Lighting Etiquette

[Drewdane]

@dasgeh 99279 wrote:

This fall I’ve found that, in the darkest of places, pedestrians are hard to see, even with bright clothing, unless they have a light or something reflective on. It doesn’t have to be big, but those little reflectors on sneakers aren’t helpful because they sometimes look like something on the ground. So reflective on the main part of your body, please.

I’ve been toying with getting a bunch of inexpensive reflective velcro bands to hand out to ninjas as I head home. Realistically though, I’m cheap, lazy, and too antisocial to slow my roll long enough to talk to people…

[TwoWheelsDC]

@Drewdane 99174 wrote:

Please wear AT LEAST ONE bright and/or reflective item of clothing (I’m sorry to have to tell you the little reflective tabs on the back of your sneakers simply do not suffice). It could be the difference between a cyclist passing you (with proper warning, of course) and a cyclist plowing into you at 20 mph. The trail is no place for ninjas!

Frankly, if you plow into a ninja at 20mph, you are going too fast. This season I’ve been spending much more time walking to/from my school library and with my dog, so my perspective on expectations for pedestrians has changed a bit. Overall, while wearing reflective stuff is nice, I don’t always plan to walk and I’m certainly not going to carry around a bunch of reflective gear all the time…and if I, as a relatively “aware” trail user, don’t do it, your average Joe/Jane pedestrian certainly isn’t. Ultimately, the onus for trail safety falls on the faster users to not hit slower ones (bikes beware of runners and peds, runners beware of peds). So if you can’t see a ninja until it’s too late, you’re going too fast. This is a core principle of motorcycle education (driver education, maybe not so much), that you absolutely should not ride faster than you can see…in other words, ride only at the speed at which you can safely stop once an object enters into your field of vision.

Edit: to be clear, I’m talking more about “normal” peds and not people out specifically for exercise, or about runners who hopefully incorporate lighting and/or reflective gear into their workout gear…but whether or not those folks light up, it’s still on cyclists to ride at speed that allows them to safely avoid both ninjas and non-ninjas alike.

[americancyclo]

to piggyback on dasgeh, when i walk on the trail this time of year, i try to make sure i have a BikeArlington blinky and a reflective strap on a moving part of my body. I’ve found that as a cyclist, if i see movement around the ankle and arm, I can judge pretty well where the ped is.

[mstone]

@TwoWheelsDC 99303 wrote:

Frankly, if you plow into a ninja at 20mph, you are going too fast

Needs more light!

[dasgeh]

@TwoWheelsDC 99303 wrote:

Frankly, if you plow into a ninja at 20mph, you are going too fast. […]
Edit: to be clear, I’m talking more about “normal” peds and not people out specifically for exercise, or about runners who hopefully incorporate lighting and/or reflective gear into their workout gear…but whether or not those folks light up, it’s still on cyclists to ride at speed that allows them to safely avoid both ninjas and non-ninjas alike.

I agree with you when we’re talking about sidewalks or other infrastructure that is the only connection for pedestrians to get from point A to point B. But trails (at least the ones I’m thinking of, mostly in ArlCo) are different: they are transportation arteries for some modes. I think we’ve gotten to the point where they should be recognized and treated as such. And while it’s wonderful that different modes can use them, there needs to be some recognition that if bikes can’t safely go travel at X speed (I’ll throw out 15mph) for the majority of travel, then these trails aren’t working as transportation arteries. If there’s a blind curve where the max safe speed is below the design speed/15mph, it should be clearly marked as such. And users that pose a danger to those traveling at the design speed should be visible, or shouldn’t use the trail (similar to what’s required on roads).

So if you have to run to the store on the way home from the Metro, and forgot anything reflective, fine, take the sidewalks home. If you have to walk the dog and can’t find anything reflective FOR BOTH YOU AND THE DOG, great, sidewalks. If you want to use the trails at night, get something reflective.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 99330 wrote:

I agree with you when we’re talking about sidewalks or other infrastructure that is the only connection for pedestrians to get from point A to point B. But trails (at least the ones I’m thinking of, mostly in ArlCo) are different: they are transportation arteries for some modes. I think we’ve gotten to the point where they should be recognized and treated as such.

That can’t happen until there is mode separation–if there were a bike lane and a jogging lane, it would be reasonable for the bikes to assume a clear ROW in the bike lane. Until then, it’s on the bikes to watch out for pedestrians. I very strongly encourage peds on the trails to be visible (especially since they are often not just on the trail and are just as invisible jogging in the street) but it’s the cyclist’s responsibility to not outrun his light. This is true even from a self-preservation standpoint–most obstructions aren’t marked with reflective tape, and if you run into a ped you’ll just as easily run into a downed branch or other road hazard.

Edit to add: none of this applies to people with invisible dog leashes stretching across the trail in the dark. There’s a specific circle reserved for them in the revised edition of Dante’s Inferno.

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dasgeh 99330 wrote:

I agree with you when we’re talking about sidewalks or other infrastructure that is the only connection for pedestrians to get from point A to point B. But trails (at least the ones I’m thinking of, mostly in ArlCo) are different: they are transportation arteries for some modes. I think we’ve gotten to the point where they should be recognized and treated as such.[/quote]

This sounds suspiciously like what a lot of drivers say about roads…

@dasgeh 99330 wrote:

And while it’s wonderful that different modes can use them, there needs to be some recognition that if bikes can’t safely go travel at X speed (I’ll throw out 15mph) for the majority of travel, then these trails aren’t working as transportation arteries. If there’s a blind curve where the max safe speed is below the design speed/15mph, it should be clearly marked as such. And users that pose a danger to those traveling at the design speed should be visible, or shouldn’t use the trail (similar to what’s required on roads).[/quote]

A couple problems with this. First, it’s incredibly entitled to say “cyclists should be allowed to travel at X speed for the majority of travel” Really? Have you ever ridden the MVT on a nice day? Should all the families and tourists and everyone else be required to get off the trail so bike commuters don’t have to slow down? As frustrating as it is, I realize that all those “slow” people have just as much right to the trail as I do, and the trail is designed with them in mind, not for me to ride on at a fast pace…it just so happens that there are many sections where I can. It’s great that the trails work as transportation arteries, but they weren’t designed for it and cyclists have no basis to claim some sort of priority on them. If you want the trails to be true transportation arteries, we’re going to have to build better trails, not exclude non-transportation users from the trails we have.

Second, pedestrians don’t even necessarily factor into it…there are potholes, wildlife, fallen branches, etc…, that are obstacles on the trail that don’t have reflective gear. So when traveling at night, cyclists should only travel at a speed that allows them to spot these objects in time to avoid a collision. If you want to ride at 15mph, great! Make sure you do it with a light that is appropriately bright. Think of it as an equation that has to be balanced…as speed increases, ability to see must increase. And if you can’t see an object in your path in time to stop safely, you obviously haven’t balanced that equation properly.

So yes, it’s preferable that ALL trail users put on reflective gear, but it is still incumbent on cyclists to ride in such a way that they can avoid any obstacles in their path (suicidal woodland creatures are a different matter, of course).

[Drewdane]

@TwoWheelsDC 99303 wrote:

Frankly, if you plow into a ninja at 20mph, you are going too fast. This season I’ve been spending much more time walking to/from my school library and with my dog, so my perspective on expectations for pedestrians has changed a bit. Overall, while wearing reflective stuff is nice, I don’t always plan to walk and I’m certainly not going to carry around a bunch of reflective gear all the time…and if I, as a relatively “aware” trail user, don’t do it, your average Joe/Jane pedestrian certainly isn’t. Ultimately, the onus for trail safety falls on the faster users to not hit slower ones (bikes beware of runners and peds, runners beware of peds). So if you can’t see a ninja until it’s too late, you’re going too fast. This is a core principle of motorcycle education (driver education, maybe not so much), that you absolutely should not ride faster than you can see…in other words, ride only at the speed at which you can safely stop once an object enters into your field of vision.

Edit: to be clear, I’m talking more about “normal” peds and not people out specifically for exercise, or about runners who hopefully incorporate lighting and/or reflective gear into their workout gear…but whether or not those folks light up, it’s still on cyclists to ride at speed that allows them to safely avoid both ninjas and non-ninjas alike.

I reserve the right to artistic license to make a point. In reality, the only time I even approach 20+ MPH is if I’m going downhill. With a full pannier. After drinking lots of coffee. And snorting meth.

That said, anyone who fails to take responsibility to mitigate known risks of any given activity – such as walking after dark in an area shared with cyclists – maybe doesn’t have much call to complain about Those Hooligan Cyclists Scaring Innocent Law-Abiding Pedestrians.

In my experience, pedestrians can be extremely hard to see after dark without reflective items or lights, even though I ride with a very bright light (and I’m pretty much physically incapable of outrunning the beam).

[dasgeh]

@TwoWheelsDC 99388 wrote:

This sounds suspiciously like what a lot of drivers say about roads…

I pointed this out myself — there are requirements for road users to do things that recognize that cars drive fast. Right now, we have rules for trails, but not legal requirements. It’s not a big leap. And yes, we design roads to allow cars to travel (at varying degrees of) fast, because if all roads required cars to drive 5mph, the roads wouldn’t be useful as transportation arteries. Trails should be transportation arteries for bikes – obviously they weren’t originally designed as such, but many roads weren’t originally designed for cars.

@TwoWheelsDC 99388 wrote:

A couple problems with this. First, it’s incredibly entitled to say “cyclists should be allowed to travel at X speed for the majority of travel” Really? […]

I never said bikes were entitled to travel at a given speed. I said, and I stand by it, that certain trails should be recognized as transportation arteries, and should be designed to allow for appropriate transportation. Yes, to mstone’s point, in some places (e.g. Gravely Point, Rosslyn) this will necessitate mode separation. In other places, rules for the trail are probably enough. Maintenance has to be part of the equation: if there is something like a fallen branch or pothole, it should be removed quickly after it’s been reported (as we do for roads).

And again, this doesn’t entitle anyone to outrun their vision, just as in a car. If there’s a blind curve or if your light isn’t bright enough, slow down.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 99405 wrote:

I never said bikes were entitled to travel at a given speed. I said, and I stand by it, that certain trails should be recognized as transportation arteries, and should be designed to allow for appropriate transportation. Yes, to mstone’s point, in some places (e.g. Gravely Point, Rosslyn) this will necessitate mode separation. In other places, rules for the trail are probably enough. Maintenance has to be part of the equation: if there is something like a fallen branch or pothole, it should be removed quickly after it’s been reported (as we do for roads). [/quote]

Mode separation is going to always be a requirement if you want to weaken pedestrian right of way. You can’t (morally) shift the responsibility onto the more vulnerable mode to save money or make things more convenient for cyclists.

Yes we clear roads when there’s a problem, no we don’t then design car headlights on the assumption that they only need to illuminate reflective surfaces. The purpose of the headlight is to light the way ahead sufficiently to see hazards in enough time to avoid them, full stop.

To large degree I think the nonreflective pedestrian thing is a red herring. My lights are strong enough that I can’t recall ever not being able to see a person. It’s more convenient, and less stressful, if they’re wearing something reflective–as you can see them much further away and have much more time to react–but it shouldn’t be the difference between hitting them or not. (Sometimes I see two tiny reflective shoe tabs dancing in the distance, but I can eventually see the whole person before I’ve actually gotten to them.) Ninja cyclists are a much bigger problem, because you might be looking at a 30+MPH closing speed so the reduced reaction time becomes much more significant.

[JimF22003]

@mstone 99418 wrote:

My lights are strong enough that I can’t recall ever not being able to see a person.

My lights are plenty strong for riding too, but good lord I come up on runners and walkers all the time and just barely see them in time to avoid them. Dark clothing absorbs the light more than the dark pavement does, in my experience. I used to run on the trails in the dark all the time before I was riding much. If I knew then what I know now, I would make myself much, much more visible as a pedestrian.

[Drewdane]

@JimF22003 99454 wrote:

My lights are plenty strong for riding too, but good lord I come up on runners and walkers all the time and just barely see them in time to avoid them. Dark clothing absorbs the light more than the dark pavement does, in my experience.

^^^ This. Emphatically.

[mstone]

@JimF22003 99454 wrote:

My lights are plenty strong for riding too, but good lord I come up on runners and walkers all the time and just barely see them in time to avoid them. Dark clothing absorbs the light more than the dark pavement does, in my experience. I used to run on the trails in the dark all the time before I was riding much. If I knew then what I know now, I would make myself much, much more visible as a pedestrian.

“Just barely” means that you do see them. I whole-heartedly agree that things are better for everybody when everyone is more visible (as a pedestrian, you shouldn’t assume that all cyclists are well behaved/competent and would be advised to take steps to make yourself safer), but this isn’t an impossible situation: a cyclist who is doing the right things can avoid unlit pedestrians, and should have the responsibility for doing so. As evidence of this, note the relatively low occurrence of ninjas being hospitalized on the trails, for all that we hate the practice.

[pfunkallstar]

My feeling is that MIT, or perhaps those maniacal weirdos over at Carnegie Mellon, are secretly testing cloaking-enabled sportswear on Memorial Bridge. Despite the street lights, car lights, and my retina-searing mega light, a young lady came out of freaking nowhere last night doing what appeared to be wind sprints in some suspiciously light-absorbing clothing. My immediate reaction was “holy $hit temporal rift ahoy,” but then I realized that the amorphous, semi-visible blob rapidly approaching me was just an overly aggressive college grad with a penchant for running on the left side into oncoming traffic. MIT may also be testing new mega-boost hormonal therapies that greatly increases aggressiveness in Washington’s type-a gene pool. I don’t know, I’m not a scientitian.

[Author]

Posts