ADUK Archive

I'm still with Ancient on this.

Why don't we all sound our horns continuously as well, like they do while driving in India?

I use three lights on my push bike - one very strong beam, and two others on differing flashing cycles - people often ask me why I have so many - Think I'll just direct them to this thread in the future

while using the three in this fashion I've never got the impression from fellow road users that I haven't been seen - but always assume I haven't been

DRL's on my car go out when the headlights come on - manufacturers reasoning being that they are too bright to be used at night...

Personally I think reflective clothing is more useful to cyclists than lights, when it comes to being seen. As far as seeing where they're going, it appears cyclists no longer care about that, since their lights are mostly aimed straight into motorists' eyes, rather than down at the road ...

I don't ride at night these days. When I did, I was mostly concerned with having a bright rear light. I agree that motorists do seem less adept at spotting cyclists than they used to be, but I don't see how the motorist using less illumination of the road ahead would really help that.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Personally I think reflective clothing is more useful to cyclists than lights, when it comes to being seen. As far as seeing where they're going, it appears cyclists no longer care about that, since their lights are mostly aimed straight into motorists' eyes, rather than down at the road ...

I don't ride at night these days. When I did, I was mostly concerned with having a bright rear light. I agree that motorists do seem less adept at spotting cyclists than they used to be, but I don't see how the motorist using less illumination of the road ahead would really help that.

We want sufficient light for us to see what we need to see, and to ensure that we are seen by others. I agree we don't want less than that, but once we have sufficient lighting, anything extra could be counter-productive in some circumstances. I don't think we should be saying that that can't happen.

Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:Personally I think reflective clothing is more useful to cyclists than lights, when it comes to being seen

There's a chap near me who cycles at night and has figured out that one light is for wimps. He wears about 20 lights. Mostly flashing. Many moving lights on the spokes.

When I first came across him, it wasn't so much a case of being impossible not to see him, but taking evasive cover from what was clearly the aliens landing.

Good for him.

TripleS wrote:We want sufficient light for us to see what we need to see, and to ensure that we are seen by others. I agree we don't want less than that, but once we have sufficient lighting, anything extra could be counter-productive in some circumstances. I don't think we should be saying that that can't happen.

extra lighting can be seen as counter-productive when it is bright enough to dazzle. A car's dipped headlights are under seventh of the brightness required to cause dazzle.

chriskay wrote:

Astraist wrote: A car's dipped headlights are under seventh of the brightness required to cause dazzle.

That's a rather strange blanket statement; where do you get that figure from? It seems to me that there are too many factors involved to be dogmatic.

Agreed.

Vision can be impaired when we face excessive glare, which means we can't readily see beyond the light sources that produce that glare. It might not need to reach the point of actually causing dazzle before it become detrimental.

I understand how using the headlights could produce this effect, but I fail to see how it would be dramatic enough in the presence of streetlights. I would think it could be possible when the road is dark all together, but it's actually at that very time that we cannot turn our headlights off at all.

For instance, on researches that investigated the impact of using lights on the day found that this concern, of lights "masking" other road users, was unjustified. While this isn't quite like using the same light on a dark road with streetlights, it is possible that this effect is not detrimental in the dark, as well. I, for one, don't deem it to be so.

I checked. It isn't a seventh of the power required to dazzle, it's an 8th of the power required to cause inconvenience. This figure has been brought by a local advanced driving school when they complied articles on the use of headlights during the day.

Enjoying the responses folks. 'Sufficient' is the word that resonates with me. We're all doing our best to drive more consciously but I haven't yet heard any mention about the conscious use of lights in IAM or RoADAR training. I'll bring it up with my observer next drive for the benefit of all.

You know what? Perhaps those of us whose cars don't have ignition-linked lights should be more mindful when we are driving (and where) and deliberately not use our lights, with greater consciousness. I just realised that I seldom deselect dipped beam in favour of sidelights even though I have the ability to do so. This is because of the 'auto' option on my light switch that operates via a sensor. It's good because I don't have to repeatedly toggle the lights (take my hand off the wheel) when driving during the day through heavily shaded areas and where dipped beams would give me a marginal advantage... and give oncoming vehicles and road users an advantage.

It just strikes me that some people don't think about such things but prefer to operate from habit alone. 'It's dark, so i'll put my lights on even though there is ample (sufficient) street lighting and conditions don't warrant more light'. I have to say that I do have several local roads in mind when I say this and I realise that this is not a blanket statement. No doubt there'll be some neuropsychological argument which says that something with lights is more easily detectable than something without vis a vis rods and cones, peripheral vs foveal etc but I bet there's another which contradicts it. What I do know is that glare seriously affects me. I always drive with brown lenses and my current pair are fairly knackered, so it's an excuse to look at some polarised browns next time.

Good to see healthy debate here. thanks.

I have never encountered inconveniece caused by a well-aligned, clean dipped beam, nor has any student of mine complained about such inconveniece. I also found no proof in research for such inconvience or masking other road users.

However, we all encountered insufficient street lights, that offer poor view. I always instruct to use the full beam, unless another driver is there to be dazzled, even if there are street-lights. I also instruct to use dipped beams or dedicated DRL's during the day. I understand that the same advice is issued by Don Palmer and the Bespoke group. So to recommend not to use any sort of light at night driving on road with streetlights does not seem right for me..,

Astraist wrote:I have never encountered inconveniece caused by a well-aligned, clean dipped beam, nor has any student of mine complained about such inconveniece. I also found no proof in research for such inconvience or masking other road users.

However, we all encountered insufficient street lights, that offer poor view. I always instruct to use the full beam, unless another driver is there to be dazzled, even if there are street-lights. I also instruct to use dipped beams or dedicated DRL's during the day. I understand that the same advice is issued by Don Palmer and the Bespoke group. So to recommend not to use any sort of light at night driving on road with streetlights does not seem right for me..,

I do the same as you.

So when you're driving and nobody else is about, you use your main beam and then dip them when you see another road user?

This is the sort of info I would like to have been told during my IAM/RoADAR drives, even if none of them have been at night. Thank heavens for you guys and for this forum!

Kimosabe wrote:So when you're driving and nobody else is about, you use your main beam and then dip them when you see another road user?

This is the sort of info I would like to have been told during my IAM/RoADAR drives, even if none of them have been at night. Thank heavens for you guys and for this forum!

I think of main beam as being the "default setting" in poor light. Dipping as required.

Kimosabe wrote:So when you're driving and nobody else is about, you use your main beam and then dip them when you see another road user?

This is the sort of info I would like to have been told during my IAM/RoADAR drives, even if none of them have been at night. Thank heavens for you guys and for this forum!

Exactly what I do. When I instruct students on night driving (a routine I always do with them), using the main beam more effectivelly is actually 90% of the tuition, and it usually brings very good results to all drivers, namely those who complain about bad night vision.

There is much to be learned about using the lights more effectively, like when overtaking or being overtaken, when passing alongside an oncoming vehicle, when taking bends or going through junctions and roundabouts. The main thing is to consider the direction of your lights relative to other road users and whether it can actually dazzle them, as to reconsider whether to dip or not.

Here is just a small taste of a more efficient use of lights.