Looking for data on the preventative effect of cycle lights

You might start by looking around he
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pedbike.htm Try emailing some of
the people involved in the research. Who knows what you might find?

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident and injury
rates? When spring comes 'round here the local constabularies frequently go
on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to suggest that if they are targeting
cyclists that there is a more effective way to improve cycle safety.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:53:06 -0400, "jtaylor"
wrote in message
:

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident and injury
rates? When spring comes 'round here the local constabularies frequently go
on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to suggest that if they are targeting
cyclists that there is a more effective way to improve cycle safety.

Yes, but I haven't got references to hand - I will ask about. As I
recall the results of conspicuity research are equivocal at best, with
bright clothing and lights essentially making no measurable difference
most of the time.

But you are right, there is a massively more effective way for police
to improve cycle safety than a helmet binge. They could try enforcing
all traffic laws, rigorously and to the maximum extent allowed for in
law. All of them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Jack Taylor? writes:

Are there any studies on the effect of cycle lighting on accident
and injury rates? When spring comes 'round here the local
constabularies frequently go on a helmet-ticket binge; I'd like to
suggest that if they are targeting cyclists that there is a more
effective way to improve cycle safety.

Next time try "preventive" maintenance. It's easier and easier to say
and it sure beats "nucular".

wrote in message
...
Jack Taylor? writes:


Next time try "preventive" maintenance. It's easier and easier to say
and it sure beats "nucular".


C'mon, Jobst, you aren't reduced to quibbling about the difference between
your preferred spelling and other valid forms on an international usenet
group, are you?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...2750&dict=CALD - look about
1/2 way down the page...

(and was your first "easier" an error or should it parse to a different
meaning from the second?)