There's plenty of credible research that shows that motorcycles running with lights are a problem. There's two main issues.
1. A car driver judges the speed of approach of an oncoming vehicle by the rate that the vehicle "gets bigger". If its a car approaching it's fairly easy to estimate, the width of a car gives a big enough outline to be able to see this clearly. A taller, narrow bike is much more difficult - the bike does not appear to grow as quckly. This is one of the reasons why cars pull out on you. Now put your headlight on. You destroy the outline of the bike and make it almost impossible to judge the speed of appraoch. Safer? - I think not.
2. Add in a bit of risk compensation to the mix and you're well and truly in trouble. If you believe that the car driver has seen you because you've got lights on then you will unprepared to take any action if he does pull out. The car driver on the other hand may well have seen you (or at least a light) And guess what? Risk compensation plays a part again. He believes that you are not a danger to him and so he will go anyway. He can see it's "only" a bike and so WTF, he's protected. Ever wonder where the Volvo jokes came from? "I'm in the safest car, you can't hurt me even though I drive like a tw@t".
I'd rather ride without headlights in good conditions thanks.
And since then I've remembered that I can't drive through the Mersey Tunnel without breaking the rule "No headlights in Tunnel"
Colin, I believe you're right that most car drivers think that daytime headlights are threatening. Seen as shouting "Get out of my way" rather than "Here I am"
Lastly, Police reports from 2005 show that 50% of accidents are associated with either failed to look or failed to judge others speed. Headlights really can be part of that problem. Much more research needed I think and not just back of fag packet thinking it's a good idea either.
Sorry for the "PRICKS" quote. Feeling a bit out of sorts this morning when I wrote that. This is just something that I feel strongly about and last time I asked the question I also got a "right talkng to" from peple on the forum that really put me off. I know that there's bound to be a wide range of opinions with such a number of people but I reserve the right to take a strop with anyone who doesn't agree with a grumpy old git like me.
Again, sorry for any offence.....
None taken Johnno....
Couple of comments though-
I can fully understand the idea of a light, particularly a bright one, causing problems with speed/distance perception.
To me though the more important factor is that they at least know I'm there- I will still ride as if I'm a) Invisible and B) that they will do the most stupid thing they possibly can at the most dangerous time for me, but if they know I'm there, that's a start.
There are many statistics that people quote, and most are misleading.......I don't remember the numbers, but when it became obligatory for all cars to use headlights in Sweden (I think) , the accidents dropped significantly- hence the reason Volvos all have lights on permanently.
Someone above also claimed that people allow bikes through quicker when they had no lights on......If I wasn't such a polite person I'd say that was utter bollocks and totally contrary to my personal experience- As long as your lights aren't dazzling someone enough to cause them resentment (and if you do a clever enough search here you'll find me saying to certain twats who ride with teir full beams on that I would deliberately block their progress because they are anti social twats) then you'll be noticed and the vast majority of riders will report that they make better progress through cooperation with (sensible) lights on than with no lights.
I stand by the roadside an awful lot in Morocco, waiting for 6-12 bikes to come through to take pics of them- Those with lights on (as we ask them to ride) are
many many times more noticeable than those who occasionally forget, and pedestrians, scooters, kids and car drivers will also see them coming far far earlier- it's up to the rider to make sure that any confusion caused by the valid point you make about the perception of speed being masked by a light is negated by the final approach to their hazard....the main point is though that they're seen, people know they're there!
The odd and presumably unenforceable rule about the Mersey tunnel and no lights- well they can fekk orf, numpty scouse plonkers
