2011...all cars to have permanent lights on

Originally Posted by Stu

I accept Fizzy fish's point that a car driver may be looking for lights before pulling out & not see a cyclist, but why would he not see a motorbike? And as for not being able to be distinguished from a car, so what?

My biggest concern for motorcyclists is re filtering - generally but also especially in slow moving traffic on dual carriageways/motorways. A single dipped headlight isn't going to be as noticeable amongst all the other lights.

I would also prefer that bikes could be clearly distinguished from cars, so that someone knows a bike is coming when I am still several cars back - this is more likely in the current state of play. I know from driving a car myself that when I spot a bike approaching, I then keep an eye out for it coming past me, despite the fact that there is often an intermediate period when I cannot see it. Not that I ever ride assuming that car drivers are keeping tabs on us, but this can't hurt can it?

As you suggest, I dont think this change will particularly affect motorcyclists at junctions though - it's the cyclists who are at greater risk there.

Ultimately I accept that car accidents may be reduced, but car accidents have relatively lower consequences in terms of injury and death compared to those involving cyclists and bikes.

As I spend a considerable amount of time in the latter two groups, this is an issue of particular importance to me.

[embee]

The big concern, as Lone Wolf said, is that if a motorcycle with headlight on is followed by a car or HGV also with lights on, maybe some 20-30m behind, then a car driver at a side road junction will "see" the large vehicle lights approaching and the bike will become invisible in front of it.

OK this could be a scenario now, but if all vehicles have lights on all the time it will be a very much more common occurrence.

The arguments that everyone ought to see any vehicle approaching is all well and good, but we all know that in the real world cut-and-thrust of today's traffic in the UK it is easy not to spot every cyclist/motorcycle/pedestrian every time, and it only takes one time for any one of us to die as a result.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by sarah

The spokespeople taking about this on the radio last night they said that it was in part to make cars more visible to pedestrians and cyclists.

Seems like a part of the usual retarded thinking which thinks that a dead pedestrian is the cars fault for doing 31mph, rather than the pedestrians fault for not watching what they're doing. I think Darwin put down a few ideas as to how this sort of thing helps the human race as a whole


I'm well against it, if, in daylight you need lights to see a car, then you're blind.

All this is going to do is make bikers invisible in daytime traffic, where it's already dodgy.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Fizzy Fish

Ultimately I accept that car accidents may be reduced, but car accidents have relatively lower consequences in terms of injury and death compared to those involving cyclists and bikes.

As I spend a considerable amount of time in the latter two groups, this is an issue of particular importance to me.

i spend the majority of my time in the car, and the idea of having a sea of lights in which to distinguish identical looking motorcycles and now hidden cyclists strikes me as being monumentally stupid. i have no problem seeing other cars or trucks, they're big, wide and can't come at me from directions other than the single carriageway they're using (as opposed to filtering motorcycles, "jaywalking" peds and cyclists darting amongst traffic)

compulsary DRL will effect a small reduction in car/car accidents, at a huge cost to road users who need to be conspicuous, the trials have already shown this to be the case, hence why Austria have banned DRL*

*edit: or are planning legislature to the same effect, not sure if it's been brought in yet

Originally Posted by sarah

The spokespeople taking about this on the radio last night they said that it was in part to make cars more visible to pedestrians and cyclists.

Bring back the Green Cross Code man and make Cycling Proficiency Training for kids part of the education syllabus. Sorted!

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by glsuk1970

Bring back the Green Cross Code man and make Cycling Proficiency Training for kids part of the education syllabus. Sorted!

Nah, you can't give ?60 fines out for people who don't look both ways

Originally Posted by embee

The big concern, as Lone Wolf said, is that if a motorcycle with headlight on is followed by a car or HGV also with lights on, maybe some 20-30m behind, then a car driver at a side road junction will "see" the large vehicle lights approaching and the bike will become invisible in front of it.

Sidelights
Dipped beam.

Totally different lights, this is what i mean, if you can't see the difference, or have never noticed the difference whilst driving/riding, then im still scared......


And btw all, as i've said, we cannot help some things, but at the end of the day, its our responsibility as motorcyclists to realise we are the ones who can't be in danger if we are knocked/fall off, there-for if you think that that filtering/junction/road could be dangerous to you, then you don't filter/take appropriate caution.

As said, i appreciate that this is not always the case, but then I ride in the assumption that at any junction, anything could happen, anyone could pull out, a child could ride out into the road on their bike.

Mainly because its all happened, but experience has taught me that its my responsibility to ensure im going at a speed where things can be avoided.

btw, im over opinionated

Sidelights



Dipped beam.



Quite a noticable difference wouldn't you say??? If your a biker being followed by a lorry with dipped beam, and your wearing a hi vis vest (if that concerned), and you STILL get hit, well, then I can only feel for you... But then shouldn't you be slowing down just in case that car pulls out in front of you (going on above example)..

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Daimo

Mainly because its all happened, but experience has taught me that its my responsibility to ensure im going at a speed where things can be avoided.

sorry, but that's a load. the ONLY way you could do that would be to slow to a crawl past every junction that joins the road you're on if a car is waiting to pull out, just in case it does. you can never avoid accidents completely, there will always be times when no matter how good your reactions or planning are you simply cannot prevent something happening.

i'm not saying that this is a carte blanche to ride like an idiot or not take precautions like covering the brake or positioning yourself so you have an escape route, but that if you think that you can avoid having an accident completely you're deluding yourself.

of course we take a risk riding bikes, but surely there is no reason to make the lives of bikers, cyclists and pedestrians even more hazardous than it already is, especially when the rewards for car drivers are so small?

Originally Posted by Daimo

Sidelights
Dipped beam.

Totally different lights, this is what i mean, if you can't see the difference, or have never noticed the difference whilst driving/riding, then im still scared......

Daimo, most of us can tell the difference between dipped and side lights. However we're talking about the average car driver here - you know, the ones who don't see a motorcycle with it's headlight on coming along a clear road at legal speeds in broad daylight...