't slip on wet
trolley tracks! It's magic!

Beware of "research" sponsored by a company selling the product being
"tested," especially if the test cannot be double-blind.

And beware of those with pre-conceived notions that deny reality.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/5/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using
daytime running lights are considerably more numerous. Has
anybody else noticed the same thing? Last year at this time
I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white
front light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the
norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I
encounter seems to be running with its headlight on. But I
see a few roadies running daytime headlights, and more of
them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a
headlight when out on a lonely country road in bright
daylight? That's a "good thing" only for the companies
involved in the light sale. It does no real good for the
cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable
would be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more
noticeable" there must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit.

Well, "two blocks" is covered pretty darn quickly at highway
speeds, so perhaps there is some benefit in being seen at greater
distance.

If the cyclist is two blocks (say, 1000 ft) away and moving just 12 mph
in the same direction as a 55 mph car, it takes over 15 seconds for the
car to reach the cyclist. 15 seconds is quite a long time in driving.
Count it out to visualize it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/5/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using
daytime running lights are considerably more numerous. Has
anybody else noticed the same thing? Last year at this time
I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white
front light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the
norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I
encounter seems to be running with its headlight on. But I
see a few roadies running daytime headlights, and more of
them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a
headlight when out on a lonely country road in bright
daylight? That's a "good thing" only for the companies
involved in the light sale. It does no real good for the
cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable
would be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more
noticeable" there must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit.

Well, "two blocks" is covered pretty darn quickly at highway
speeds, so perhaps there is some benefit in being seen at greater
distance.

Oh, and if the car and cyclist are moving in opposite directions, what's
the worry? They're in opposing lanes. At that distance a left cross
isn't possible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/5/2020 6:37 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/5/2020 3:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip

Exactly.Â* Before mandating, Germany required a verification test.
After the failed varification test, Germany chose not to have a legal
requirement for DLR (but was forced to allow the usage of DLR; prior
to that, Germany required DLR or permanten lights-on on motorbikes and
disallowed use of lights when not necessary for cars, such as to
maximize the potential contrast between cars and motor bikes).

Yeah, I always wondered about that. When every car has DRLs then
motorbikes don't really stand out. In the U.S., one carmaker (GM) tried
to get the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to
mandate DRLs for motor vehicles, without success. The data for the
effectiveness of DRLs for cars is not compelling, unlike the data on the
effectiveness of DRLs for motorcycles and bicycles which is pretty
compelling.

And what is that "compelling" evidence for reduced car-bike crashes with
bicycle DRLs, please?

I don't doubt there is benefit for motorcycles. By far the dominant
danger for motorcyclists is the left cross crash. And it's such a danger
because a motorcycle is a small visual image, often coming at high
speed. A bad driver can left-cross and kill a motorcyclist who is 500
feet away when the motorist's turn commences, because of the higher
speeds and the motorcyclist's longer stopping distance and lesser
lateral agility.

Not so for a cyclist - he's have to be within maybe 50 feet, probably
less. In daylight a cyclist is very visible at that distance unless he's
hiding in a "protected bike lane" (a serious misnomer) or otherwise
riding gutter-bunny style.

I know some people demand multiple double-blind studies before they'll
believe anything..

I know some people who will purport to believe anything if it gets them
a little commission through "guerilla marketing" on Usenet groups.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:34:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/5/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using
daytime running lights are considerably more numerous. Has
anybody else noticed the same thing? Last year at this time
I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white
front light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the
norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I
encounter seems to be running with its headlight on. But I
see a few roadies running daytime headlights, and more of
them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a
headlight when out on a lonely country road in bright
daylight? That's a "good thing" only for the companies
involved in the light sale. It does no real good for the
cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable
would be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more
noticeable" there must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit.

Well, "two blocks" is covered pretty darn quickly at highway
speeds, so perhaps there is some benefit in being seen at greater
distance.

If the cyclist is two blocks (say, 1000 ft) away and moving just 12 mph
in the same direction as a 55 mph car, it takes over 15 seconds for the
car to reach the cyclist. 15 seconds is quite a long time in driving.
Count it out to visualize it.

But, but...The discussion was about a white light on the front of a
bicycle so your figures are not correct, it is actually closer to 10
seconds and for someone talking, reading a message or texting, on a
phone that isn't a very long time. And... some 26% of traffic
accidents are a result of hand phone use while driving.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:35:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/5/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Heise wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:37:19 -0400,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2020 10:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 21:45:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 10/4/2020 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2020 23:56:08 -0000 (UTC), bob prohaska
wrote:

In the past year or so it seems to me that riders using
daytime running lights are considerably more numerous. Has
anybody else noticed the same thing? Last year at this time
I think maybe one bike in ten had them, now it seems close
to one in three or four, at least on some days.

Over here I don't think I've ever seeing anyone with a white
front light but red "tail lights" seem to have become the
norm.

But I do believe that anything that makes the bicyclist more
noticeable would be a good thing.

Yes, I've noticed more DRLs. For one thing, every e-bike I
encounter seems to be running with its headlight on. But I
see a few roadies running daytime headlights, and more of
them running taillights.

But I disagree with John's final sentence. A guy running a
headlight when out on a lonely country road in bright
daylight? That's a "good thing" only for the companies
involved in the light sale. It does no real good for the
cyclist.

You missed the part about "makes the bicyclist more noticeable
would be a good thing"? Obviously if the cyclist is "more
noticeable" there must be those who would notice him/her/it.

Noticing a cyclist who is two blocks away confers no benefit.

Well, "two blocks" is covered pretty darn quickly at highway
speeds, so perhaps there is some benefit in being seen at greater
distance.

Oh, and if the car and cyclist are moving in opposite directions, what's
the worry? They're in opposing lanes. At that distance a left cross
isn't possible.

They are? But Frank, a substantial of bicycle/auto collisions are
attributed to the cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road. In
fact, I definitely remember you making such a statement.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 21:54:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/5/2020 6:37 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/5/2020 3:28 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip

Exactly.* Before mandating, Germany required a verification test.
After the failed varification test, Germany chose not to have a legal
requirement for DLR (but was forced to allow the usage of DLR; prior
to that, Germany required DLR or permanten lights-on on motorbikes and
disallowed use of lights when not necessary for cars, such as to
maximize the potential contrast between cars and motor bikes).

Yeah, I always wondered about that. When every car has DRLs then
motorbikes don't really stand out. In the U.S., one carmaker (GM) tried
to get the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to
mandate DRLs for motor vehicles, without success. The data for the
effectiveness of DRLs for cars is not compelling, unlike the data on the
effectiveness of DRLs for motorcycles and bicycles which is pretty
compelling.

And what is that "compelling" evidence for reduced car-bike crashes with
bicycle DRLs, please?

I don't doubt there is benefit for motorcycles. By far the dominant
danger for motorcyclists is the left cross crash. And it's such a danger
because a motorcycle is a small visual image, often coming at high
speed. A bad driver can left-cross and kill a motorcyclist who is 500
feet away when the motorist's turn commences, because of the higher
speeds and the motorcyclist's longer stopping distance and lesser
lateral agility.

Not so for a cyclist - he's have to be within maybe 50 feet, probably
less. In daylight a cyclist is very visible at that distance unless he's
hiding in a "protected bike lane" (a serious misnomer) or otherwise
riding gutter-bunny style.

I know some people demand multiple double-blind studies before they'll
believe anything..

I know some people who will purport to believe anything if it gets them
a little commission through "guerilla marketing" on Usenet groups.

And yet I read
https://www.myerslegal.com/5-common-...-crashes-avoid
Listed below are five of the most common situations that lead to
car-on-bike crashes.
Crash Scenario #1: The Left Cross
--
Cheers,

John B.