SIX thousand and FIVE hundred lumens !!!!!!!!!!

On 10/5/2018 11:06 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2018 15:38:49 -0700, wrote:

On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 11:22:00 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:31:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Yet strangely, it jibes with that of our government folks. Why do you
think they mandate DRL on motorcycles?

And yet motorcycles are the one category of MVs in Oregon with
increasing fatality rates. e.g.
http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/loca...al-motorcycle-
crashes-spiking-this-year

-- Jay Beattie.

But are increasing motorcycle fatalities due to 1. Motorcycles just
being more dangerous, smaller, harder to see, or 2. Stupid, careless,
reckless drivers of motorcycles, or 3. Fatal in crashes because the
drivers are manly men who choose to NOT wear helmets?

And most probably have a strong preference for "cool" black leather
jackets rather than the more visible day-glo orange/yellow/lime that
would improve their visibility.

Just like those damned pedestrians! Walkers persist in wearing colors
OTHER than day-glo! And some of the women even wear shoes that are not
designed for sprinting out of the way at a moment's notice! How
irresponsible!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/6/2018 11:13 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-05 08:48, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/5/2018 10:32 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 20:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2018 3:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 12:18, jbeattie wrote:

It takes very little light to be conspicuous at night, and it takes
no additional light to be conspicuous during the day -- assuming
broad daylight without cloud cover or other low-light condition.


My experience is clearly different.

Your experiences are almost always unique, not just different.


Yet strangely, it jibes with that of our government folks. Why do you
think they mandate DRL on motorcycles?

Joerg, you're arguing against yourself (again)!

Please note, the government does NOT mandate daytime running lights on
bicycles!


They do on motorcycles, they don't care much about cyclists as we all know.

You are passionately dedicated to making no sense.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 8:11:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-05 09:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:28:43 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 18:13, Radey Shouman wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2018-10-04 14:43, Radey Shouman wrote:

[...]


... The accident happened in broad daylight, no vehicles save
the cop SUV and the cyclist visible for miles, cyclist
waiting at an intersection, I think for a stop sign. Total
f*up on the part of the cop, who was more or less apologetic.
A daytime running light would not have helped.


Not true. I clearly found that drivers notice me much better
with bright lights. Even in the corner of their eyes is enough
because it "distracts" them in a good way. All it takes is
noticing a cyclist a second or two earlier and a collision can
be avoided.

Seriously? The cop would have looked up from his phone if only
the cyclist had had a light? Sounds like magic.


Easy to try. While distracted with some chore in your home, have
someone walk towards you pointing a bright but not blinding LED
flashlight. It works. A human eye is not insensitive in the
directions where one does not look, just less sensitive. The
"muffling effect" needs to be overcome and intense light is just
about the only method to achieve that.

Other clue: You are driving a car, looking ahead into traffic as
you are supposed to do. The dashboard becomes largely unnoticed
except for the occasional glance at the speedometer. However, when
the yellow check engine light, the red oil pressure light, the
overtemp light or the low fuel light comes on it is immediately
noticed. Same if someone behind you flashes their headlights even
while you aren't looking into the rear view mirror.

Yet another one: Think about the reason why approaching emergency
vehicles have very bright flashing lights.

Now imagine all of these riders with lights and sirens:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...png?1428427634

This is the daily commuter traffic into downtown. Now put all those
people on the two-way cycle track on my way into work.
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...ansit-bend.jpg
Now live with that.


As I've written several times, bright lights are not needed on bike
paths. I turn them off there during the day. They are also not needed
when there are lots of cyclists (safety in numbers). It's different out
here, this is not Portland, Amsterdam or Copenhagen.


Solid white lights in bright sunshine are almost universally
irrelevant and annoying to other cyclists and drivers.


No, they are not. Why do you think motorcycles have mandatory DRL? Just
for fun?


... I see jerseys
and body shape long before I register the light.


That is totally contrary to my experience and that of just about anyone
I know.


... And BTW, having
driven ambulance for six years, I spent plenty of time sitting behind
cars with my deafening Federal Q2B pegged before the dopey driver
turned down the music and realized I was sitting there -- and then he
freaks out, hits the gas, goes into the intersection and gets
whacked. It can be a sh** show. Whatever giant light, siren,
calliope, marching band you claim will save your life can only make a
marginal improvement and proving that margin is hard if not
impossible, and a blinding light can cause accidents or at least
upset.


That driver shouldn't have a license.


What will really reduce accidents is being a good rider and knowing
how to ride in traffic and with entering or exiting traffic.


That's the problem. A lot of car drivers do not fall into that category
and that is beyond my influence. What I can influence is how my ship is
lit, so I do that.


... A DRL
may help, but it is certainly not magical and is irrelevant in many
situations. Lights are critical at night, obviously -- but mega
lights are totally unnecessary on city streets in dry weather. What
is "enough" at night varies depending on terrain, conditions, etc.,
but whatever is enough, it can't be blinding people.


Again, my experience is very much contrary to that. And my experience
seems to jibe with what national safety boards have found out about
motorcycle lighting.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, motorcycles are the only category of MVs with increasing fatality rates. DRLs clearly are not a panacea.

Your experience is unique and certainly not representative of the general bicycling public. I ride in city traffic every day with hundreds of other PDX cyclists who, in large part, do not use bright DRLs (or any DRLs) on sunny days. The accident rate is very low. On a sunny day, I will always see a rider's jersey color before his or her light -- and the light never adds useful information, meaning that it allowed me to see a bicyclist that I would not otherwise see. Obviously, it's different in low light situations.

Continue using your light if it makes you feel safe. The lucky rabbit's foot taped to my handlebars has worked the same magic for me. In difficult traffic situations, however, I prefer to take the lane and ride defensively. It has worked for the last 35 years of daily commuting in Portland and weekend riding on country roads. When I commuted in San Jose for fifteen years before moving to Portland (usually long commutes on all city streets), my night light was nothing more than a Wonder light and a dopey leg light. Super scary!

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/6/2018 10:40 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-05 08:33, Radey Shouman wrote:

Â*Â*Â*Â* ...Â* A really bright light is required to make much difference
Â*in that case.


Bingo! Now you know why I have bright lights on my bikes. I experienced
it again yesterday. I had to ride through city streets for many miles,
partially at max speed. With the light fully on nobody cut into my path.
Without lights that is different.

Oh good grief. I commuted to work through the center of two different
cities for decades, and have ridden in dozens of other cities. I recall
only two incidents when someone began to cut into my path, but stopped.
In one of those, I was exiting a bike trail onto an otherwise dead-end
street, so I'm not surprised that the motorist did not carefully check.

According to you, I should be dead several times over. What nonsense!

More seriously, I suspect that you and our other mega-light proponent
are gutter bunnies. If you ride hidden in the gutter, away from the
attention zone of motorists and obscured by parked cars and other
obstacles, you will not be noticed as easily. The cure is not to waste
money on mega-lumen irritations. The cure is to grow a pair plus learn
the traffic laws - both of which you've steadfastly refused to do.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 8:20:28 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-05 09:21, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:31:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 20:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2018 3:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 12:18, jbeattie wrote:

It takes very little light to be conspicuous at night, and it takes
no additional light to be conspicuous during the day -- assuming
broad daylight without cloud cover or other low-light condition.


My experience is clearly different.

Your experiences are almost always unique, not just different.


Yet strangely, it jibes with that of our government folks. Why do you
think they mandate DRL on motorcycles?

And yet motorcycles are the one category of MVs in Oregon with increasing fatality rates. e.g. http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/loca...king-this-year


You of all people, having been an amulance driver, should know the
reason. The reason is this behavior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkWWVryT1UE

That is the road where I was almost clipped by a motorcyclist. He didn't
anticipate that there could be a mountain bike in a right turn, hugged
the curve at high speed and ... "GAAAH!". I heard his engine screaming
but didn't have anywhere to go because of a wall of rock to my right. He
needed the full oncoming lane to get the situation somewhat under
control. Imagine what would have happened if there'd been oncoming traffic.

Did you have your super-bright light on? Did it prevent the motorcyclist from being an asshole? If not, you need a much brighter light. You need the Asshole Eliminator from Magicshine -- 60,600 lumen high rate flasher. Run it all the time.

I was riding down Logie Trail, and this guy was the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZOiYXwvYWc&t=76s Go to 3:35. He almost drifted right into me. If I'd had a brighter light . . .

And working ambulance, motorcyclists were getting slaughtered for a lot of the same reason as cars. But they got slaughtered better.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 11:08:19 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I was in a rush to leave for a service call
and add the solid angle note without a link
because I assumed that you would search for
the term using Google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solid+angle

Jeff, did you ever considered a career as
a teacher?

Yes. When I graduated from college in about 1971, I had a problem.
The war in Vietmam was still going and I was in danger of being
drafted into the army. I needed a few months of additional
educational deferment until I could get into some situation that
offered a deferment or exemption. There was a shortage of teachers at
the time, so I enrolled in "teacher prep". It was an interesting
experience, but it taught me that I was not suited for a life of
herding children, ivory tower academia, or anything in between. At
various times in my life, I've taught a few short classes, mostly on
mundane things like electronic drafting, computers, advertising,
subliminals, technical marketing, marine radio, and stuff I don't want
to talk about.

Your class could be called "teach
your profession and be frustrated when people
don't immediately understand it".

I prefer "Learn by Destroying". The motto of the college that finally
graduated me was "Learn by Doing". I thought a small change was more
appropriate. It really means that if you haven't taken it apart,
broken it, fixed it, and put it back together working, you don't
understand it. You probably will not understand how lighting works
until after you learn to make the basic measurements and then destroy
a bicycle light by tearing it apart and trying to "improve" it. I'm
quite serious about this because that's what I had to do before I
understood how lighting works.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:48:40 AM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2018 11:08:19 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I was in a rush to leave for a service call
and add the solid angle note without a link
because I assumed that you would search for
the term using Google.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solid+angle

Jeff, did you ever considered a career as
a teacher?

Yes. When I graduated from college in about 1971, I had a problem.
The war in Vietmam was still going and I was in danger of being
drafted into the army. I needed a few months of additional
educational deferment until I could get into some situation that
offered a deferment or exemption. There was a shortage of teachers at
the time, so I enrolled in "teacher prep". It was an interesting
experience, but it taught me that I was not suited for a life of
herding children, ivory tower academia, or anything in between. At
various times in my life, I've taught a few short classes, mostly on
mundane things like electronic drafting, computers, advertising,
subliminals, technical marketing, marine radio, and stuff I don't want
to talk about.

Your class could be called "teach
your profession and be frustrated when people
don't immediately understand it".

I prefer "Learn by Destroying". The motto of the college that finally
graduated me was "Learn by Doing". I thought a small change was more
appropriate. It really means that if you haven't taken it apart,
broken it, fixed it, and put it back together working, you don't
understand it. You probably will not understand how lighting works
until after you learn to make the basic measurements and then destroy
a bicycle light by tearing it apart and trying to "improve" it. I'm
quite serious about this because that's what I had to do before I
understood how lighting works.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

After lurking the thread for a while, Jeff gets it exactly right.

Earlier on he wrote" What
you really want is an even light intensity across the area that is
illuminated. That's not easy when the road is not flat and you're
using a single point source of LED light." Defines the need.
Now the statement"
It really means that if you haven't taken it apart,
broken it, fixed it, and put it back together working, you don't
understand it. You probably will not understand how lighting works
until after you learn to make the basic measurements and then destroy
a bicycle light by tearing it apart and trying to "improve" it. I'm
quite serious about this because that's what I had to do before I
understood how lighting works."
Says exactly what you need to do about it before you can get anywhere.

That need and what to do about it, is what I did with my light hobby that turned into a light making business.

The solution, is what I came up with, a patented optical system and the world's fastest bike light, Oculus Lights.
Lumens are like, how many arrows of light can we shoot from a source?
An early tag line I used was, "Losing your Lumens?" Because who cares about all those stray light rays shining on owls in tree branches? Who wants all those lumens shining in oncoming drivers' eyes?
Lux is like, how many arrows of light can we shoot all into the same bullseye all at once? What's the brightest we can make at any spot in the beam, even if its totally dark everywhere else? And without even stating at what distance we're measuring!
We need lumens on the road or trail, where we're riding, lighting up where dangers might lurk, but not wanting lumens anywhere else. Also, lighting everything that it shines on, with as nearly equal an intensity, the number of Lux, as can be created.
That's exactly what my Oculus optics do!
To see what a real beam specification and test measurement is like, and how even and efficient the Oculus optics can be, see my video of testing Oculus' German STVZO compliant beam design that's waiting for the rest of the bike light industry to stop being fools and finally licensing it from me. This beam meets and exceeds the STVZO spec at all measurement points, with much higher total both lumens and Lux at the bright spot, with considerably higher lux the lower and outer spots than the spec requires, and far brighter than anything any other light maker is capable of with any other optical approach at even twice the cost, power, heat, size, weight, and number of LEDs, at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXuE3JmBclM

We still haven't gone into how the human eyes see light, at different wavelengths and color temperatures, and why precise control over how the human eyes see contrast and depth perception makes as much of a difference in how well you see, and how 'bright' the eye perceives, any given bike light on the road or trail at night.
Oculus lights use a might tighter binning of LEDs than the cheaper stuff that other bike light makers use. That 6500 lm Magic shine might throw a ton of light rays out there, but at what color temperature and spread? The accompanying contrast and depth perception down range of lights like Magicshine and a lot of everybody else's lights that just blast out a ton of stray rays as glare where its most critical for the eyes to be able to see is _terrible.
While people who turn on an Oculus for the first time, right away, say that subjective assessment, "that's _bright!" because the eyes don't have to stop down to a bright spot in the middle, because there isn't one. And the illumination toward the sides is nearly as bright as it is in the center. In fact, the exact center of the Oculus beam measure a bit _dimmer (than at 1-2 degrees sideways off center) to help the eye actually see more toward the sides!
Cops love this because they can light up a who parking lot, or city block, all at once, evenly. See the whole see instantly instead of need to shine their Maglights from point to point to point, while a bad guy could be hiding in the corner out of sight. With Oculus, cops "see the bad guy in the corner", and instantly dazzle them shining the beam in the bad guy's eyes as a first line of defense in the dark like none other. Its the safest "you've been drinking mister___?" light when stopping a suspected drunk driver, and life saver in "stop or I'll shoot" situations.

Jeff's statements show that he might be the only other one on this list who really does understand how lighting works.
But how does the bike lighting industry work? That where Daniel Emerson and Tom Carrol keep shooting themselves in the foot with tired old designs trashing out bells and whistles on top of lights that still are, at best, just a bunch of big round beams kicking out a ton of glare and heat needing more weight and battery, as much as any amount of usable light and true r i d e r s a f e t y that their lights put on the road or trail where we really need to see.

On 2018-10-06 08:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]


Why on earth does someone riding a two lane highway with no
intersections think they have to have a white light facing forward? It's
a paranoia.


Simple:

1. It prevents a large vehicle driver from overtake another large
vehicle and then the driver seeing the cyclist when it's too late.

2. It causes oncoming motorists to see the cyclist much earlier and, for
example, if a big semi comes they can pull a bit to the right so the
semi can give the cyclist wide berth.

As a motorist I am always glad when oncoming cyclists use DRL because it
gives me lots of time to move to the right in a way that the other
traffic recognizes that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-10-06 09:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 8:20:28 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-05 09:21, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 7:31:57 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 20:34, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/4/2018 3:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-10-04 12:18, jbeattie wrote:

It takes very little light to be conspicuous at night,
and it takes no additional light to be conspicuous during
the day -- assuming broad daylight without cloud cover or
other low-light condition.


My experience is clearly different.

Your experiences are almost always unique, not just
different.


Yet strangely, it jibes with that of our government folks. Why
do you think they mandate DRL on motorcycles?

And yet motorcycles are the one category of MVs in Oregon with
increasing fatality rates. e.g.
http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/loca...king-this-year




You of all people, having been an amulance driver, should know the
reason. The reason is this behavior:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkWWVryT1UE

That is the road where I was almost clipped by a motorcyclist. He
didn't anticipate that there could be a mountain bike in a right
turn, hugged the curve at high speed and ... "GAAAH!". I heard his
engine screaming but didn't have anywhere to go because of a wall
of rock to my right. He needed the full oncoming lane to get the
situation somewhat under control. Imagine what would have happened
if there'd been oncoming traffic.

Did you have your super-bright light on?


Of course.


... Did it prevent the
motorcyclist from being an asshole? If not, you need a much brighter
light. You need the Asshole Eliminator from Magicshine -- 60,600
lumen high rate flasher. Run it all the time.


The light is for regular straight stretches of road, it won't help in
tight curves. Though it might cause motorists to recognize me fractions
of a second earlier.


I was riding down Logie Trail, and this guy was the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZOiYXwvYWc&t=76s Go to 3:35. He
almost drifted right into me. If I'd had a brighter light . . .

And working ambulance, motorcyclists were getting slaughtered for a
lot of the same reason as cars. But they got slaughtered better.


In our area they are often single-vehicle accidents where the rider lost
control and "rag-dolled" or smacked into something. They take a lot more
chances and ride more aggressively on average when compared to car
drivers. They also flout traffic rules a lot more. Double-yellow? Phhht,
who cares. Speed limit? That's for wusses. Plus even moderately priced
motorcycles can accelerate from zero to 60mph in 3-4 seconds, something
where a car driver would need a expensive sports car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I prefer "Learn by Destroying". The motto of
the college that finally graduated me was
"Learn by Doing". I thought a small change
was more appropriate. It really means that if
you haven't taken it apart, broken it, fixed
it, and put it back together working, you
don't understand it. You probably will not
understand how lighting works until after you
learn to make the basic measurements and then
destroy a bicycle light by tearing it apart
and trying to "improve" it. I'm quite serious
about this because that's what I had to do
before I understood how lighting works.

This doesn't work as well as it used to.
Say that you are a kid today. Good luck getting
your parents permission to destroy your TV.
Even more good look is needed for you to put it
back together. Or a modern mower. Or a modern
phone. Or a modern whatever.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573