Photo request - the one showing the bike obscured by the car behind it

No I shouldn't. You've previously said you think anyone using them on a bike is stupid. Today you said:
That was in response to a question about bikes.
Your Austrian 'proof' doesn't show that, does it?

Which is why I do that. I don't think I've ever said "Don't!"

Unfortunately, the 'Lights on' advice usually doesn't include additional advice, does it?

So can I. But brains get 'bored' after just a few seconds, especially if distracted.

Have a look for the Sussex Uni research on junctions and drivers' observations, IIRC it's on the RoSPA site somewhere.

I know I've posted this many times before, but it's worth watching again as a reminder:
Motion Induced Blindness

Don't forget, you've been trained to a far higher level than most, things like that just won't occur to many people.

How far ahead do most drivers plan on Motorways, for instance?

---

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

I'll say it again, just for you. USING HEADLIGHTS IN DAYLIGHT IS STUPID.
It was in response to someone who thought that they have been 'told to turn them off' if followed by a vehicle with headlights on. I don't see that anyone had written that. Do you?
You don't think that the Austrian government repealing their law after the significant (and predicted) rise in deaths and serious injuries for motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians from everyone using headlights in daytime doesn't show that using them makes things worse? Really?

Whatever.

Just in case you're in any doubt, I think that dogmatic, inflexible position is pretty stupid. Not as stupid as 'You'll be seen if you've got your lights on', but I don't see anyone claiming that.
Still, at least you're acknowledging it now.
If I knew what your point was...
Which bit of are you having difficulty in understanding?
Brilliant.

AFAI can tell, the point was that another poster seemed to assume that, having seen the 4x4/bike pic, the suggestion being made was to turn lights off to be visible against a background of a lit vehicle.

A suggestion which no-one, AFAIK, has ever made.

---

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Ironically of course - I've been in the situation where the bright dipped beams of a car actually HID the car in front of him.

Approaching a crest in the road with a white sky behind it - as the car in front crested the top of the rise, the bright dips of the car behind it shone UNDERNEATH the first car, very effectively hiding it against the white sky.

If I'd been less experienced and had done a single glance in my mirror as the first car approached the crest, then looked up ahead before doing an overtake I'd have assumed the crest was clear and maybe had a head on with the first car - or a scare at the very least.

As it happened I DID look in my mirror as the first car came up to the crest, so I DIDN'T see the first car, due to the bright lights behind him, and it was only because "something" didn't add up that I paused, and the first car was revealed as it dropped from the crest and revealed itself.

---

non quod, sed quomodo

Yea know the Sussex uni research, used it in a Fatal, car pulls out in front of bike.
I use the, Cricket pitch distance, as distance most drivers will be looking ahead, not just on motorways though. One of the reasons I tell people, if you are outside that distance others at a junction may never see you.

I know, however you don't need the patient mode for me thanks.

I got that, just didn't see the relevance. I quoted that poster just to show that voyager seemed to be talking about bikes, and how stupid anyone who ever turns their lights on in daylight is.

That bit exactly. DRL's are still bad practice even if only one set of road users thinks they should have a monopoly over using them. It is inevitable that if the simple continue to rabbit on about it being 'obvious that I'm seen' other, not very bright, road users will want to do the same. Especially if it is 'obvious'.

Anyone without the visual acuity to see a motorcycle (or bus) in broad daylight without them having headlights on has no right to be out without a white stick.

Similar circs. I've seen a bike hidden like that.

Reasonable sized bike, came over a crest, followed by a car.

Bike was mid-lane w/o a headlamp, and had the cars dips shining down the hill towards me. Wet road, additional reflection/glare too.

TBH, it was wet, gloomy, steady rain, and he prob. ought to have had his headlight on. Mind you, it was about mid-day in late July . . . (my 'summer' holidays in Cornwall have a theme . . . )

However, I think it's a situation which will occur more often as more vehicles have DRL.

---

Argue with me: http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

Just one of your usual (and seemingly intentional) 'misinterpretations' then.

It's possible that if manufacturers fit properly designed DRLs (ie NOT simply giving the driver no option to turn off a light which is actually designed for the very different job of illuminating the road ahead whilst not shining in drivers eyes), it may actually help in these circs because you wouldn't get the glare / dazzle that a couple of powerful lights momentarily directed straight into your eyes can cause.

---

Sponsor Page Blog Website Courses booking now for 2010 Riding Tips Shop
Follow me on Twitter NEW - online e-course
The dull copyright bit - feel free to nick it for personal use. If you want to reprint it for your club, I'd like a mention as author. Otherwise hands-off. Full terms
"Force has no place where there is need of skill" Herodotus 450BC

No.
Where's the misinterpretation?

Or have you we reached the 'personal' stage already?

According to who?
Manufacturers?
Road Safety Organisations?
The Highway Code?
The gummint?

You?


No apostrophe btw.