just got back from a bike ride to my favorite pizza shop... my flashing amber front light was recently ruined by leading AAAs, so replaced it with an inexpensive LED bike white light with a flashing function... additionally I use a LED MiniMaglight for illumination... the response by motorists was amazing, much better than with the amber...I did cover a portion of the top lens with black electrician tape to block the flash from my direct vision...

great idea - remember to add reflective material to your bike, pack, helmet and water bottle

When I saw amber I was thinking thats not a good color for a light. Amber is the signal color, amber means your signaling to turn. Ever see some of these never cars which use amber as the DRL, every get one as a rental. Everyone pulls out in front of you, they glance your way and see amber and assume your turning so they are safe to pull out.

I have the red PB superflash on the back of mine BTW.

Just yesterday I encountered a cyclist with a flashing white light in full daylight - very conspicuous and obvious. Highly recommended.

A friend of mine was in a bike lane and lit up like a Christmas tree, but it didn't prevent him from being hit from behind. With other lights as distractions, you can't be lit up enough riding at night.

Having lots of light does not means you are more visible. Lots of people have there lights aimed to high and are blinding others. Which makes you very visible, but not less likely to be hit.

Strobe lights are also interesting. While visible, it does make it harder to see distance. Especially in bad weather condition.

Keep in mind local law varies as well. IIRC, here in WA I think it is technically illegal to have a flashing white headlight, but I think amber is OK. That said everyone does it anyway. [edit: after additional research, it seems you can have amber, but it still can't blink. no red lights allowed 'cept in back]

That said, be careful not to blind oncoming motorists. My personal approach is to have two lights, one bright (700-1800lumens), not blinking, aimed down to illuminate the road and not blind motorists, and another less bright (<=80lumens), non-directional light, blinking for safety.

Also environmental context is important. Rural fast moving roads are much different and have different considerations vs a populous city core. In the former, being seen from behind is important, in the city, 360 degree visibility is key (and hard to attain).

-john

That's interesting. I've never heard of a local law like that. I would think common sense would dictate that a constant white light would at least be legal in that situation, otherwise the law is essentially making it impossible for a cyclist to be able to illuminate their path on a dark night. (In this case, I'm talking about laws that were written a long time ago, where cyclists rode more slowly than now, and often on less heavily travelled roads, so seeing the road was more important than being seen by cars, which is a higher concern in most places nowadays.)

I live in San Francisco, so there are tons of people who commute to work via bicycle. I used to ride a lot but in my personal risk-benefit calculation, I think the risk is too great to commute by bike from my house to work everyday. Anyway, to be seen by others, I think a flashing white light makes the most sense. Most motorists equate white light with something headed your way, and red with something moving away from you. Amber? That's iffy, and requires the driver to concentrate harder to figure out what is going on.

However, as has been mentioned earlier, too many cyclists use a combination of a very bright LED light and aim them too high. Dazzling drivers does not enhance cyclist safety and just annoys everyone else. That said, it's almost unbelievable how bright some bike lights are now. I'll be walking down the street in the dark and I sometimes see a big wall of light approaching from behind. Is it a silent hybrid car coming up (a common occurence here)? No, it's a cyclist! Amazing.

But really, I think raising the awareness of motorists is the biggest contributor to improving safety. And that goes for making things safer for motorcyclists, too. Illumination and reflectors only help so much, but if a car makes a bonehead move when a bicycle is right there, the only way the motorist knows you're there is when the cyclist comes flying onto the hood of the car.

Solid white headlight is not only legal, but required after dark.



I think the prohibition on flashing front light is generic, not specific to bikes. There is a clause specifically allowing blinking red taillights on bike.



Note there is also a clause about the aiming of lights:



-john

I recommend using lithium batteries--if for no other reason, they won't leak and ruin your equipment.

You are most visible riding in full daylight. At night, two bright lights facing forward are better than one. I usually have one mounted on my helmet.

Riding in the evening is definitely more hazardous than riding before dawn - fewer distracted drivers.

Bike riders who do not follow the rules of the road are their own worst enemy and make it tough for all.....

Absolutely! Such behavior gives us all a bad name and makes it more likely that motorists will give us a hard time.

I use a narrow handle bar on my Mountain/City bicycle and real estate is at a premium for a couple of Fenix Bike Flashlight Mounts so I have fitted a Cinelli Euro Spinaci bar. The Fenix Flashlight Mounts work well.



The Flashlight mounts fit either side of the Spinaci clamps on the Bar. They also give an additional tribar aerodynamic position on the bicycle.

This allows me to fit a couple of Hi-Low-Flash mode Cree XM-L T6 18650 600-900 Lumen flashlights without the flashlights getting in the way.

That's my problem with the DRL's on any vehicle. They make you LESS visible under the right conditions. A car coming from the west when I'm leaving work with lights on is much harder to see due to the sun being almost directly behind them on a sunny day.

+1 to what hikermor said, and then some.

In this area, in the course of the past couple/three years, I can't count the number of moped/bicycle/motorized wheelchair riders hit/killed.

Bicyclists in the early morning vex me the most. No lights, dark clothes, riding in the middle of the turn lane. And it looks as if they are riding their sister's bike from 1975.

I still think the best was the moped rider who was on I95 when she ran out of gas in the travel lane, an 18 wheeler didn't/couldn't see her and that was all she wrote. Yes, she was using a moped to travel 50+ miles to work as her car broke down. Pure Darwin's theory at work.

Ped's aren't much better half the time. Jaywalking, dark clothes, no reflectors - accidents waiting to happen. And they do, Frequently.

I think the mindset of some of these people is - "they have to watch out for me" rather then, "I should take responsibility for my safety and welfare myself".

JB,

It is certainly true that many peds, bicyclists, etc don't do enough to make themselves visible, and/or ignore traffic rules. However, as always, there is another side to the story.

Lots of auto drivers don't really "see" bicyclists, even when they are plainly visible. A classic example is a car turning right from a stop sign on a side street, onto a busy road. The car driver is looking to the left, and hyper-focused on the oncoming cars. All too often they don't really look to the right enough, and hence don't see a ped or bike approaching from the right on a bike path or sidewalk.

Even worse, sometimes auto drivers are so distracted by traffic and so focused on seeing other cars that they don't seem to notice cyclists even when the car driver is looking right at the bike and it is in plain sight.

There is plenty of room for improvement in attitudes and awareness on the part of car drivers as well as peds and cyclists.

Unfortunately, seeing-but-not-seeing is an all too common experience. Many of you may have already seen a variation of this exercise. Count how many times a player in white passes the ball.

Particularly with cyclists, it seems that transportation systems where vehicles and bicycles are kept on separate roadways are ultimately the most effective method to reduce collisions because of the seeing-but-not-seeing issue of motorists primarily looking out for other motorists.

AKSAR, if I understand the situation you are describing, the cyclist is the one committing the biggest error - he, she should be on the far side of the street, well away from the driver turning right, at least according to the traffic regs in Cali...

Interestingly enough, I frequently use an intersection like the one you describe, both as a cyclist and as a driver. Yes,I have been surprised by cyclists approaching from my right,generally riding on the sidewalk, as I am searching for an opening in the approaching traffic stream from the left. So far,they have been wrong, but not dead wrong.

Riding in SoCal is interesting. Drivers are far more considerate than those in Arizona, where I formerly lived,probably in part because many of them cycle a lot,as I do. I see far too many cyclists blatantly disregarding the rules of the road. LEOs should start passing out paper.

Blackshadow terminator... illuminates better than most car headlights

I think you misunderstood me, but it was my fault. I didn't explain very well what I meant.

I was referring to the situation where there is a bike trail along side and parallel with a busy main road. A side road with a stop sign meets the main road. The side road crosses the bike trail at the stop sign. The car is trying to make a right turn onto the the main road, but must cross the bike path to do so. With busy traffic the driver stops, and looks to the left, looking for an opening in traffic to make his right turn. The bike approaches from the car's right, sees the driver stopped at the stop sign, waiting for traffic. As the biker crosses in front of the car (who is at a stop sign), the car driver (who is looking mostly left) suddenly sees a small opening in oncomming traffic on the main road and goes for it, without really looking to his right.

The biker is within his rights, crossing on a designated bike path, in front of a car that is stopped at a stop sign. The car driver needs to look both ways before making his right turn. But the driver is only thinking about other cars, so only looks to his left where auto traffic is approaching. The driver forgets that he is also crossing a bike path. Many drivers seem totally oblivious to bikes.

I've experienced this from both sides. I once almost hit a bike because I stupidly failed to look both ways before making a quick right turn where the road crosses the bike path. I've also had some close calls in similar situations when riding a bike. Now I try to be more alert both when riding or driving.

OK, that is a different situation. on the bike trail I ride frequently, at crossing such as you describe, the bike rider also has a stop sign which, I freely admit, I usually run.

In a technical sense, I routinely run stop signs, but,on the other hand,I treat all intersections as if I had a stop sign.I slow way down, and check before proceeding. My sense is that I have better control on a bike than if I were in a car, although the bike never completely stops forward motion.

If cyclists want a long and happy life, they should wear a helmet, light up their bikes in dim visibility beyond the legally mandated minimum, wear bright colored clothing always, and comply reasonably with traffic regulations. I have been regularly bike commuting since 1970, with a lot of recreational riding and extended during that time as well - no serious injuries in well over 100,000 miles (but two bikes lost in collisions).

Big +1. Around here, the biggest one they need to work on is bikes should be traveling with traffic on the right hand side when in traffic lanes.

I thought of this thread when I read this incident:

Zion National Park (UT)
Bicyclist Seriously Injured In Illegal Ride Through Tunnel

A group of eight bicyclists from Salt Lake City attempted to illegally bicycle through the Zion-Mt. Carmel Tunnel in Zion National Park late on the afternoon of Friday, February 22nd. While doing so, two of the bicyclists apparently hit the tunnel wall and crashed.

One, a 51-year-old man, suffered significant head trauma and was transported to the hospital by the park ambulance. The second cyclist ran into the tunnel wall, sideswiping it and tearing his shirt. He refused medical care.

It is illegal to bicycle through the tunnel. To ensure the safety of bicyclists and that of passing traffic, bicyclists and pedestrians must be transported through the unlit, narrow, mile-long tunnel in a motor vehicle.

The bicyclists were part of a larger group of 12 who had arranged for a shuttle to take them to the other side, which is proper protocol. Apparently eight people in the group (including two minors) decided to ride through instead.

“As soon as we rounded the corner, it was like pitch black, and that’s where it happened,” said one of the bicyclists near the back of the group. “He was just lying there. They were in a bad spot, and only two of the bikers had little flashers. I thought, ‘someone else is going to get killed.’” He turned around and went back to the tunnel entrance to stop traffic from entering too fast.

“That was my first thought cause I didn’t want anybody else to get hurt,” he added. “It was really stupid what we’d done… I think we all learned our lesson and we now have to pay the price.”

“I just can’t believe that we put ourselves in that kind of situation,” said another member of the group.

Park rangers issued violation notices to group members.

[Submitted by Cindy Purcell, Chief Ranger]

Lights are a nescessity, but don't forget about clothing: A screaming yellow jacket or similar attention-grabber bright colors) is an important safety item. Reflective patches are good, too - but there is something about the neon yellow jacket that seems to grab the attention of even the most idiotic drivers, in particular in low light situations.


(Tbere is also a cult of cyclists who sincerely belive that wearing this yellow biking jacket will grant them legal immunity to traffic violations -- and magical powers, effectively making them invulnerable to the follies of motorists.)

Reflective clothes, stripes, tape, or whatever, is exceedingly more effective at night than any bright color. It reflects back light directly to the source with a much lower scatter rate than cloth ever will. Even a bright white shirt can be tough to spot at night. The same can be said for blaze orange, hi-vis green and yellow, etc. Hi vis colors are meant for daytime, and work well then, as they contrast against almost every other color.

Having been through that tunnel several times, all I can say is: Without lights? ARE YOU NUTS?

I usually think the NPS is overdoing the safety rules. For this and for requiring RVs to have an escort, I agree with them. Getting an RV through this tunnel undamaged with two way traffic requires a very good & experienced driver. Bicycles with lights would have traffic backed up until they reached the other end. IIRC there aren't any places where you can see far enough to be able to pass bicycles. There are several ventilation windows but I don't remember if you could use them for a bicycle turnout.

Reflective items are great,especially on the lower legs- gives instant ID...

In urban environment you have just too many blinking light sources -- it is really hard to make your reflexes and bike light stand out in that noisy environment: They are seen, but ignored among all the commercials, bling, street lights and other light sources...

On the positive side, in a crowded urban environment it will be plenty light to make that hi vis color jacket visible. It is immediately identified as a human torso shape, which even the most idiotic drivers are reluctant to run over. Unlike your average five-dollar tail light, which is just too easy to ignore if there's lots of other stuff moving about in the traffic.

The hi-vis jacket is no substitute for proper bike lights and reflexes -- it works along with them, and complements them.

If it's too dark for the jacket to be visible -- then your lights + reflexes are highly visible. And vice versa.

I just happened to run across this Wired article about a bike with a really interesting reflective paint. It looks like a normal, metallic paint by day, but at night, the entire frame and even the rims are lit up quite dramatically by any oncoming light source.

Doesn't particularly help your visibility when viewing the bike head-on or from the rear, but should be very visible and recognizable as a bicycle from any side angle, I would think.

It's wonderful to have this discussion about bicycle lighting techniques, but I still encounter too many with nothing at all for light. Just this morning, I was proceeding east on 118 before dawn.Suddenly there appeared a phantom cyclist, dark clothing, only a feeble rear blinky, and pedal reflectors. I was nearly abreast of the rider before I recognized him. Those are the folks who really need enlightenment.

Yes we really should shed some light on the subject.

yes..the new bike lights are sometimes really bright!
i drive home on a winding parkway to avoid the stop lights and general madness of the a local highway. i have been dazzled by these new LED's and at times thought a car was coming when it was two bikes side by side.
Minneapolis is a bike city so we get it all from no light to full blazing glory.if i rode at night i would be a blaze of glory myself! what works best and i can see are lights that define the outline and not just one bright blinker.

Cool -- I want my bike to stand out like that!

But -- look at the colors and light conditions in those photos. Urban environment, lots of street lights and whatnot. Imagine that dude wearing a hi-vis yellow jacket... Then we would REALLY be talking visible...