Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

OPINION

Dragons' Den backs indicators: another dodgy decision from the dragons on a cycling product

Avatar
How did cycling's least successful product category get the dragons' attention?

Whenever Dragons’ Den gets a pitch for a cycling product I wince. Partly, that’s just my general reaction to hearing that any bit of the non-specialist media is looking at cycling, but the dragons have a terrible record when it comes to cycling. That they gave a warm reception to a handlebar-mounted indicators a couple of nights ago is just their latest inexplicable reaction to a cycling idea.

Nick Jenkins offered £45,000 for 15% of CYCL, the company behind Winglights indicators, and was negotiated down to 12.5%. A good day for the two young entrepreneurs behind the product, then.

The dragons debated whether indicators on the ends of the handlebars could be seen easily enough to be useful, but acknowledged that Luca Amaduzzi and Agostino Stilli had done a great job of the design and polish.

The problem is, a product can be as beautifully designed and made as the Venus de Milo, but it won’t succeed unless there’s a demand for it.

The history of indicators for bikes suggests there really is no demand.

Luca Amaduzzi and Agostino Stilli pitch at the dragons (Screenshot from BBC Dragons' Den)

Luca Amaduzzi and Agostino Stilli pitch at the dragons (Screenshot from BBC Dragons' Den)

Back in 2009 we reviewed Bicygnals, which put indicators on both the front and rear of your bike. We weren’t impressed and since then the product has vanished without trace. We also looked at Winkku that year, which combined an indicator with a mirror. It’s also long gone.

Then there was Spooklight, which provided indicators and a brake like triggered by an accelerometer. Shaun Audane called it “little more than a gimmick for the ipod age”.

But indicators for cycling just keep popping up. In 2013 we reviewed Scute Design Lumin8a gloves. We were even quite kind about them. Scute Design folded in 2015.

Lumin8a Indicating Gloves - lit

Lumin8a Indicating Gloves - where are they now?

At least there’s now a sure-fire way of finding out if anyone’s interested in your product before you commit to production. Last year a Canadian team took to Kickstarter to try and raise CA$8,000 for a SIX, a gesture-controlled indicator that also incorporated a brake light. They barely reached a third of their target.

The most recent attempt to get an indicator system off the ground prompted lively debate from our readers. London cabbie Gary Thatcher came up with the Signum wrist-mounted indicator. His Kickstarter campaign raised just £1,306 of the £20,000 goal.

The only indicators to get any traction are built into ‘innovative’ helmet designs. Even then, they often don't make it past the sketch stage. For some reason the judges of design competitions like to give them awards anyway. One indicator helmet, Lumos, managed a successful Kickstarter and appears to be shipping. Call us cynical, but we give it a year.

And while you’re putting batteries and lights and electronics into a helmet, why not go hog wild and have it play music, read out your text messages and send out an emergency alert if you crash. If you can’t live without all that, you can get a Livall BH60 from Amazon for £104.


Livall Bling BH60 complete with Flaschenblinkenlights

As Al Storer pointed out in the comments of our story on Signum, there have been loads of indicator systems — we’ve barely scratched the surface with the ones we’ve mentioned here — but they all have one thing in common: you never see them in the wild.

Either people don’t buy indicators, or if they do they don’t use them for long. They’re the sort of thing a well-meaning relative buys you for Christmas, not realising that keeping them to hand and charged is a faff that’s hard to justify for the function.

The inventors of indicator systems almost always say they’re trying to make cyclists safer, but they’re solving the wrong problem. The assumption is that drivers hit cyclists because we can’t be seen. But the majority of crashes involving cyclists happen because the driver simply didn’t look, and adding small flashing orange lights is going to make, at best, a tiny, tiny difference.

As Deborah Meaden pointed out on the show, an indicator is just another flashing light, and it’s one drivers aren’t expecting to see on a bike. However, it’s not clear that the Highway Code makes hand signals mandatory even if you have indicators, as many people think. The code describes how indicators and hand signals must be used, but doesn’t say who should use them.

Meaden might have been sensible to pooh-pooh the Winglights, given the repeated failure of indicators over the years, but the dragons don’t have a great track record when it comes to rejecting cycling ideas.

Hornit DB140 bike horn
The dragons turned down  Tom de Pelet’s Hornit

At least three ideas pitched at the dragons have gone on to success despite being rejected.

Probably the biggest missed opportunity was Tom de Pelet’s Hornit, a 140 decibel bike horn. In an episode screened in 2015, but filmed ten months earlier, the dragons declined to back the Hornit. Between the pitch and the show going to air, Tom had sold half a million quid’s worth of Hornits, and reckoned he was on course for £1.2 million in sales that year.

Later in 2015 sisters Sky and Kia Ballantyne, aged 12 and 14 respectively, pitched Crikey Bikey, a harness that makes it easier to support a toddler who’s learning to ride a bike.

The dragons turned them down even though they’d had orders from Evans Cycles and Mountain Warehouse. Their appearance on Dragon’s Den prompted a flood of new orders and the gadget is now stocked by Halfords.

Sometimes the dragons just don’t get the joke. They turned down Fat Lad At The Back (FLAB) clothing in 2014 because they didn’t like the name. But if you’re a non-svelte cyclist you get used to not taking yourself too seriously, and FLAB’s clothing struck a chord with riders don’t fit in Italian Lycra.

Later in 2014 Evans Cycles took on FLAB clothing, along with then-new sister brand Fat Lass At the Back.

All of that said, Nick Jenkins may be backing a long shot with the CYCL WingLights, but Amaduzzi and Stilli are clearly promising talents.

Jenkins and all the dragons were impressed that the duo had already got the product out into the market and broken even. The standard of finish impressed even notorious cyclophobe Peter Jones who said: “The quality and the way you’ve put this together, I think is as good as I have ever seen in a product.”

I'm looking forward to seeing what they do next.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

91 comments

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

Science has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.

Avatar
Welsh boy replied to ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

Science has absolutely nothing to do with common sense.

 

Common sense doesnt exist, it is a cliche used by non thinking lazy people.  If there was such a thing we would all have it in equal amounts (it would be common to us all) but we dont, so called common sense vaies from person to person based on experience, knowledge and education.  Smug people like to think that they have just the right amount of common sense, more educated people have too much and those with less are uneducated.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
0 likes

it's amazing how many drivers moan about the ninja cyclists they see riding about clearly they do see them

no one is suggesting that pedestrians are similarly attired and yet we (rightly) expect drivers not to hit them

however given the choice between clothing with relectives and without (same performance same price) then I would always chose to have as there is no downside.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
2 likes

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

So we can either taken no action and avoid any unforseen circumstances or take action based on the best evidence we have available.

I think the latter is a more sensible approach.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

What??! I don't follow this. Did you mean something else? Do you need a sit down or to improve your googling? Other research on different topics exists, as does impact analysis as a discipline. I don't want to appear condescending but as it reads, that statement is just false.

There is other research addressing the stuff that ClubSmeds has suggested as one area to look at. Even if there wasn't, it's possible for it to be commissioned. There's research that suggests that making cycling less convenient or appear more dangerous (use of safety equipment) has the effect of reducing numbers of people who cycle. That sort of thing.

But, in order to limit unintended consequences to begin with, the argument needs to be tied tightly to the research and the research itself needs to be tight, which is the cause for alarm here with the 'dark clothing is a factor in 10% of fatalities therefore reflectives' line of reasoning. Picking apart every word in that is second nature to the nerds who do this sort of thing for a living or, even weirder, a hobby.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to davel | 7 years ago
1 like
davel wrote:

There is other research addressing the stuff that ClubSmeds has suggested as one area to look at. Even if there wasn't, it's possible for it to be commissioned. There's research that suggests that making cycling less convenient or appear more dangerous (use of safety equipment) has the effect of reducing numbers of people who cycle. That sort of thing.

Exactly! The studies into"shared space" set ups have shown that is you make vulnerable uses more common and less predictable then they become safer as drivers are looking out for them better and therefore more aware.
I'm not saying that we need to go around at night dressed like ninjas, I'm also not sure that the Christmas tree stance is any more helpful though

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

I too have worked most of my life in process improvement which is why I too want change but am not willing to accept the "facts" without questioning them or the conclusions if made by leaps of faith.
So often I have encountered local improvements made be a department that has improved their money/time/quality position. On further investigation though the full end to end process has suffered greater though. Plugging a small hole at one point can cause a bigger hole to appear elsewhere unless causality is fully understood.
This is what has been suggested here. What if the excess use of reflective does make cyclists safer at night but because they are not as visible during the day they become less safe. Further more because, as the results of this study show, more cyclists ride during the day the fatalities increase as a result?
I'm not saying that visibility isn't an issue, I question whether the fix to that issue will cause other larger issues or not.

There is absolutely no way of knowing whether there will be knock on effects or not.

So we can either taken no action and avoid any unforseen circumstances or take action based on the best evidence we have available.

I think the latter is a more sensible approach.

Of course there is with more research and better understanding.
To take your Swiss cheese analogy from earlier, you have one slice with holes in it and you think that by moving it slightly you can stop the lining up of a small hole with the next slice. What you're not doing is looking at the whole thing to make sure that by adjusting to remove that how your not making a larger hole line up.
I already provided a link to a research paper that showed the color of clothing at night to not be a factor, only reflectives. You then stated to interoperate"dark clothing" in a way that there was no evidence to support. That is dangerous assumption and could lead to serious Swiss cheese misalignment. We need to fully understand the current situation, the causes and their effects to the whole to ensure we are not exposed to a hole!

Avatar
Al__S | 7 years ago
0 likes

I saw someone wearing a Lumos helmet the other week in Cambridge. Followed him through several junctions. It wasn't until the third junction that I actually clocked the indicators. Either he wasn't using them, or they're not actually that visible, especially if the red lights are flashing as well.

 

He was also using arm signals.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

We have to be fair and balanced now???

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
4 likes

And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist....

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes
ktache wrote:

And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist....

Which is why the motorist was found to have been the contributing factor in the vast majority of fatal collisions?

The tribalism on here is pathetic.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
ktache wrote:

And the investigating officer, who has driven there, who has probably not ridden a bicycle since they were a child, if that (excellent WMP excepted) and who has only heard the justification of the motorist....

Which is why the motorist was found to have been the contributing factor in the vast majority of fatal collisions?

The tribalism on here is pathetic.

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

How is tribalism working out for us so far?

Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.

If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.

Avatar
davel replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

And yet, given that 2 of us die each week through the fault of people in more comfortable and safe, and very polluting, metal boxes, and the transport secretary doors a cyclist and then attempts to blame the cyclist, that tribalism is probably justifiable, indeed necessary.

How is tribalism working out for us so far?

Research like this can be used to argue for safer junctions, improvement in HGV cabs, better segregated routes to schools and many, many other things that most cyclists care deeply about.

If we needlessly attack this sort of research we are doing the work of the car lobby for them.

Show me one post that 'needlessly attacks' the research. I see repeated questioning of its methodology and the logic of the conclusions you're drawing, but no needless attacks.

As for tribalism, what sort of person argues for safer junctions and many, many other things? Well, as someone who does that locally, and knows others who do the same, I know it's the type of single-minded, thick-skinned person who is mightily pissed off with society's car worship and acceptance of cyclists' deaths and who posts on threads like this one.

The Netherlands didn't get where they are with infrastructure by more people strapping on a reflective jacket, another light or a plastic lid. Stop de kindermoord! was just another tribal movement to begin with. How's that worked out?

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to davel | 7 years ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

Show me one post that 'needlessly attacks' the research. I see repeated questioning of its methodology and the logic of the conclusions you're drawing, but no needless attacks.

As for tribalism, what sort of person argues for safer junctions and many, many other things? Well, as someone who does that locally, and knows others who do the same, I know it's the type of single-minded, thick-skinned person who is mightily pissed off with society's car worship and acceptance of cyclists' deaths and who posts on threads like this one.

The Netherlands didn't get where they are with infrastructure by more people strapping on a reflective jacket, another light or a plastic lid. Stop de kindermoord! was just another tribal movement to begin with. How's that worked out?

Attacking the research for being subjective is pointless and needless.

There is no way of doing this type of research objectively.

It relies on value judgements.

Avatar
beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
beezus fufoon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Just read the research. Stop pontificating about how you think they did it and just read it.

nowhere does it say that it was "found to be a contributing factor" - the report clearly says "attributed" in the 10% figure (p.34)  - elsewhere it mentions both dark clothing and no lights together (p.23) - and in the conclusion it points to this being a factor on rural roads (p.45) and recommends promotion of both the use of lights and clothing...

so, unlike the report itself, you've taken one variable out of context and turned it into a definitively causal factor

 

Not at all.

Table 7 on page 23 clearly show dark clothes at night to be a contributing factor in 10% of fatal collisions.

It is a separate contributory factor to lights.

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

 

1. table 7-4 is on page 34

2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text

3. it also clearly explains that "attributed" refers to the attending police officers' judgments

 

Rich_cb wrote:

Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.

This is the exact point we've all been making to you from the beginning

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to beezus fufoon | 7 years ago
0 likes
beezus fufoon wrote:

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

 

1. table 7-4 is on page 34

2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text

3. it also clearly explains that "attributed" refers to the attending police officers' judgments

 

Rich_cb wrote:

Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.

This is the exact point we've all been making to you from the beginning

[/quote]

So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.

Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?

It's the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it's all just as subjective.

Avatar
beezus fufoon replied to Rich_cb | 7 years ago
1 like

Rich_cb wrote:
beezus fufoon wrote:
Quote:

The word attributed is used to describe whether the contributory factor was on the part of the cyclist or motorist.

 

1. table 7-4 is on page 34

2. it is treated as separate on that table, but this is qualified in the text

3. it also clearly explains that "attributed" refers to the attending police officers' judgments

 

Rich_cb wrote:

Data of this type will always be subjective, there is no way to produce objective data about these sorts of collision.

This is the exact point we've all been making to you from the beginning

So reject this research and all of its findings. That means you can no longer blame drivers for fatal collisions. After all in the vast majority of cases the evidence is subjective.

Who else is going to attributed contributing factors?

It's the best data set available, it backs up the arguments that cyclists have been making for years, if you reject it you have to reject all of it, it's all just as subjective.

Firstly, I am neither accepting nor rejecting this data - simply correcting your phrasing when you portray this statistical data as scientific fact.

Secondly, I think it is also a bit simplistic to blame drivers for fatal collisions - they are not the ones manufacturing overpowered fuel-hungry vehicles or facilitating their use in inappropriate road conditions, nor are they responsible for the upkeep of the roads, provision of infrastructure, or the enforcement and setencing of offenders.

Thirdly, this data clearly reflects the perceptions and biases of the police and society in general, particularly in placing the onus on the individual in circumstances where it is very obvious that the wider conditions play a far bigger part than the actions of any single participant. The report itself makes that very clear.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
1 like

And let's not forget, the dead cyclist can never give their side of the story.

Avatar
urbane | 7 years ago
1 like

The AirZound is the best bicycle horn, especially the newer version with the Aluminium air can, so no more bottle leaks; it's light, simple and cheap, so little to go wrong; I've seen much more expensive pinger bells, which is a massive piss-take!

I decided against the Hornit because the sound is nasty wrong, and apparently water can easily get inside and make it blast continuously or fail!

Avatar
philtregear | 7 years ago
0 likes

failure. crap

Avatar
Saintlymark | 7 years ago
2 likes

Two things, first off I still think that the best indicating a cyclist can do on a road is positioning. That's not to say hand signalling doesn't have a place, but for instance, if as a cyclist you are going to be turning right on a sharp descent, a hand signal may well be very unsafe, as it would involve taking your hands off the breaks. If drivers were conditioned to pay attention to the positioning of a cyclist, over and above hand signals, roads would be safer. 

Secondly indicators on a bike always seem like the kind of invention a car driver thinks would help cyclists, with little regard to what cyclists want. I've never met a cyclist wanting to use indicators. 

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

Yeah mungcrudle, a bit like all of those invisible cyclists that somehow manage to be seen.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
0 likes

This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc? Maybe they only become really visible when there is no-one around to see them?

Avatar
fenix replied to Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
1 like

Mungecrundle wrote:

This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc? Maybe they only become really visible when there is no-one around to see them?

 

I can believe this. If all is dark then a dark cyclist will stand out. 

If there are cyclists with lights and reflectives then they will stand out far more than their ninja pals. I think most of us will be drawn to what we can see over what we can't ? 

Avatar
psling replied to Mungecrundle | 7 years ago
0 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

This idea that unlit / non reflectively coated cyclists are eclipsed by the presence of much shinier specimens. Does this extend to other traffic that has lights, indicators and reflectors etc?

 

Well, yes. An unlit, grey or darker coloured vehicle amongst others with lights on could easily dissappear into the background.

Avatar
ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes

I was riding down the oxford road, Reading, last night and as I passed an unlit cyclist I was concerned for her as motorists may be less able to see her because of me.  She was perfectly visable and it was only just getting dark.  But I'm lit up like the proverbial blackpool/xmas...

A couple of years back I actually fitted a front and rear reflector to the getting to work bike.  I have always liked pedal reflectors, the bolt in ones not the rattly push in ones (Ebay made this much easier), and spoke reflectors, had some spiral ones and now the straws.  The bloke in Evans (click and collect, I wanted the nice small round ones, still got to try and look good..) said that I didn't need them if I had lights.  Hmmmm...   But I wanted to be fully compliant.  No police or insurance company problems if hit.  No one would ever be able to see them over the Hope R4 and District+ of course, and I think my respro ankle jobs probably outshine the pedal reflectors.  It's not like we park in the middle of the road is it.

I relented and watched this part of the dragons.  I hate dragons den.  I must say that they are probably the best bicycle indicators I have ever seen.   Lovely blokes too.  Really well thought out and made for what they are.  Couldn't use them myself, but wouldn't mind seeing what they come up with next.

I do worry that because of the ridiculous lights that my arm signals might not be seen.  Even with Ronhill slap bands and glove/jacket reflectors.  CycleGaz has suggested using the helmet light to illuminate the arm to help, but then it's more difficult to see where you're going.

 

Avatar
urbane replied to ktache | 7 years ago
0 likes
ktache wrote:

I was riding down the oxford road, Reading, last night and as I passed an unlit cyclist I was concerned for her as motorists may be less able to see her because of me.  She was perfectly visable and it was only just getting dark.  But I'm lit up like the proverbial blackpool/xmas...

A couple of years back I actually fitted a front and rear reflector to the getting to work bike.  I have always liked pedal reflectors, the bolt in ones not the rattly push in ones (Ebay made this much easier), and spoke reflectors, had some spiral ones and now the straws.  The bloke in Evans (click and collect, I wanted the nice small round ones, still got to try and look good..) said that I didn't need them if I had lights.  Hmmmm...   But I wanted to be fully compliant.  No police or insurance company problems if hit.  No one would ever be able to see them over the Hope R4 and District+ of course, and I think my respro ankle jobs probably outshine the pedal reflectors.  It's not like we park in the middle of the road is it.

I relented and watched this part of the dragons.  I hate dragons den.  I must say that they are probably the best bicycle indicators I have ever seen.   Lovely blokes too.  Really well thought out and made for what they are.  Couldn't use them myself, but wouldn't mind seeing what they come up with next.

I do worry that because of the ridiculous lights that my arm signals might not be seen.  Even with Ronhill slap bands and glove/jacket reflectors.  CycleGaz has suggested using the helmet light to illuminate the arm to help, but then it's more difficult to see where you're going.

 

Sorry, but those indicators look far too small and may not be seen from behind past the arms and clothing, I also wonder how long before they fracture off...

Most bar end accessories contain brittle plastic, which will distort, fracture or crack from a glancing blows, leaning pressure or a bicycle fall, I've broken enough of several brands of bar end mirrors!

My bar ends are currently occupied by tough (survived a bicycle skid crash) USA Mirrycle MTB bar end mirrors (via Amazon), so that I have some warning of what is behind me. Maybe Mirrcycle could be convinced to add an indicator LEDs to their mirrors, or an indicator could be hacked in via the mirror holder screw.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 7 years ago
0 likes

I have to agree with the posts that say that it is not a black and white issue. Many of us (arguably the most sensible) are in the grey area of wanting to both improve to enviromental factors in the longer term but also protect ourselves in the meantime.

In my experience/opinion:
People who wear hi-vis make it harder to see those who do not
We do need to be sensible and cater to the lowest common denominator
We should also be trying to raise the bar on that lowest common denominator

As an asside:
Just because a cyclist isn't seen does not mean that they are not looked for. I look for cyclists when in my car and on my bike and find it hard to spot those without hi-vis at night when they are close to those that are wearing it. Also, although I have been blessed with good eyesight, I have dated people who have been borderline cases for being able to drive. Whilst I am sure that they would look out for cyclists, I am not convinced they would be able to spot one easily at night without them wearing hi-vis.

Pages

Latest Comments