Safe Speed Forums

Motorbike indicators - invisible

This is not front ones, too close to headlamps, because some cars are shit for that too.

I've not had this before, but twice this week I've nearly rear ended motorbikes because I didn't know they were turning right.
Both times in suburban 40mph everyday roads.

One kid on a newish scooter, yes being weaving and a nuisance but was well ahead of me before I overtook the bus that was slowing for its stop. Level with the front of the bus was the scooter, almost stopped to turn right. He was indicating right and might have been for ages, but the light was so tiny I didn't see it.
Car indicators are the size/area of saucers these days. Bikes can't be that big, but do they have to be so tiny ?


Today, a new 09 plate big bike overtook me, headlamp on, no problem, had an upside down triangle of LEDs as a taillight. I noticed that OK and thought it looked modern, funky and matched the shape of the bike. It looked good.
It looked less good a few seconds later when I realised that the right hand dozen LEDs had changed from steady red to flashing yellow and the bike was now near stationary. If the LEDs got brighter with braking, I didn't see that either.

Both were very near misses by my standards.

Some of you probably know what sort of new big bike has the upside down triangle LED arrangement. That is dangerous in my opinion.

I've noticed several bikes with stupidly small indicators, if it's a bright day you can't make them out

It's a popular mod to swap out the standard lumpy indicators with these silly things:

Something like this? CHEAPY EBAY REAR LAMP & INDICATORS
I've followed a few bikes with these types of rear lamp combo and TBH, they're even more chavvy than the comedy Lexus lamps on Corsa's!

I've not had this before, but twice this week I've nearly rear ended motorbikes because I didn't know they were turning right.
Both times in suburban 40mph everyday roads.

How the heck is he driving if he nearly rear ends motorbikes, whether you can see their indicators or not?!

The only way I knew what he was doing was when I saw him do his "lifesaver".

I am concerned at the suggestion that the only way people can avoid colliding with bikers travelling in the same direction as them is by observing their indicators. As for the driving cited in the OP, surely the problem is someone thinking its a good idea to overtake a bus that is slowing for it's stop (not stopped) where there is a right turning.

I think dodgy aftermarket lamps is one area where enforcement coud be a lot better. ... Unfortunately, as everyone knows, it's speed that kills, not dodgy lights, so it doesn't seem to be a high enforcement priority.

No, it's a flaw in the system really. The MOT is based on the assumption that the car will deteriorate, but not be altered significantly from its originally approved specification. So you could fail for a light not working or being broken but not for having the wrong approval number. Same goes for quite a lot of areas on the car. The Construction & Use regs, for example, require seat belt anchorages to meet the requirements of the Directive that they'd originally have ben type approved to, but the MOT only checks that the steel around the belt anchorages isn't rotten. If "jack the lad" then puts a set of race seats and harnesses in the car and puts the anchorages in completely inappropriate places, he'd still get an MOT!