The Velodrome

12:41 AM

Some do, yes, but they aren't required. Reflectors are surprising when they are not within the light source then suddenly are. Like when a bike passes perpendicular to a car or when a bicycle is missing a rear reflector, but a car finally gets enough angle to hit the wheel reflectors.

My point is they are a passive device and leaving your safety to them is not actually safe.

Criggie

1:41 AM

Yeah - noone's saying "reflectors are all you need"

Anyway - safety checks do NOTHING.

I had my bike in for a check and they missed a broken spoke and two cracks in the rear rim

Criggie

2:00 AM

I think that rim is dead

Criggie

5:07 AM

To clarify, that's two different spoke holes, not both sides of one hole.

RoboKaren

6:24 AM

Nothing that a little duct tape can't fix.

Criggie

9:09 AM

nah - new rim is the only answer. I can't find a new 7 speed rear wheel, and even trademe has none listed. 9/10/11 speed is all I can find.

gschenk

Perpendicular is where visibility is the most important, as most accidents happen when vehicles are turning. Here lights hardly help as they either point forward or back.

Reflectors help not at all in the most deadly scenario though.

Lorries turning right (fur drive on right) with a cyclist beside them.

Bike mounted lights are also unlikely to help though, as they would either have to shine into a mirror, or be so (unrealistically) strong that their scattered light outshine the indicator lights and they would need to flash to become noticeable at all.

Don't forget, bike lights must be cheap, robust, low maintenance to be used at all.

When you base your discussion on a 100 quid light system you might have, it has no relevance to road safety stats as only some bike nerds are going to buy that.

Criggie

9:37 AM

reflectors are idiot proof - your average rider needs do nothing, and they have zero running cost. Reflectors are a good idea ALONG WITH lights. Part of a complete visibility breakfast, if you like.

gschenk

10:26 AM

Reflectors also have no awful cables that fall out of the dynamo or batteris that aren't charged. I should guess that only about half the bikes here in a village have working lights, in cities about 1/4. Interestingly similar in Toronto and Munich. In the former most don't have lights at all, in the latter most have broken lights.

Don't forget most people ride either very old bikes, or BSOs, or even very old BSOs (yes those do exist).

Criggie

hence "both" reflectors and front/rear lights.

Suspended User

1:52 PM

New rim is not the only answer....I had a fatbike rim that cracked similarly. BUt since it was the early days and like an $800 wheel at the time that had taken me hours to make (drilled the rim myslef, paint, build, winterization, etc.) I had a friend who drilled the cracks and welded a plate to the back of the cracked hole. It lasted until I got a new fatbike with different spacing and sold the wheel.

Although maybe looking at the first crack, that might not work, the first one is a nasty looking lil bugger.

@gschenk Lights work in the most deadly scenario the same way car headlights do. You may not see the vehicle itself, or be hit by the lights on it, but you see the light being produced by the headlights. You see a patch of light in front of you and your brain fills in that a lighted vehicle is approaching.

As to cost, that's the responsibility part. If you can't afford a proper lighting setup, walk, take public transportation, or don't ride at night.

"bike nerds" as you call us are taking the proper steps that should be mandated by law, as they are for vehicles.

RoboKaren

6:46 PM

My answer to the reflectors or lights debate is: BOTH. No reason not to be the shiniest object in the nightscape.

Suspended User

7:09 PM

True.

gschenk

7:33 PM

I don't think that any expensive lighting solution ought to be mandated by law. Most bikes cost less than $200. A very large share of bikes are used and cost far less than $50. A $25 lighting solution already amounts to half the cost of these bikes.

Anything that keeps people from cycling, for marginal safety gains in this case, will cause more harm than it does good.

As it is cycling accidents are rare, and it is a fairly safe mode of transport, despite only a extremely small minority of cyclists use hi-viz vests, strong lights. The vast majority of cyclists in twilight and darkness have no lights whatsoever, some reflectors on clothing and what's left on the bike.

Most of the deadly accidents are caused in situations where neither lights or reflectors would have helped. (Turning accidents with heavy vehicles.)

One has to be careful not to get into situations where entirely acceptable behaviour, like cycling without a helmet, weak lights, or just walking over the street in plain, dark cloths gets frowned upon or even incriminated.

Suspended User

Cycling is not a safe mode of transport. Cyclists make up like 1% of all traffic trips in the US, but account for like 2% of fatalities. Cost of bicycles is an excuse. Your mindset perpetuates the irresponsible bicyclist mythos. Paying $200 for a bike (or getting a used one free) should not mean you are now allowed to use public roads at night with no lights.

It is possible to buy a very cheap car as well, but that doesn't mean it's legal to operate it without safety equipment. Bicycles should be no different, however, since they are treated different (by the law), they will continue to be marginalized.

Batman

^

Suspended User

Motorists may demand safer conditions and improvements because they themselves have minimum standards to maintain. Until cyclists have their responsibilities forced on them, they will continue to not be taken seriously.

Batman

and even so, you don't need 25 dollar lights. in a lot of cases, you just need a light. A cheap to be seen light is about 5 dollars at the co-op here

gschenk

Car safety regulation in that regard is mostly to protect others from the car, that is not a major requirement for cycles, and none for pedestrians.

There's no worry whatsoever when a drunk cycles slowly home from the pub, as causing injury to a third party is extremely unlikely.

Suspended User

7:45 PM

Yes. And cost isn't even an issue for many of the worst offenders. I got into a verbal exchange one day with a physician who was riding a $2K 29'r to work in the arctic morning dark and was running traffic controls with no lights.

gschenk

I hear always from US activist, 'cyclists must be taken serious', are 'vehicles of their own right' and so on. Who cares? That certainly doesn't lead anywhere. Cycling may be a mode of transport very similar to walking and sometimes more similar to small motorised vehicles.

If you want to regulate the latter, much less relevant aspect, you must be careful not to damage the former, much more important mode.

Just compare the numbers of sportive bike commuters with those doing it casually. You'll likely get some 1 in 10k.

Suspended User

Cyclists have the potential to cause just as much damage (indirectly) as a car.

gschenk

Restricting this to rich countries, maybe 1 in some hundred.

So does a cat. (referring to indirect damage potential)

Suspended User

And worse, because when you swerve to avoid some drunken a-hole on a bike and total your vehicle, your insurance is up for it and the cyclist again walks away with no financial responsibility.

gschenk

That would be the ideal.

Suspended User

7:50 PM

I've run over a few cats.

Because I don't swerve for animals

gschenk

When deciding to use a car, you accept the increased responsiblility to injure third parties.

Suspended User

because it's not my problem and there are no repercussions

if I could do the same for irresponsible humans, the situation would be fine

gschenk

Thus share the burden for damage indirectly caused through mistakes of third parties.

If you were not there, in your car, there would not have been an accident.

Suspended User

but if I run over a drunk cyclist on the way home from the pub in the road, that's not the case

I am expected to endanger my own safety for their irresponsibility

which is why for all intents and purposes cyclists are killed here so frequently and no one cares

gschenk

Motor vehicle operators must also ensure the safety of others who make mistakes, are irresponsible, or simply coincidences. If an accident happens, it just means you were probably too fast.

Suspended User

7:53 PM

because thats a better outcome than a responsible driver getting hurt

gschenk

That sounds a bit like hogwash, sorry to say so. No one in their right mind will think in a split second: "rather run that cyclist over, to reduce my financial damages"

Suspended User

that's my point

gschenk

Then I misunderstood you, shall read again.

Batman

@gschenk - well, china or russia or whatever.

gschenk

You are to keep at least two metres from any cyclist. If they fall or swerve because they are drunk or because they are simply unskilled, startled, running into a pothole does not matter.

Suspended User

7:56 PM

when a driver kills a cyclist the default assumption is that a responsible driver attempted to avoid a cyclist, but since cyclists have no real responsibilites they get to shoulder the blame

gschenk

Sure worldwide, what else would we be talking about?

Suspended User

interesting debate, but gots to go, catch y'all later

gschenk

Just have a look at the bike racks before schools, companies, train stations.

Just a reminder, EU alone has about twice the population of the US.

Of course, the requirements in Alaska are entirely different from a European city.

But looking at US cities, we should love to see pictures like that, shouldn't we? That means supporting cycling at the pedestrian end (pun intended). Any $1 for legal requirements is a barrier. Any exaggeration of the risk of cycling too.

Lastly, one thing i read from @SuspendedUser arguments is, that drivers of cars are surprised or not accustomed to cyclists. I also know that there is some kind of peculiar anti-cyclist road rage in North America. If both were a significant contributors to cycling accidents, and I expect so, getting more cyclists on the streets would be the best thing to reduce the risk.

(I really didn't like cycling in Toronto. Mostly for those few arseholes who seemed eager to run me over. Getting too close on purpose. One did so five or six times, after every time I overtook his truck at a speed bump, he chased me and tried to push me into the door zone.)

(Yet, the most insecure I felt because of the activists riding with whistles and hi-viz, or those posting 'drivers are killers' stickers, or, sadly, those placing ghost bikes. While the latter is an understandable touch, increasing awareness about cyclist vulnerability changes little for the better when it comes to street safety, but much when it comes to getting more people on bikes.)

Criggie

8:11 PM

@gschenk you said "despite only a extremely small minority of cyclists use hi-viz vests, strong lights" Here helmets and lights are mandated by law, so everyone uses them. Sounds like you live in a legal location that permits feral cycling.

gschenk

Lights and reflectors are mandated by law. Fortunately helmets are not.

However, hardly any bike has working lights. Its nearly impossible to enforce.

Criggie

then your city's infrastructure is failing.

gschenk

From time to time police is fining cyclists, mostly in autumn to increase awareness. Overall the expectation value of a fine is orders of magnitudes lower than the cost of fixing lights. (Especially, with those pesky side-runner dynamo wire clamps.)

Criggie

A $5 blinky makes you legal.

okay - two of them

gschenk

Not here, very specific specs.

A red reflector at the end of the mud guard or dropout, one at the rear rack or seat post. Light either at either of these positions. Retroreflectors on both sides of the pedals, two reflectors at the spokes each, one forward light and a large reflector. Not more than two lights. No blinkies. Battery lights only permitted since a few years.

The thing is, if you get caught, its a nasty fine, I think 20 or 30 euros now.

But how likely is getting caught? Perhaps in a 'blitz' in a city they have 15 police out. How many streets are there? Thousands? If you see they get one, you just whiz past.

Getting awareness and persuading people to get any form of light is much much more effective. Takes a few people to put leaflets at parked bikes, get someone in front of the clubs who are nice about it.

I've seen Chinese traffic guards and police trying cyclists from crossing a major intersection at red light. Three lads on either side couldn't hold them back. Very major traffic infraction, high risk situation, lots of authority. Why is it comparable? If it is accepted crowd behaviour it is nearly impossible to change its course by law and enforcement.

freiheit

8:54 PM

@gschenk I was trying to decide if that's more or less than required here and mostly realized: it's just a long list when you spell it all out.

IIRC, the requirement here in California is:
1. a front-facing white light (I think technically only required while bicycle is in motion)
2. a rear red reflector (recently changed to allow a solid or blinking red light instead of reflector; not sure if legally required to stay lit when stopped)
3. white or yellow reflectors forward and back on each pedal; or shoe or ankle.
4. white or yellow reflector on each wheel (reflective sidewall counts)
Any of those can be an "area" like retroreflective stickers. Helmets only legally required for under 18. Can be way more lights or reflectors if you …

gschenk

10:33 PM

@freiheit that is very similar indeed. There are a couple of specifics and caveats to that list.

Are those rules in general enforced and obeyed?

freiheit

Most of my bicycling is in ... hmmm... 4 jurisdictions, and there's no real enforcement consistency between them...

gschenk

I'm going to ignore all those reflector requirements and use reflective tape instead.

Did you see or hear of anyone having trouble with that?

freiheit

In california reflective tape is legally a reflector.

At least, that's what I recall reading... can't find it now in quick googlings

Basically the requirement is retroreflective and visible from some specific distance

gschenk

freiheit

The city I live in regularly does these special enforcement operations for bicycle or bicycle+pedestrian things, but I don't recall seeing lights or reflectors mentioned...

gschenk

10:39 PM

officially it has to bee one of these. they are as wide as a typical bike rear rack.

but i'd get through 99% of police checks with well placed reflective tape. (Not that I'd expect to get into any).

freiheit

I've never heard of anybody that was reasonably visible being harassed. In fact, I've heard that most of the local jurisdictions will give a pass to a group where the individual bicycles aren't necessarily adequately lit, as long as the front bike has a front light and the rear bike has a rear light.

Honestly, from what I see, there's:
1. Ridiculously well-lit up people (me on highway)
2. Legally adequately lit up people.
3. People with no lights and wrong reflectors riding the wrong way at night.

gschenk

I remember a local policeman waiting in front of the train station's bike rack in my village. I was a teenager back then. Friendly reminding everyone about insufficient lights.

freiheit

That last category is mostly homeless people, day laborers and/or people that look really drunk/high.

The cops do sometimes pull over the drunk people riding the wrong way at night with no light and inadequate reflectors, but I have no idea if they bother including lights/reflectors on the list of citations.

gschenk

Actually there is regulation for doing this group thing when lights break during a ride. Those side-runner dynamo lights were so incredibly flimsy.

freiheit

"side-runner dynamo" meaning one of those terrible generators that presses into the tire?

gschenk

10:45 PM

yes, not certain about the term.

freiheit

I think I only knew one person that had that...

gschenk

picked it up here on SE.

Until recently there wasn't a discussion about drunk cycling. It changed only recently because of the large hordes of drunk getting home from clubs in Berlin.

freiheit

I know a few people with a generator in the hub, and some people (including me) have something like these: reelight.com/en/products/sl100

gschenk

Which are not very dangerous, but might be annoying to some. But since that's in summer light is usually not an issue as sun rises so early.

freiheit

Honestly I don't think they go after drunk cycling too hard here.. It is illegal, but I believe with less penalties than drunk driving... Probably included if they do something else to get pulled over, though.

gschenk

10:49 PM

Cheers! Thats a very smart idea indeed!

The consensus here is, if for ten drunk cyclists they can get one drunk driver from a car, its worth it.

Police here made bike home after beer fest campaigns (unofficially, local level).

here means ~rural~ semi-urban Bavaria.

I really like the reelight. And it is really not street legal here (no blinking light on bikes, not more than one of each red and white lights).

the bike in the photo has "bolt and nut" axles, does it fit with QR and through axles?

freiheit

11:04 PM

I have the reelight on a bike with QR.

I don't know about through axles.

Look at their other options. They have some where the light and pickup are separate with a conventional light mount of some kind (varies) and the pickup mounts on the seat stay or fork.

Though, even the axle mounted ones do have a steady light option. Just that the blinking option is cheapest (literally just lights up as the magnet passes by it)

gschenk

The other would be less bright I suppose, likely uses simply a capacitor to level the input voltage.

It is quite elegant to mount it at the dropouts.

It is attached to your drop out, through its adaptor nut?

Criggie

@gschenk Depends on your location. My road bike only has reflective tape, but its painted as red as the tape so it does not stand out at all.

Curiously... this is the "factsheet" for the law in NZ

Compulsory equipment

A red or yellow rear reflector that is visible from a distance of 100 metres when light shines on it.
Good brakes on the front and back wheels (or, if the cycle was made before 1 January 1988, a good brake on the back wheel).

-------------------------
When cycling at night or when visibility is poor, cycles must have the following:

One or more steady or flashing rear-facing red lights that can be seen at night from a distance of 100 metres.

gschenk

I've just ordered red, yellow and white reflective tape from China.

Criggie

So you're required to have a rear reflector even in the day time, and two good brakes.

I'm not limited in the number of rear lights, but I can only have two front lights? I choose to ignore that.

gschenk

Those are good regulations, defining requirements, not specs. German lawmakers debated it, but decided against it, as the Police wouldn't be able to judge during the day if the equipment is up to the recs.

Criggie

11:17 PM

"good brakes" is ambiguous though

gschenk

Don't take two front lights that are distinct and side-by-side.

Criggie

I thought my road bike brakes were good enough, but changing out the inner cable made a world of difference.

gschenk

These can be considered as distant car head lights.

Criggie

I generally have three or four (five if you count the bottle light as two because it has two lamps in one housing)

gschenk

Leads to misjudging distance and type of vehicle. Caused some motorbike deaths in the 80s

Criggie

11:18 PM

Interesting point. Yeah I can see that happening

gschenk

ambiguous in regulation is good.

Leave it to judges to decide when needed.

Anticipating every conceivable case and writing regulation to it is a German vice. It causes much grief in the EU.

Criggie

maybe. Ambiguity in my insurance policy has cost me a lot of money, so I'm more for nailing things down

No corporation will do the "right thing" if there's a cheaper solution for them.

gschenk

Contracts are different matter. My guess, the ambiguity was only there to cost you a lot of money. However, thats a good point, the German approach ought to provide reliable regulation from the beginning. While the common law approach usually works that ought through precedent. Price question: Whereto go companies to make contracts when they really matter: Hamburg or London?

freiheit

11:54 PM

I'm from the US, so I think that the answer to that is Delaware and eastern Texas.

Transcript for