Daytime red flashing lights

[reohn2]

won't it place more onus on them actually looking for you though?

I understand that point of view but I just don't think human brains work that way. No driver wants a collision anyway (except for the odd psycho). No BMW driver even wants their paint scratched, never mind having a 14 stone lump like me bouncing off their bonnet. Nor do they want to have to stop and apologise or argue. Even less do they want the police to turn up and start asking uncomfortable questions. The incentives for not having a collision are numerous and are there already. People who take chances do so because they think they are not going to make contact with you.

IMHO it's because a significant minority of them expect that you'll be so frightened you'll simply move out of their way,whether you hit the kerb and fall off or go in the ditch is non of their concern,as their attitude is one of a variation of them have more right to the road than you.
IME belligerence is rife on UK roads,MickF started a thread about other drivers bullying him when driving his(small)Fiat 500 something that I confirmed when driving Mrs R2's(small) Nissan Micra.
If some other drivers are willing to bully another smaller car,what chance a cyclist?
The problem is one of a lack recrimination for their bullying and aggressive driving behaviour and not that they don't know what they're doing.

[Bicycler]

isn't the law in the netherlands that a driver is to blame if there is a collision/incident between a bike and a vehicle?

won't it place more onus on them actually looking for you though?

I agree with Phil that this is another argument. Strict liability/presumed liability alter the civil liability, not 'blame' as such. What we really need is more clearly defined bad driving laws. The current ones are far too wooly. Driving into another legally travelling road user (including pedestrians) without any sudden action on the part of that road user should be dangerous driving by definition. The current laws offer too much leeway for sun glare, "didn't expect a cyclist", not visible without hi-vis excuses.

[reohn2]

isn't the law in the netherlands that a driver is to blame if there is a collision/incident between a bike and a vehicle?

won't it place more onus on them actually looking for you though?

I agree with Phil that this is another argument. Strict liability/presumed liability alter the civil liability, not 'blame' as such. What we really need is more clearly defined bad driving laws. The current ones are far too wooly. Driving into another legally travelling road user (including pedestrians) without any sudden action on the part of that road user should be dangerous driving by definition. The current laws offer too much leeway for sun glare, "didn't expect a cyclist", not visible without hi-vis excuses.

I agree,the chances or being caught and brought to book are minimal and the penalties paltry.

I also think the number of illegally driven cars on UK roads are more than we think,there's a local chap who's been driving a car without insurance,MOT and VED for almost 3 years and despite calls to the police on a number of occasions by various people has only just been caught,and only then by pure chance when the police were in the avenue on another matter and the offender drove up the street in it.

What always amazes me is how someone can steal/make their own reg plates from another car the same colour and model,stick them on their own and driver around illegally with any traffic offence related paperwork going to the owner of the original car.
It's so simple to do by the unscrupulous as to begger belief and the chances of being caught absolutely minimal.

PS, citizen to politrickian,"it's about the police force".
Politrickian "yes what about it"
Citizen "we want one"

[boneshaker]

I've just bought a second rear light - and i use it during the day along with a high viz jacket. Sad that i feel the need to, but anything to make gormless drivers out there notice me is worth a go in my view. If, though, you are up against someone who essentially viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10801, all these things are next to useless.

[millimole]

I first saw daytime high intensity rear lights on bikes when I was driving in France a couple of years ago.
The lights were noticeable a long time before the HiVis that the cyclist was wearing, and the flashing light instantly said 'bike', and, made me 'sit up and take notice' in a way that HiVis wouldn't.
I've never been a great fan of HiVis clothing (although I do occasionally wear it, particularly in poor weather) and since that trip to France I've generally ridden day & night with a very bright rear light. I've recently invested in a Bontrager Flare R which is very bright and rechargeable.
It's difficult to measure the effect of the new /very/ bright rear light, but I /think/ I get fewer close passes particularly on long straight roads.