Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

feature

Should cyclists use daytime running lights? Plus the best front and rear daytime cycling lights

51% of road.cc readers surveyed said yes to using daytime cycling lights - do you agree? We speak to See.Sense, Exposure and Specialized about daytime cycling lights

You need front and rear lights for cycling in the dark, but do you also need to use lights in the daytime? We look at the argument for using lights during the daytime and round up a bunch of front and rear lights to consider if you do want to increase your visibility.

The best daytime running lights

It may not have escaped your attention that all new cars sold in the UK legally have to have daytime front lights. So should cyclists also be looking to boost their visibility when cycling in the daytime with front and rear lights? In a recent survey of 500 road.cc readers on Twitter, 52% said they do want daytime lights. It perhaps wasn't the result we were expecting.

Read more: The best front lights for cycling — beam comparison plus how-to-choose guide

To meet this demand, there are a growing number of bike brands marketing lights with daytime running modes, but what does this actually mean and are they any different to lights designed for nighttime cycling?

Exposure Lights has added a new Day Bright mode to its front and rear lights this winter. And it is more than just a flashing mode says Exposure’s Mark Swift. “The DayBright pulse pattern is the most noticeable to ensure it is recognised at distance on rural roads and also enable the light to cut through the noise of the urban town or city traffic and road distractions within daylight hours," he says.

“As the pulse pattern is not regular, once seen DayBright stays highlighted by the brain's receivers and ensures the cyclist is noticed,” adds Mark.

Why would a cyclist want to use lights during the daytime? Surely there’s no need when it’s light?

“Why not!” says Specialized’s William Watt. “Beyond smart responsible riding, visibility on the road is quite simply the most important investment a rider can make in their safety, particularly in a congested urban environment where every road user has a multitude of distractions. Daytime lights give the rider that extra layer of visibility on the road, particularly for that notorious black spot on the near side of traffic.”

It's not always bright and sunny during a typical UK winter day though. It’s often murky, drab and almost dark. Daytime lights can be used in these conditions says Exposure's Mark to help make cyclists stand out in changing light conditions and when “cycling in cities between building or country road in and out of tree cover where the sun cuts through the gaps but is then eclipsed by an obstacle the drivers eyes can sometimes not adjust fast enough. DayBright ensures the cyclist is spotted.”

It’s a stance that is backed up by See.Sense, a company that launched an intelligent daylight back in 2013 and every light since has had a daytime focus. “Daylight visibility has been really important to us right from the start,” the company tells road.cc. “When you consider that 80% of cycling accidents happen during the day, attracting attention to other road users as early as possible during these times is really quite crucial. Think about modern cars, they have their lights running almost any time you see them on the road. Why shouldn't it be the same, if not even more important for cyclists?”

That 80% figure that See.Sense refers to is based on evidence compiled by ROAP and you can read more facts and figures about the number of cyclists injured or killed in accidents here.

The argument for using daytime lights is starting to gather pace, but has anyone actually carried out a detailed survey to assess the impact of cyclists running daytime lights? Handily, just such a survey exists. It was conducted in Denmark in 2004/05 with 3,845 cyclists and concluded that those cyclists with permanent running lights recorded a 19% lower incident rate than a control group not using lights.

“The study shows that use of permanent bicycle running lights reduces the occurrence of multiparty accidents involving cyclists significantly,” the controlled experiment concluded. You can read that paper here.

So should we all start using daytime lights then? See.Sense recommends using flashing lights to help attract attention sooner. “When you have lights that flash brightly from both front and rear can help alert drivers sooner than a solid light, reducing risks out on the road,” the company tell us.

13 front and rear daytime lights

If you’re interested in daytime lights, here are a selection currently available in bike shops. There are loads more lights to consider in this buyers guide and don’t forget the beam comparison engine if you’re shopping for lights as well.

Lezyne Strip Drive Front — £29.49

2020 Lezyne Strip Drive 400.jpg

The Lezyne Strip Drive 400 has been updated with a bright and really eye-catching day time flash, commendable battery life and faster charging. As with the old model, it's also fairly light, easy to operate, has loads of functions and is waterproof too. It's more of a be-seen rather than seeing light, though.

Read our review of the Lezyne Strip Drive Front

Magicshine Seemee 30 Combo — £24.99

2020 Magicshine Seemee 30 Combo.jpg

The Magicshine Seemee 30 Combo is a set of 30 lumen LED lights aiming to get you seen. The slim profile means they easily attach to seat posts, seat stays, forks or handlebars, and features such as infrared ambient light sensors are rarely found at this price. They're easy to use, stuffed with useful features and very visible around town.

Read our review of the Magicshine Seemee 30 Combo

Giant Recon TL 200 rear light — £29.04

Giant Recon TL 200.jpg

Giant's Recon TL 200 is an excellent rear light, offering lots of brightness, useful modes and decent run-times.

The Recon TL 200 is a bigger and brighter version of the TL 100. Which you choose comes down to personal preference, but for the extra tenner the 200 gets our vote for the extra brightness and run-time it offers.

Read our review of the Giant Recon TL 200

Exposure Link Daybright — £55.96

Exposure Link light.jpg

The Exposure Link Daybright is a secondary helmet light that adds 360-degree visibility and is great for being seen in heavy traffic. Designed and made in the UK, build quality is exceptional, it's very tough and run-times are reasonable bearing in mind its size and two LEDs.

Read our review of the Exposure Link Daybright

Blackburn DayBlazer 1100 — £55.99

Blackburn DayBlazer 1100 Front

The Blackburn Dayblazer 1100 front light is the biggest of the Dayblazer family. It's a beautifully made, five-function, compact torch type, capable of producing – surprise, surprise – 1100 lumens in its brightest setting, great for blasting along backroads, but with lower settings, pulsing and strobing for more built-up areas and for daylight running.

Read our review of the Blackburn DayBlazer 1100

See.Sense Icon 2 rear light — £79.99

SeeSense Icon 2 rear

The See.Sense was arguably the first smart light that used sensors to alter the brightness and speed of flash to suit different lighting conditions, as well as being able to detect car headlights. The light was so well received that it won the road.cc People’s Choice award in 2015 and they’ve since followed up with the 300 lumen Icon 2. You can read the review here.

Exposure Lights TraceR DayBright — £39.60

Exposure TraceR rear light

The TraceR is Exposure’s smallest and most affordable rear light with its new Day Bright mode. It has a 75-lumen rating with a three to 24 hour run time, weighs just 35g and has three brightness levels. Side visibility has been considered in the design of the light as well.

Exposure Lights Sirius DayBright — £75

Exposure Sirius.jpg

If you want a bright and lightweight front light for commuting then the Sirius is a good option, with 575 lumens bright enough for most riding situations and a choice of seven modes, including the new DayBright. It’s easy to use and mount to the handlebars, with a tactile power button and battery gauge LED.

Lezyne Strip Drive Pro 300 rear light — £52

Lezyne Strip Drive Pro rear light

Lezyne has been producing lights with daytime visibility in mind for the past five years, intended to be brighter with unique flash patterns to be more visible to other road users up to 1 mile away. It offers 15 lights with a daytime flash mode, here are two contenders.

The Strip Drive 300 rear light, with its 300-lumen output, is one of the brightest lights on the market right now but there are 11 modes to choose from to suit all riding conditions. It packs a 100-lumen punch in the daytime mode, definitely ensuring you’ll boost your visibility.

Read our review of the Lezyne Strip Drive Pro 300

Lezyne Lite Drive 1000XL — £59.49

Lezyne Lite Drive 1000XL.jpg

For front daytime lights, Lezyne offers the Lite Drive 1000XL. The small unit comprises two LEDs pumping out 1,000 lumens with a high-visibility daytime flash mode.

Read our review of the Lezyne Lite Drive 1000XL

Specialized Flux 900 Headlight — £69.99

specialized flux 900.jpg

Not to be left out, Specialized has developed the Flux 900 front light with two different LEDs with dedicated optics to provide the ideal beam pattern, and it also offers a daytime flash mode which reduces the lumen count to 300.

Bontrager Flare R City — £24

Bontrager Flare R City Tail Light.jpg

Bontrager was an early proponent of daytime lights and this Flare R City light is its smallest rear light. Despite its diminutive proportions, the light packs out 35 lumens from a single LED and offers up to five hours in the dedicated daytime flash mode.

Read our review of the Bontrager Flare R City

Bontrager has even had some of the Trek Factory Racer pros using daytime rear lights during the 2015 Tour de France prologue stage, but that marketing stunt aside we’ve not seen the lights in use since.

Moon Comet-X front bike light — £15.75

Moon Comet X Pro front light.jpg

Moon offers two lights with a dedicated daytime flash mode, using a slow pulse that is designed to boost visibility as well as maximising battery runtime, with a claimed 23 hours in this mode. It’s small and light and at 120 lumens in the daytime mode plenty bright enough. There’s also a matching rear light

Read our review of the Moon Comet-X light


So daytime lights then, will you be investing or is the cynic in you thinking that the bike industry is just trying to sell more lights? Let us know in the comments section below.

Explore the complete archives of reviews of front lights and rear lights on road.cc

David worked on the road.cc tech team from 2012-2020. Previously he was editor of Bikemagic.com and before that staff writer at RCUK. He's a seasoned cyclist of all disciplines, from road to mountain biking, touring to cyclo-cross, he only wishes he had time to ride them all. He's mildly competitive, though he'll never admit it, and is a frequent road racer but is too lazy to do really well. He currently resides in the Cotswolds, and you can now find him over on his own YouTube channel David Arthur - Just Ride Bikes

Add new comment

122 comments

Avatar
NZ Vegan Rider | 3 years ago
0 likes

Lezyne Strip Drive Pro 300 rear light

I have two. Excellent lights but VERY SHORT run time ;-(

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to andyp | 5 years ago
3 likes

andyp wrote:

'I'm able to make a rational choice - in this case a choice to make being hit as difficult as possible for a inattentive drivers - I'm running flashing lights all day long.'

 

a rational choice would involve running steady lights all day long. A fashion- or battery life-conscious one would go for the daft flashing ones. HTH.

Research says that flashing would be more noticeable - which is sort of the point - so i'm not sure that's a rational choice.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
4 likes
DA69 wrote:

Some great debate here. A few things I feel I can correct...

DRLs became LAW for all new cars and vans sold in the EU in 2011.

Trees and other unlit obstacles arent on the road and do get hit by drivers.

Drivers are generally not highly trained, it is possible to SMIDSY - most cyclsits are drivers and I have yet to meet anyone who didn't SMIDSY a cyclist at some point. Surprise, surprise cars also hit..... cars. No driver wants to hit anything. It's called an accident for a reason. No one is blaming cyclists or putting the emphasis on cyclists. It's just life, get over it.

Flashing lights work to grab attention, as said above, that's why the emergency services use them.

There is little downside to using high vis / helmets / lights - yes you have to buy and maintain them.

The studies and evidence is there and compelling - the links are in the article - read them! 

Lights won't make you safe, but they sure as hell help. Should they be law? I don't think so. Should you use them? I do and I think most people should.

Mostly a crock of shit.
You even get the law incorrect in your opening salvo. Compulsory to fit, not to use.
The rest of your post is so full of lies and empty meaningless guff that has been covered elsewhere I can't be bothered to pick it apart.
You're just wrong

Avatar
biketime replied to A440 | 5 years ago
0 likes

A440 wrote:

No, cyclists should not use lights in the daytime.

How many things are driven past, succesfully, by drivers every day? Hundreds, thousands?

Few of these objects have lights on, yet they manage to avoid being hit, and if they are hit, it is the drivers fault. How can you blame an unlit tree for not being seen, then hit.

Trees, dogs, trash bins, pedestrians, parked cars, traffic signs, guardrails, and many others are avoided all the time, and they are not lit.

If you can't avoid a moving, probably light colored five to six foot tall object right in front of you, you need to stop driving.

This is another case of blaming the victim, by suggesting that cyclists are at fault because they are not fifty foot tall, dayglo wearing beacons of light.

Why don't drivers put down the phones, razors, eyeliner, tacos, vibrators and hamburgers and DRIVE?

The vehicles are moving at roughly the same speed so it's easier to take care of things. They're 2x-5x the rate of bikes so that a different, say, field of vision and perspective. Except foe the dogs, your list is off road. Pleanty of dogs and other animals do get hit. Agree with the put- down- the list of things but that has little to do with the responsiblity of the rider to make him or herslf more easily seen.  It seems you;re implying that the drivers have all the responsibilities and the cyclists have few or none.     

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to BigglesMeister | 5 years ago
2 likes

BigglesMeister wrote:

Deep sigh,

Another pointless discussion.  

If an individual wants to ride with daylight running lights, that's their choice just like helmets and high vis - not  legal requirement. 

[...]

The rozzers won't enforce it and the politicians don't even know the laws they are elected to make. therefore, this is another pointless discussion.

whereas if an individual wants to have a pointless discussion that's not their choice, they need your approval...?

 

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to randonneur | 5 years ago
0 likes

randonneur wrote:

This is to be expected because as cyclists are making themselves less visible by wearing black clothing then we need something to get ourselves more visible again. I personally refuse to become a blackshirt and wear everything bright I can. The motorbike industry has shown us the folly of wearing black and have their headlights on constantly. A message to the blackshirts, please use common sense and wear cycle clothing. As a motorist I'd rather see you sooner than later.

Randonneur, you are not just 'as a motorist'. You are a cyclist who also drives, or possibly a motorist who also cycles. You brain and thought processes are much more in tune with the visibility and vulnerability of cyclists.

There's been a number of threads covering the pros and cons of hi-viz (your bright cycle clothing). My take is the average motorist may not take anymore heed of a cyclist wearing hi-viz, than they would one wearing dark clothing, as the object they 'see' is not a danger to them sat in their one ton metal cage doing 30mph.

Many motorcyclists still wear black, they just also run with lights on. I wear mostly muted colours including a nice black rain jacket, but also use lights during daytime as I believe that motorists pay more attention. 'If it's got lights it's a vehicle'. However, as numerous 'close pass' vids show, there will always be some dangerous numpties who just don't get it.

Safe touring

P.S. Your hi-viz picnic is making me hungry and jealous at the same time!

Avatar
PRSboy replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

No: because we don't want to train motorists just to look for lights rather than, you know, objects.

Fair point, but from what I've read, the human brain fills in blind spots and constructs images based on what it expects to see rather than the detail of what it is actually seeing, hence cyclists on busy roundabouts and junctions are missed because drivers are expecting to see other vehicles.

Flashing lights seem something which force the brain to process an image and react.  Also, how about situations in strong sunlight when you cycle through a densely wooded section... a rear light will mean a rider can be seen when otherwise they might not.

Yes, its a failing of drivers that can be resolved by them looking properly but its not a perfect world.

Avatar
Dr_Lex replied to number9dream | 5 years ago
3 likes

number9dream wrote:

Does anyone have a solution to fitting a rear light to a non-standard seatpost? I have TraceR rear lights but the bracket is designed for a round seatpost whereas my new bike has a post with a square back - the causes the light to work its way round until it's pointing sideways. 

Advice/suggestions appreciated!

 

Sugru 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to growingvegtables | 5 years ago
1 like
growingvegtables wrote:

"So should we all start using daytime lights then?"

Short answer - "Sorry, but fuck off."

A wee bit longer an answer.  So the most aggressively designed vehicles, appealing to the most aggressive drivers, increasingly have "get-the-f**k-out-of-my-fat-arsed-way" permanent lights ... and cyclists should go down that route?  FFS. 

Curb the aggression of Audi/BMW/Volvo drivers.    

I'm guessing you don't drive.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to alexb | 4 years ago
2 likes

alexb wrote:

This article is over two years old and still gets dredged up every year at this time.

I think this bolg says everything you need to know about the subject: https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/tag/bollards/

 

 

Thanks for the link, made me chuckle.

If only all those fluroescent yellow, reflective, illuminated bollards had been equipped with daytime running lights.... 

*no, I'm not being serious!*

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to fukawitribe | 5 years ago
1 like

fukawitribe wrote:

andyp wrote:

'I'm able to make a rational choice - in this case a choice to make being hit as difficult as possible for a inattentive drivers - I'm running flashing lights all day long.'

 

a rational choice would involve running steady lights all day long. A fashion- or battery life-conscious one would go for the daft flashing ones. HTH.

Research says that flashing would be more noticeable - which is sort of the point - so i'm not sure that's a rational choice.

I recall reading somewhere that although flashing lights are more noticeable/attention grabbing, they make distance evaluation more difficult. So, steady lights might be better in some circumstances (probably nighttime), but I'd go for flashing during the daytime. (I run 2 lights at night, one steady and one flashing).

Avatar
DA69 replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
3 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Mostly a crock of shit. You even get the law incorrect in your opening salvo. Compulsory to fit, not to use. The rest of your post is so full of lies and empty meaningless guff that has been covered elsewhere I can't be bothered to pick it apart. You're just wrong

 

Am I really?

Let's look at the UK Govt info page : 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/daytime-running-lights/daytim...

Clearly stated right there : "automatically activate when the engine is started"

How is that optional usage? Soundsmandatory to me. Take any car since 2011 and tell me how to drive it with them off? Well?

Don't be an opionated armchair warrior troll, do some proper research and post facts with evidence.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to PRSboy | 5 years ago
2 likes

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

No: because we don't want to train motorists just to look for lights rather than, you know, objects.

Fair point, but from what I've read, the human brain fills in blind spots and constructs images based on what it expects to see rather than the detail of what it is actually seeing, hence cyclists on busy roundabouts and junctions are missed because drivers are expecting to see other vehicles.

Flashing lights seem something which force the brain to process an image and react.  Also, how about situations in strong sunlight when you cycle through a densely wooded section... a rear light will mean a rider can be seen when otherwise they might not.

Yes, its a failing of drivers that can be resolved by them looking properly but its not a perfect world.

All well and good, but why shift the onus onto the perfectly visible cyclist when surely the licensed motorist should only be driving according to the conditions and the limits of their vision?

Avatar
PRSboy replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

No: because we don't want to train motorists just to look for lights rather than, you know, objects.

Fair point, but from what I've read, the human brain fills in blind spots and constructs images based on what it expects to see rather than the detail of what it is actually seeing, hence cyclists on busy roundabouts and junctions are missed because drivers are expecting to see other vehicles.

Flashing lights seem something which force the brain to process an image and react.  Also, how about situations in strong sunlight when you cycle through a densely wooded section... a rear light will mean a rider can be seen when otherwise they might not.

Yes, its a failing of drivers that can be resolved by them looking properly but its not a perfect world.

All well and good, but why shift the onus onto the perfectly visible cyclist when surely the licensed motorist should only be driving according to the conditions and the limits of their vision?

Like I said, its not a perfect world, and I would argue a cyclist riding with no lights in dense woodland is not perfectly visible.

I would love for all drivers to be as vigilant and discplined as fighter pilots at all times, but that is never going to happen.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to PRSboy | 5 years ago
1 like

PRSboy wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

No: because we don't want to train motorists just to look for lights rather than, you know, objects.

Fair point, but from what I've read, the human brain fills in blind spots and constructs images based on what it expects to see rather than the detail of what it is actually seeing, hence cyclists on busy roundabouts and junctions are missed because drivers are expecting to see other vehicles.

Flashing lights seem something which force the brain to process an image and react.  Also, how about situations in strong sunlight when you cycle through a densely wooded section... a rear light will mean a rider can be seen when otherwise they might not.

Yes, its a failing of drivers that can be resolved by them looking properly but its not a perfect world.

All well and good, but why shift the onus onto the perfectly visible cyclist when surely the licensed motorist should only be driving according to the conditions and the limits of their vision?

Like I said, its not a perfect world, and I would argue a cyclist riding with no lights in dense woodland is not perfectly visible.

I would love for all drivers to be as vigilant and discplined as fighter pilots at all times, but that is never going to happen.

If you drive into dense woodland and can't see other traffic on the road, then maybe you should think about using your headlights, maybe?

I appreciate that drivers aren't as vigilant and disciplined as fighter pilots, but when the conditions change and you suddenly can't see anything, then either pay attention or pull over until you're not a danger to everyone.

Avatar
fenix replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

No: because we don't want to train motorists just to look for lights rather than, you know, objects.

Fair point, but from what I've read, the human brain fills in blind spots and constructs images based on what it expects to see rather than the detail of what it is actually seeing, hence cyclists on busy roundabouts and junctions are missed because drivers are expecting to see other vehicles.

Flashing lights seem something which force the brain to process an image and react.  Also, how about situations in strong sunlight when you cycle through a densely wooded section... a rear light will mean a rider can be seen when otherwise they might not.

Yes, its a failing of drivers that can be resolved by them looking properly but its not a perfect world.

All well and good, but why shift the onus onto the perfectly visible cyclist when surely the licensed motorist should only be driving according to the conditions and the limits of their vision?

They SHOULD be driving according to conditions, and most do - but there's still a number of idiots out there.

 

I've got the lights already. There's no cost for me to put them on in the daytime.  I don't see a downside. 

 

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
5 likes

DA69 wrote:

There is little downside to using high vis / helmets / lights ...

I agree there is little downside to using them, but every extra thing that becomes expected of a cyclist, is one more reason that people who don't cycle now will be put off starting, and that has wider implications for a society running out of space for single-occupant cars to get everyone where they need to go in good time, and one in which many would benefit from choosing to use active transport as an alternative. 

Being expected (not even compelled) to wear a helmet and high vis and run lights at all times makes hopping into the car to pop down to the shop a mile away much more attractive than getting on your bike to do the same trip. 

DA69 wrote:

Lights won't make you safe, but they sure as hell help. Should they be law? I don't think so. Should you use them? I do ...

Excellent ...

DA69 wrote:

... and I think most people should.

... but I think I'll make my own decision, thank you. 

Avatar
ktache replied to number9dream | 4 years ago
0 likes

number9dream wrote:

Does anyone have a solution to fitting a rear light to a non-standard seatpost? I have TraceR rear lights but the bracket is designed for a round seatpost whereas my new bike has a post with a square back - the causes the light to work its way round until it's pointing sideways. 

Advice/suggestions appreciated!

Exposure make a saddle rail bracket

https://exposurelights.com/products/bike/saddle-rail-bracket

and also many other brackets for weird mounts

https://exposurelights.com/products/bike/brackets-and-mounts

Avatar
cougie replied to growingvegtables | 4 years ago
3 likes

growingvegtables wrote:

"So should we all start using daytime lights then?"

Short answer - "Sorry, but fuck off."

A wee bit longer an answer.  So the most aggressively designed vehicles, appealing to the most aggressive drivers, increasingly have "get-the-f**k-out-of-my-fat-arsed-way" permanent lights ... and cyclists should go down that route?  FFS. 

Curb the aggression of Audi/BMW/Volvo drivers.    

 

Eh ? I don't think theres any link between lights in cars and aggressive driving  ? Drivers drive like tw@ts sometimes and I've not noticed any correlation between that and lights.

 

I run them. Does nothing with aggressive drivers but helps dozy and drivers with bad eyesight to see me easier. 

Avatar
DA69 replied to Jetmans Dad | 5 years ago
2 likes

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I agree there is little downside to using them, but every extra thing that becomes expected of a cyclist, is one more reason that people who don't cycle now will be put off starting, and that has wider implications for a society running out of space for single-occupant cars to get everyone where they need to go in good time, and one in which many would benefit from choosing to use active transport as an alternative. 

Being expected (not even compelled) to wear a helmet and high vis and run lights at all times makes hopping into the car to pop down to the shop a mile away much more attractive than getting on your bike to do the same trip. 

The number one reason people aren't getting on bikes isn't that they're being asked to buy kit, it's the perception that they might get hit by another vehicle. Until we get the secregated cycleways needed, surely anything that improves safety and the perception of safety is a good thing!

Avatar
cougie replied to ktache | 4 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

number9dream wrote:

Does anyone have a solution to fitting a rear light to a non-standard seatpost? I have TraceR rear lights but the bracket is designed for a round seatpost whereas my new bike has a post with a square back - the causes the light to work its way round until it's pointing sideways. 

Advice/suggestions appreciated!

Exposure make a saddle rail bracket

https://exposurelights.com/products/bike/saddle-rail-bracket

and also many other brackets for weird mounts

https://exposurelights.com/products/bike/brackets-and-mounts

 

I've an aero seatpost and the SeeSense lights come with a sleeve thing that will work on that.  I'd think it would work for you too ? 

Avatar
JF69 replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
1 like

(double post, sorry)

Avatar
JF69 replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
3 likes

DA69 wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I agree there is little downside to using them, but every extra thing that becomes expected of a cyclist, is one more reason that people who don't cycle now will be put off starting, and that has wider implications for a society running out of space for single-occupant cars to get everyone where they need to go in good time, and one in which many would benefit from choosing to use active transport as an alternative. 

Being expected (not even compelled) to wear a helmet and high vis and run lights at all times makes hopping into the car to pop down to the shop a mile away much more attractive than getting on your bike to do the same trip. 

The number one reason people aren't getting on bikes isn't that they're being asked to buy kit, it's the perception that they might get hit by another vehicle. Until we get the secregated cycleways needed, surely anything that improves safety and the perception of safety is a good thing!

 
No it isn't when it deters/discourages people from opting to commute by bicycle instead of by vehicle, & shifts the onus of responsibility from drivers  onto the most vulnerable road users;
as well as distracting from the implementation of more effective measures such as segregagted cycle lanes.

Avatar
DA69 replied to JF69 | 5 years ago
0 likes

JF69 wrote:

DA69 wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I agree there is little downside to using them, but every extra thing that becomes expected of a cyclist, is one more reason that people who don't cycle now will be put off starting, and that has wider implications for a society running out of space for single-occupant cars to get everyone where they need to go in good time, and one in which many would benefit from choosing to use active transport as an alternative. 

Being expected (not even compelled) to wear a helmet and high vis and run lights at all times makes hopping into the car to pop down to the shop a mile away much more attractive than getting on your bike to do the same trip. 

The number one reason people aren't getting on bikes isn't that they're being asked to buy kit, it's the perception that they might get hit by another vehicle. Until we get the secregated cycleways needed, surely anything that improves safety and the perception of safety is a good thing!

 
No it isn't when it deters/discourages people from opting to commute by bicycle instead of by vehicle, & shifts the onus of responsibility from drivers  onto the most vulnerable road users;
as well as distracting from the implementation of more effective measures such as segregagted cycle lanes.

So which is the greater proportion:

(a) people that don't cycle as they have safety concerns

(b) people that don't cycle because they feel they need additional kit

We won't get segregated infrastructure until more people cycle. 

Simply pushing back that drivers need to be more careful is being unrealistic. Drivers have accidents with lots of things (not just cyclists) and no one wants to have an accident. 

Be idealistic all you want, but the reality is that only getting more cyclists will mean more cycling infrastructure.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
6 likes

DA69 wrote:

JF69 wrote:

DA69 wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

I agree there is little downside to using them, but every extra thing that becomes expected of a cyclist, is one more reason that people who don't cycle now will be put off starting, and that has wider implications for a society running out of space for single-occupant cars to get everyone where they need to go in good time, and one in which many would benefit from choosing to use active transport as an alternative. 

Being expected (not even compelled) to wear a helmet and high vis and run lights at all times makes hopping into the car to pop down to the shop a mile away much more attractive than getting on your bike to do the same trip. 

The number one reason people aren't getting on bikes isn't that they're being asked to buy kit, it's the perception that they might get hit by another vehicle. Until we get the secregated cycleways needed, surely anything that improves safety and the perception of safety is a good thing!

 
No it isn't when it deters/discourages people from opting to commute by bicycle instead of by vehicle, & shifts the onus of responsibility from drivers  onto the most vulnerable road users;
as well as distracting from the implementation of more effective measures such as segregagted cycle lanes.

So which is the greater proportion:

(a) people that don't cycle as they have safety concerns

(b) people that don't cycle because they feel they need additional kit

We won't get segregated infrastructure until more people cycle. 

Simply pushing back that drivers need to be more careful is being unrealistic. Drivers have accidents with lots of things (not just cyclists) and no one wants to have an accident. 

Be idealistic all you want, but the reality is that only getting more cyclists will mean more cycling infrastructure.

 

You have the psychology entirely wrong. 

 

People don't cycle because they have safety concerns. 

 

Making more kit obligatory won't reduce those concerns in any way.  Rather it will send home the message that not only is cycling indeed dangerous, but that the responsibilty for keeping safe is on the cyclist and hence if you do get injured it will be your own fault.

 

  The logical conclusion from that is that the most responsible thing to do, because the 'safest' is to not stop at getting more lights and kit, but to go the whole hog and get a car instead, the ultimate in safety kit.

 

Meanwhile, of course, drivers will also get the message that the responsibility for safety belongs to the potential victim, and will just stop looking in proportion to how much more lights and high-viz etc the cyclists wear.

 

At both ends you are sending the wrong message.

 

And if 'nobody wants to have an accident', can you explain why so many drivers _do_ have such accidents? 

 

Again, your take on psychology is flawed.  You don't just 'want' or 'not want' an accident in some sort of binary choice - you balance the risks and costs of having one against the benefits and costs of taking more effort to avoid having one.

Avatar
daturaman replied to DA69 | 5 years ago
0 likes

DA69 wrote:

Some great debate here. A few things I feel I can correct...

DRLs became LAW for all new cars and vans sold in the EU in 2011.

Trees and other unlit obstacles arent on the road and do get hit by drivers.

Drivers are generally not highly trained, it is possible to SMIDSY - most cyclsits are drivers and I have yet to meet anyone who didn't SMIDSY a cyclist at some point. Surprise, surprise cars also hit..... cars. No driver wants to hit anything. It's called an accident for a reason. No one is blaming cyclists or putting the emphasis on cyclists. It's just life, get over it.

Flashing lights work to grab attention, as said above, that's why the emergency services use them.

There is little downside to using high vis / helmets / lights - yes you have to buy and maintain them.

The studies and evidence is there and compelling - the links are in the article - read them! 

Lights won't make you safe, but they sure as hell help. Should they be law? I don't think so. Should you use them? I do and I think most people should.

*Clap, clap*

 

Avatar
Milkfloat | 6 years ago
5 likes

52% of people on road.cc are idiots.  To be honest, I expected the figure to be higher.

 

Normalising lights during the day time, wearing space lemon yellow and allowing yourself to be forced into inadequate cycle lanes just gives more ammunition to those who don’t want cyclists on the road.  Why do we in this country try to make cycling so difficult and such a niche thing to do?

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to Milkfloat | 6 years ago
2 likes

Milkfloat wrote:

52% of people on road.cc are idiots.  To be honest, I expected the figure to be higher.

Brexit gave you the same statistic expanded to the wider population!

Avatar
tendecimalplaces | 6 years ago
2 likes

This is a classic example of partial evidence. The Danish study showed 19% lower incident rate between the two groups of cyclists. However, that only tells part of the story;

I should point out that I haven't read the particular study, but if the reserach was done as a response to increased use of lights during the day (which seems likely) then a number of other factors need to be considered. For example;

1) Was the difference between the two groups because the use of lights resulted in a reduced risk to those using them or because more people using lights made those not less visible, thus increasing their risk? So, do increases in daytime use of lights result in a total reduction in incidents for cyclists (controlling for other factors)?

2) How is the the incident rate of other people in the environment not on bikes, e.g. pededtrians affected by daytime bike light usage, i.e. does making cyclists more visible make others less easy to spot?

3) How is the severity of incidents affected, e.g. if most cyclists become easier to spot, do drivers change their behaviour, e.g. speed up, because they expect to be able to easily notice cyclists resulting in perhaps fewer but more severe incidents?

4) Does promoting daylight light usage encourage the perception of cycling as dangerous and thus deter potential riders, resulting in negative mental and physical health impacts that would outweigh any benefits from daylight light usage?

5) Does promoting daylight light detract from a focus on tackling the real issues with encouraging cycle usage and rider safety thereby making it more likely that we will fail to take other measures that could have a bigger impact on rider safety?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to tendecimalplaces | 6 years ago
3 likes

tendecimalplaces wrote:

This is a classic example of partial evidence. The Danish study showed 19% lower incident rate between the two groups of cyclists. However, that only tells part of the story;

I should point out that I haven't read the particular study..

..perhaps reading it would be a useful first move then ?

Edit. This  is not intended to be confrontational or dismissive of your points, just a serious suggestion.

Pages

Latest Comments