Not A Safe Week To Ride

[dplasters]

@mstone 123487 wrote:

And make sure there are reflectors on your pedals–those things scream “a bike is here”.

Presumably, the individual in this scenario had such pedals.

I go:

• Reflective Backpack
• Reflective Shoes
• Green/Yellow Blinkie on the Backpack
• BIG Red Solid or Blinking on the seat post
• Bright front light
• I own most of Wiggle’s dhb Flashlight apparel line

I think having some color in your lights (not just red and white) help in saying “I’m not a car. I am odd and stick out. Pay attention to me”

*edit – I also have reflective stickers hidden all over my helmet… I’m trying to think of all the places I’ve added random reflective things. Having said that, twilight is a tough time. Some people aren’t using their lights and the power of reflective gear is limited depending on the ambient lighting.

[Tania]

@Lt. Dan 123440 wrote:

WHY WHY WHY did they not have lights or safety gear?!?!?!

Lots of reasons. The victim was identified today as only being here for the summer to work to support his family back in Jamaica. Maybe he didn’t have access to a car and relied solely on his bike for transportation to/from the pool where he worked as a lifeguard, maybe he didn’t normally work late and never needed lights in summer, maybe his lights failed, maybe he had lights but left them at home in his bag with his lunch, etc. In hindsight, none of these are good excuses. Hopefully the rest of us can learn from his family’s loss and work harder to make ourselves that much more visible. Like someone else pointed out, twilight is a dangerous time for bikers and pedestrians.

[MFC]

I recently bought a second bike and am in the market for headlight for riding along the MVT at night – so I want a “to see with” light, and not just a “to be seen with” light. I’ve heard conflicting information on how much credence I should give to the claimed lumens rating – for example, a 650 lumen Cygolite may be about $80 or more, but there are lights with a higher claimed lumen rating for a lot less on Amazon. I also need to consider factors such as beam width, battery life (and not blinding oncoming cyclists).

[Tania]

@MFC 123497 wrote:

I recently bought a second bike and am in the market for headlight for riding along the MVT at night – so I want a “to see with” light, and not just a “to be seen with” light. I’ve heard conflicting information on how much credence I should give to the claimed lumens rating – for example, a 650 lumen Cygolite may be about $80 or more, but there are lights with a higher claimed lumen rating for a lot less on Amazon. I also need to consider factors such as beam width, battery life (and not blinding oncoming cyclists).

Lights 2015 thread

[jabberwocky]

@Crickey7 123483 wrote:

I think people overestimate how visible they really are.

This, basically. Its good to actually have someone check your visibility when you first start riding at night. How good is that light/reflective stuff actually in practice? I think people also don’t consider that a light that looks ok in pitch blackness may not work as well on actual roads, which have variable lighting conditions and lots of visual clutter (oncoming cars, streetlights, reflective/illuminated signs, adjacent light sources like stores, etc).

As for the original article, I certainly winced when I read it. No lights, and after 8 is after dark.

[mstone]

@dplasters 123489 wrote:

Presumably, the individual in this scenario had such pedals.

I’m not sure which scenario you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the fatality in Herndon, I’d suspect that if he did have reflectors it was unfortunately not dark enough for them to be useful; twilight is when lights are especially necessary because the reflected light doesn’t have as much pop. (Aside from any questions about how much the driver was paying attention.) If you’re talking about the general case, I’d say that most clipless pedals and a good number of aftermarket pedals generally lack reflectors–which is a shame given how visible they are.

[TwoWheelsDC]

The lights/reflectors argument in this particular case seems like a distraction. The cyclist was hit from behind, while in the right lane of a three lane road that is lit. I’m sorry, but if you don’t see an unlit/unreflectored cyclist on a wide open road with street lights, you either aren’t paying attention or need to have your eyes checked. If you can’t see a cyclist in such conditions, how the f*&k are you going to see any other type of obstacle in the road at night? I can’t count how many times I’ve been driving at night and there have been deer standing in the road, but because I wasn’t overdriving my headlights, I was able to stop in time to avoid them.

[Subby]

@Rod Smith 123442 wrote:

Lance started riding to be like me.

He failed. Miserably.

[mstone]

@TwoWheelsDC 123507 wrote:

The lights/reflectors argument in this particular case seems like a distraction. The cyclist was hit from behind, while in the right lane of a three lane road that is lit. I’m sorry, but if you don’t see an unlit/unreflectored cyclist on a wide open road with street lights, you either aren’t paying attention or need to have your eyes checked. If you can’t see a cyclist in such conditions, how the f*&k are you going to see any other type of obstacle in the road at night? I can’t count how many times I’ve been driving at night and there have been deer standing in the road, but because I wasn’t overdriving my headlights, I was able to stop in time to avoid them.

There are two things being discussed:

1) what should the driver do

2) what should the cyclist do

Yes, drivers should drive in a manner that would prevent them from hitting objects in the road. Go to any jersey wall or road-side bollard in the US and you’ll probably find scrape marks: drivers seem to be pretty much unable to avoid STATIONARY CONCRETE OBJECTS. Sure it would be good to change that, but it is what it is.

We mostly don’t care if drivers hit stationary concrete objects, but we really do care if they hit us. So at the same time that we hold the opinion that drivers should drive better, we can also hold the opinion that cyclists should be very visible to decrease the chance that some idiot with a car will run into us. Talking about how to best accomplish that in no way changes the belief that drivers should drive better, it simply acknowledges the reality that they don’t.

All that said, it’s also true that some ninja cyclists really are riding dangerously unlit. The reality is that at legal speeds, it’s pretty hard to avoid hitting an unlit obstacle in the street: that’s why the DOT spends enormous amounts of money putting reflectors on everything and making sure that there are no hazards in the roadway. At some point, on a fast enough road, an unlit cyclist really is creating an unusual hazard which may not be avoidable by a reasonable driver. On a road like sunrise valley (at night, not sure about 8pm) the speed limit is below the point of no avoidance, but the prevailing speed may not be.

[jabberwocky]

@TwoWheelsDC 123507 wrote:

The lights/reflectors argument in this particular case seems like a distraction. The cyclist was hit from behind, while in the right lane of a three lane road that is lit. I’m sorry, but if you don’t see an unlit/unreflectored cyclist on a wide open road with street lights, you either aren’t paying attention or need to have your eyes checked. If you can’t see a cyclist in such conditions, how the f*&k are you going to see any other type of obstacle in the road at night? I can’t count how many times I’ve been driving at night and there have been deer standing in the road, but because I wasn’t overdriving my headlights, I was able to stop in time to avoid them.

Its worth noting that the section they cite is on a right hand curve, which is the worst combination for poor lighting and cyclists, because the car headlights wouldn’t be illuminating the right edge of the road very well.

As far as I can tell, speed limit in that area is 40mph. Which means traffic is realistically going 40-50mph.

Maybe the lights/reflectors discussion is a distraction, but I know I would in no way be comfortable riding on a 3 lane road with 40mph traffic after dark sans lights, no matter how well lit it is. Streetlights aren’t as useful as people think; I’ve still had trouble seeing runners and cyclists after dark even where streetlights exist (especially if they are wearing dark clothes), and I’m someone who scans crosswalks at turns and looks specifically for cyclists when I’m in a car. It comes back to visual clutter; variable lighting can actually make it hard to notice stuff than it being continually dark.

It comes back to what Crickey7 said earlier: people simply tend to overestimate how visible they are.

[Anonymous]

And a pedestrian killed in a hit and run in Alexandria today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/09/03/fatal-traffic-crash-in-alexandria-closes-some-roads/

[Tim Kelley]

@Amalitza 123519 wrote:

And a pedestrian killed in a hit and run in Alexandria today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/09/03/fatal-traffic-crash-in-alexandria-closes-some-roads/

So sad.

Another article offending http://crashnotaccident.com/. They get it right in the body, but mess up the headline.

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 123514 wrote:

Streetlights aren’t as useful as people think; I’ve still had trouble seeing runners and cyclists after dark even where streetlights exist (especially if they are wearing dark clothes), and I’m someone who scans crosswalks at turns and looks specifically for cyclists when I’m in a car. It comes back to visual clutter; variable lighting can actually make it hard to notice stuff than it being continually dark.

Yes, this; the streetlights kill your night vision and can make it really hard to see things that aren’t directly under the streetlight.

[cvcalhoun]

@MFC 123497 wrote:

I recently bought a second bike and am in the market for headlight for riding along the MVT at night – so I want a “to see with” light, and not just a “to be seen with” light. I’ve heard conflicting information on how much credence I should give to the claimed lumens rating – for example, a 650 lumen Cygolite may be about $80 or more, but there are lights with a higher claimed lumen rating for a lot less on Amazon. I also need to consider factors such as beam width, battery life (and not blinding oncoming cyclists).

There are actually two factors that go into cost: lumens and run time. You can find brighter lights than the Cygolite for less money. But you also need to look at how long they will run before the battery needs recharging. One of the things I like about my Cygolite is that it will run for 3 hours on high. And if the ride is going to be longer than that, I can use a lower setting, and prolong the battery life that way. I’ve actually found I can ride on the CCT using the lowest setting, which will enable it to run for 16 hours before needing a recharge.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 123512 wrote:

There are two things being discussed:

1) what should the driver do

2) what should the cyclist do

What we’re missing is what the engineers should do. I don’t know this road at all – did it have street lamps (the kind that illuminate all of the street but not so brightly as to make everything else invisible)? Did it have a side path/sidewalk? Was it designed in a way to keep cars at the speed limit? Or was it dark or spottily lit? Was the asphalt the only way to get from one place to another? Was it built with wide lanes, a median, sweeping curves to encourage people driving cars to drive fast?

A man died. He would not have died had the driver avoided the collision. He may not have died if he had been wearing more reflective gear or had lights. He probably would not have died if he had a separated, safe place to ride that got him where he needed to go.

[Author]

Posts