Daytime Bike Lights

This article appeared in Road.cc yesterday with a large variety of comments underneath, precisely why they write in this thought provoking manner!


So, should riders have a rear light on all the time? It would seem like a sensible idea, another bit of added safety measure, what's not to like?

I notice a lot of people answering "yes" in the comments section. And a number repeating anecdotal events "proving" it works. Or even go into bold and largely unproven statements. A number of these comments also give a clue as to the riders normal riding experience. It would look like a large number are hardcore road riders, likely to have a good road bike, wear lycra, use helmets, and buy in to all the gadgets you can get for the bike. That's their hobby, the part of their life on which they'll spend money.

What about the ordinary rider, one just going to work or school every weekday morning? One simply using a bike as their transport. Someone who's not likely to want extra stuff for their "precious machine". It's not their hobby, just a way of getting around. Their bike is subsumed into their overall style, not the other way round.

So, my thoughts....

There are two types of "compulsion" that have similar levels of effect, of trumping out any evidence-based decision making. Legal mechanisms is the obvious one, but also emotional blackmail is another less obvious and more insipid form. "Just do it", "think of your children", "it's for safety's sake" are all used in these arguments in a neat way of avoiding any real information about the effects of whatever it is being suggested. This additional "safety tip" fits into the latter.

The issue of the slippery slope, in this country in particular, is that we makes safety the responsibility of the victim and not the one responsible for creating the danger.

On QI, Jeremy Clarkson, no less, said the best road safety device was to remove all seatbelts and put a big spike in the middle of the car steering wheel. That way the driver would be so concerned about their own safety they'd never impinge upon anyone else's outside.

The same piece pointed out that whilst seatbelts made a great safety improvement on people in cars, it had a detrimental effect on those not in cars. More people were KSIed outside of cars as average speeds went up as it had less effect on those causing the higher speeds.

We keep lessening the risks for those responsible for creating the danger, not those facing it. And this has been happening on the roads for as long as they've been around, with each time it happens it goes though a process.

• Initial proposal. Proponents, sometimes with a benefit to gain (like Trek/Bontrager here), suggest a new thing. Some people see it as removing responsibility from the risk giver and challenge the safety aspect.
• Those with budgets (and something to gain) keep pushing it, and it gains traction against those who've nothing but their sense of the importance of "responsibility".
• Institutions take on the new idea and run with it. Eventually it ends up being legally or emotionally supported.
• Some years or decades later it's taken as read that the idea is an important part of safety, not to be ignored or challenged.

To illustrate this, how about the need for lights on bikes at night. This is a legal requirement and you'll find very few people across the whole cycle advocate spectrum that'll disagree with it.

However, when bike lights were first proposed, many riders opposed it. They had a simple reason: it was the responsibility of the driver to see where they were going and ensure that they were not going to drive into anybody or anything. They suggested it was the drivers responsibility to drive safely.

Then it was taken through the above stages. Now, no-one would fight it.

We do have a number of people ride around without lights in Cambridge. Whilst I'd never join them, when I drive at night, especially at 20mph, I do notice that if I'm paying attention to what I'm doing, then I do see them.

One of the biggest ironic statements from those with anti-cycle sentiments is:

• "Look at that bloody cyclist, no bloody lights, they'll never be seen."

Compulsory Helmet Laws and Current Safety Measures Shown Up

A study done in Australia a little after the compulsory helmet laws were brought in (early 1990s) shows the hypocrisy and failure to follow evidence. The text abstract is here, but it is a little unwieldy. I've tried to punctuate it into bullet points below, whilst maintaining the full text.

• The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. 
• However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. 
• In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. 
• These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. 
• The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. 
• Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.

My analysis of this is as follows.

1. Helmets do very little to protect cyclists in car-bike collisions.
2. Reducing head injuries is better done by dealing with misbehaving motorists.
3. Helmets would do an enormous amount more to protect car occupants. Where is the cry to have them wear helmets?

Of course that last point is simply meant as a jibe and not to be taken seriously. From other studies it is known that the more that car drivers (and occupants) are coddled up and protected from the violent disturbance their vehicle is causing outside, the more danger they cause to others. Risk Displacement describes this well.

Talking of other studies, we have Dr Ian Walker's study showing that wearing a helmet increases the danger to cyclists as motorists give less space. And the simple fact that helmets are designed for impacts of 12mph and less, equivalent to a fall off a bike, shows that all this bluster about helmets is a complete distraction from safety on the road.

If the same money used to perpertuate (and police in some places) the myth that helmets help in bike-car collisions was spent on measures that might make a difference, we may have a lot more lifes saved than we do currently. Essentially this focus is costing lifes.

This is also a message for Red Light Jumping policing. Not that I favour jumping red lights, but it such an insignificant factor in safety for cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians as to be another waste of time and money. Why are we spending time and effort on dealing with cyclist-fault collisions (around 7% of all bike-car collisions) whilst generally ignoring the 13 times as many driver-fault collisions? And even looking at pedestrians put at risk by cyclists or drivers, evidence (follow links here) shows that they are 40 times more likely to be hurt by a car than a bike. Again, if the same money was spent on measures that might make a difference, we may have a lot more lifes saved than we do currently. Essentially, again, this focus is costing lifes.

So, in summary, the kneejerk response to helmets and policing we are currently doing is costing lifes. All in a desire to be perceived as making the street "fair for all" whilst perpetuating the inequality of it.