Got This In The Post Today

Back on topic, it's great that you have this kind of scheme available to you in warwickshire! I haven't heard of anything similar around here. It sounds like they want safer riders instead of trying to turf them off the road

[Lissa]

Originally Posted by Sean_C

Back on topic, it's great that you have this kind of scheme available to you in warwickshire! I haven't heard of anything similar around here. It sounds like they want safer riders instead of trying to turf them off the road

Apparently, Warwickshire County Coucil had all this money allocated to trying to reduce Biker accidents and deaths, and instead of just sticking up 'Bikers Beware' posters everywhere, they went with this scheme.

We've really lucked out with our trainer, Tony. For several years he worked with the Casualty Reduction scheme. When there had been an accident involving a bike he would go out to the scene to try to work out why the accident happened, and if there was anything that could be done to prevent the same thing happening again. For example...........when a road crosses the boundary from one county to another, do the two councils have the same approach to chevrons for bends. You could be riding a road in one county where the council will chevron a bend that you can easily negotiate at 60. If the next bend is in a county where they only use chevrons for bends you can negotiate at 40 or less, you could quite easily get caught out, especially if that happens within a very short distance.

Oh, he also understands why we don't ride with our lights on, too. Neither does he

Originally Posted by Lissa

Oh, he also understands why we don't ride with our lights on, too. Neither does he

Why is that?

Only reason I can think of would be not getting seen as much if you dont have them on... But surly thats a bad thing?

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

Why is that?

Only reason I can think of would be not getting seen as much if you dont have them on... But surly thats a bad thing?

One reason could be so the brake light is more visible kiddo.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Lissa

Oh, he also understands why we don't ride with our lights on, too. Neither does he

Have never discussed this with Lissa or Pete, but I too would prefer not to have lights on in daylight. I don't like the fact that modern bikes have 'lights on all the time technology' i.e. no light switch! Won't go into reasons as I do not want to derail the thread.

Sounds like your 'observer' is great guys, lucky buggers!

Originally Posted by plowsie

Brake light is more visible kid

I think you've got a problem if the difference between normal rear light and brake light isn't (blindingly, heh) obvious. I've never had any trouble distinguishing between the two on any machine. If that's the reason for not running with lights all the time, then I don't get it, I mean the difference between a bike in the murk and a bike in the murk with its headlights on is far greater, but hey it's your own decision. There must be more to it though, I'm genuinely interested.

Originally Posted by sinbad

There must be more to it though, I'm genuinely interested.

Running uprated bulbs on dipped (not main beam) like I am now, it could be argued that it appears I'm running on main beam (as they're not that far off).

Countless times I've had oncoming drivers flash me at night, when I've been on dipped lights, because of the above. I'd love to see the reaction when I show them what full beam is actually like!!

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by sinbad

I mean the difference between a bike in the murk and a bike in the murk with its headlights on is far greater,

No one mentioned not using lights in conditions of reduced visibility, i.e. when required by law. I would rather not be forced to use dipped beam in good conditions. Like I said, I do not want to derail Pete and Lissa's thread which is discussing the merits of Warwickshire's bike Safety initiative, not the use of headlights in daylight.

Originally Posted by sinbad

I think you've got a problem if the difference between normal rear light and brake light isn't (blindingly, heh) obvious. I've never had any trouble distinguishing between the two on any machine. If that's the reason for not running with lights all the time, then I don't get it, I mean the difference between a bike in the murk and a bike in the murk with its headlights on is far greater, but hey it's your own decision. There must be more to it though, I'm genuinely interested.

I just listed one of the reason it could be a possiblity...Think about it in the daytime, it may sound silly, but someone with dodgy vision, or not, turns away to look at something else for a second, the bike or any vehicle in front is braking, may not be able to tell the difference with the lights and the brake lights (sounds dumb but it has been known). I'm sure Pete & Lissa have their reasons and probably will have nothing to do with what I have just said, maybe I'm talking out of my ****. It was just one thing that sprung to mind...

Anyway, back to the thread...

EDIT: Edited the post to read how I meant it.

Originally Posted by Baph

Running uprated bulbs on dipped (not main beam) like I am now, it could be argued that it appears I'm running on main beam (as they're not that far off).

Countless times I've had oncoming drivers flash me at night, when I've been on dipped lights, because of the above. I'd love to see the reaction when I show them what full beam is actually like!!

[Another derail] Pet hate of mine is uprated bulbs! They blind you coming the other way. If people are flashing you, they are flashing you cos you are blinding them, not cos they think you have some settings wrong. What if they drive into you cos they are dazzled by the glare? When I go past cars with exceedingly bright lights, I have to slow right down and aim for just next to them, cos I can't see any of the road, markings, bushes or anything! I hate uprated bulbs. If you want bright, use full beam and dip it for oncoming traffic.[/Another derail]