Sunglasses

On Monday, 23 September 2019 22:42:59 UTC-4, James wrote:
On 24/9/19 6:07 am, wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:17:26 AM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 23/9/19 4:10 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade
the eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

It is for me. Protection from debris is secondary.



Wind protection is the only thing that matters. Sun protection is
nonsense. On many rides I have started at dawn or before. Used
clear sunglasses for the wind protection and to see in the dark.
Used a small helmet light. Later in the ride it was sunny but I kept
on wearing the clear glasses for wind protection. Never had any
problem seeing with clear glasses. No need for sunglasses to shield
my delicate eyes from the terrible sunlight.


Wind protection is nonsense. On many rides I've started at dawn or
before and kept my sunglasses in my back pocket or hooked in the neck of
my jersey. I have also often started a ride in the afternoon with
sunglasses on and taken them off once the sun sets.

Never had any problems seeing without glasses on at night. No need to
shield my delicate eyes from the terrible wind.

YM obviously V.

--
JS

I remember one time in Toronto Canada when I was riding quite fast on a high bridge. A BIG bug hit my sunglasses with such force that it cracked the lense. I could only image the effect had that bug hit my eye instead. I wear glasses to protect from flying insects as wwell as to protect my eyes from sun glare. YMMV

Cheers

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:00:49 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:15:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes. I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small..

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions. California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...9194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight, wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.

I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthSAxn7BMU This is going up Larch Mountain. Look at the left side of the road and you'll see the descending cyclists getting lost in the shadow. The picture is really contrasty, but that's what you get with dark sun glasses. I figured with the dense greenery, you probably have similar situations. It really gets tree covered near the top with hard dappled light. An overcast day: https://tinyurl.com/y3jq2sxn

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:35:02 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:00:49 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:15:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes. I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small.

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions. California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...9194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight, wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.

I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthSAxn7BMU This is going up Larch Mountain. Look at the left side of the road and you'll see the descending cyclists getting lost in the shadow. The picture is really contrasty, but that's what you get with dark sun glasses. I figured with the dense greenery, you probably have similar situations. It really gets tree covered near the top with hard dappled light. An overcast day: https://tinyurl.com/y3jq2sxn

-- Jay Beattie.

One might ask, why sunglasses at all? It doesn't appear to be a
particularly bright day.
--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the
eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris
that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are
especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or
more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been
thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough
to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now
of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes.
I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small.

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and
out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes
the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions.
California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are
not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a
set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening
and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it
repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any
improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on
the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping
with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical
characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one
would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep
the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...9194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight,
wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose
or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't
react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't
seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I
know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably
get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription
sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which
makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.


I have a pretty heavy prescription and don’t tolerate contacts. So I need
presumption sun glasses. Oakley make a pair that work for me though
they’re a bit large. I use copper coloured lenses and find the contrast
quite good so sun to shade is not bad.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 11:41:20 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:02:39 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

BTW, I'm just back from a short ride to visit a friend. I went there in
daylight, returned in dark. Same glasses, no problem.

Also, it's so nice to have a powerful dynamo light ready at a click.

Powerful dynamo light is kind of an oxymoron. It is nice not to have to remember to recharge, though.

If you cannot keep the (circuit-boosted) electric output of 8W coming, it is
you who isn't powerful enough uphill.

Leaving my friend's house, I had a downhill for about half a mile, much of it at
25 mph or more. My tiny Busch & Mueller Eyc headlight was perfectly fine, except
through a fairly tight S turn, where I could have used more beam width. (The
IQ Cyo seems to have a wider beam.)

Even a wider cut-off beam and tight turns still aren't a good match. The
Cyos are dated, btw. The only one I'd still consider would be this
third-party, modded version featuring switchable beams from a twin emitter:
https://www.laempie.de/cyo

He is aiming the the passing beam too low, but it demonstrates his mod's
extra features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0lFSz-DNU

Cutting through some neighborhoods later in the ride, I verified again that the
headlight illuminated road signs about a quarter mile away. I can't imagine
needing more. But as always, YMMV.

You do have good glasses if the Eyc enables you to read road signs a 1/4
mile away.

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:


I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

As mentioned: This time of year (near an equinox) it can be very hazardous to
ride an east-west road near sunrise or sunset. The sun rises and sets very near
due east or west, and the bright sun can be glaring in a motorist's eyes, even
if they use their sun visors. Very few motorists will stop driving or drive
cautiously enough to guarantee avoiding a cyclist.

If your shadow is long on the ground and pointed toward a motorist, he probably
can't see you. And sorry, no bike light is going to help. I either re-route to
avoid east-west roads, or I wait until the sun has moved.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Leaving my friend's house, I had a downhill for about half a mile, much of it at
25 mph or more. My tiny Busch & Mueller Eyc headlight was perfectly fine, except
through a fairly tight S turn, where I could have used more beam width. (The
IQ Cyo seems to have a wider beam.)

Even a wider cut-off beam and tight turns still aren't a good match. The
Cyos are dated, btw. The only one I'd still consider would be this
third-party, modded version featuring switchable beams from a twin emitter:
https://www.laempie.de/cyo

He is aiming the the passing beam too low, but it demonstrates his mod's
extra features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0lFSz-DNU

His modification seems intended to give more "throw" - that is, lighting further
down the road. I've never needed that with the Cyo. Now that we have excess
lumens available, I'd prefer they get used to form a wider beam. And as I've
said before, I think the optimum shape would have the extra beam width (beyond
one lane's width) should curl upward a bit. This is because a turning bike tilts.
Otherwise, the extra width of a flat beam would just burn into the ground close
to the inside of the turn.

Cutting through some neighborhoods later in the ride, I verified again that the
headlight illuminated road signs about a quarter mile away. I can't imagine
needing more. But as always, YMMV.

You do have good glasses if the Eyc enables you to read road signs a 1/4
mile away.

Oh, I'm not saying I could read the signs. But the signs (which are reflective)
were shining brightly.

This tells me that portion of my headlight beam was bright enough to travel the
quarter mile to the sign, bounce off (with some losses) and return to me, quite
visibly. It's proof that the headlight would be very noticeable to a motorist
at least that far away.

That's relevant because many cyclists who choose super-glaring round beam
headlights justify the glare by saying they want motorists to notice them. It's
nonsense.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Leaving my friend's house, I had a downhill for about half a mile, much of it at
25 mph or more. My tiny Busch & Mueller Eyc headlight was perfectly fine, except
through a fairly tight S turn, where I could have used more beam width. (The
IQ Cyo seems to have a wider beam.)

Even a wider cut-off beam and tight turns still aren't a good match. The
Cyos are dated, btw. The only one I'd still consider would be this
third-party, modded version featuring switchable beams from a twin emitter:
https://www.laempie.de/cyo

He is aiming the the passing beam too low, but it demonstrates his mod's
extra features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0lFSz-DNU

His modification seems intended to give more "throw" - that is, lighting further
down the road. I've never needed that with the Cyo. Now that we have excess
lumens available, I'd prefer they get used to form a wider beam. And as I've
said before, I think the optimum shape would have the extra beam width (beyond
one lane's width) should curl upward a bit. This is because a turning bike tilts.
Otherwise, the extra width of a flat beam would just burn into the ground close
to the inside of the turn.

Cutting through some neighborhoods later in the ride, I verified again that the
headlight illuminated road signs about a quarter mile away. I can't imagine
needing more. But as always, YMMV.

You do have good glasses if the Eyc enables you to read road signs a 1/4
mile away.

Oh, I'm not saying I could read the signs. But the signs (which are reflective)
were shining brightly.

This tells me that portion of my headlight beam was bright enough to travel the
quarter mile to the sign, bounce off (with some losses) and return to me, quite
visibly. It's proof that the headlight would be very noticeable to a motorist
at least that far away.

That's relevant because many cyclists who choose super-glaring round beam
headlights justify the glare by saying they want motorists to notice them.. It's
nonsense.

I have a 1 watt blinky that lights up signs a quarter mile away. It's more of a comment on the quality of reflective signs than the light. The blinky is useless to see by. I'm hoping people see it, but who knows.

There is a comical range of lights out there, from seizure inducing landing strobes to the light on my friend's fender that I noticed while riding behind him in the rain on Sunday simply because it is red. It was on and pulsing like a dying Tinkerbell but totally invisible unless you were looking right at it. Kind of like a good-luck light. And then you get dopes on MUPS with retina burning, mis-aimed headlights. It's really bizarre -- and the light season is starting again.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Leaving my friend's house, I had a downhill for about half a mile, much of it at
25 mph or more. My tiny Busch & Mueller Eyc headlight was perfectly fine, except
through a fairly tight S turn, where I could have used more beam width. (The
IQ Cyo seems to have a wider beam.)

Even a wider cut-off beam and tight turns still aren't a good match. The
Cyos are dated, btw. The only one I'd still consider would be this
third-party, modded version featuring switchable beams from a twin emitter:
https://www.laempie.de/cyo

He is aiming the the passing beam too low, but it demonstrates his mod's
extra features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0lFSz-DNU

His modification seems intended to give more "throw" - that is, lighting further
down the road. I've never needed that with the Cyo. Now that we have excess
lumens available, I'd prefer they get used to form a wider beam. And as I've
said before, I think the optimum shape would have the extra beam width (beyond
one lane's width) should curl upward a bit. This is because a turning bike tilts.
Otherwise, the extra width of a flat beam would just burn into the ground close
to the inside of the turn.

Cutting through some neighborhoods later in the ride, I verified again that the
headlight illuminated road signs about a quarter mile away. I can't imagine
needing more. But as always, YMMV.

You do have good glasses if the Eyc enables you to read road signs a 1/4
mile away.

Oh, I'm not saying I could read the signs. But the signs (which are reflective)
were shining brightly.

This tells me that portion of my headlight beam was bright enough to travel the
quarter mile to the sign, bounce off (with some losses) and return to me, quite
visibly. It's proof that the headlight would be very noticeable to a motorist
at least that far away.

That's relevant because many cyclists who choose super-glaring round beam
headlights justify the glare by saying they want motorists to notice them. It's
nonsense.

I have a 1 watt blinky that lights up signs a quarter mile away. It's more of a comment on the quality of reflective signs than the light. The blinky is useless to see by. I'm hoping people see it, but who knows.

There is a comical range of lights out there, from seizure inducing landing strobes to the light on my friend's fender that I noticed while riding behind him in the rain on Sunday simply because it is red. It was on and pulsing like a dying Tinkerbell but totally invisible unless you were looking right at it. Kind of like a good-luck light. And then you get dopes on MUPS with retina burning, mis-aimed headlights. It's really bizarre -- and the light season is starting again.

Regarding "I'm hoping people see it but who knows": Why not check? It's over
four decades since the first time I had family check out my lights by driving
by me from each direction. (I think the young kid felt important when given
the job of taking notes.) I've done it many times since, with family and with
lots of friends. It just makes sense.

But once again, if a headlight illuminates even a mirror 1/4 mile away, that
means a tiny portion of the light emitted has traveled half a mile to return
to your eyeballs. Even with perfect reflection, that should be impressive; and
it's pretty clear evidence that your light will be conspicuous from far enough
away.

Adequate illumination of the road surface is another matter. I suppose
differences in night vision are important; but it's crude to spray mega-lumens
everywhere in hopes that enough hit the road. And it's a little paranoid to
say we MUST have far brighter lights than cyclists have ever had before.

I've verified many times that any light that adequately shows potholes will be
plenty conspicuous to oncoming motorists. The physics should make that clear.

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 11:15:48 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:


I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

As mentioned: This time of year (near an equinox) it can be very hazardous to
ride an east-west road near sunrise or sunset. The sun rises and sets very near
due east or west, and the bright sun can be glaring in a motorist's eyes, even
if they use their sun visors. Very few motorists will stop driving or drive
cautiously enough to guarantee avoiding a cyclist.

If your shadow is long on the ground and pointed toward a motorist, he probably
can't see you. And sorry, no bike light is going to help. I either re-route to
avoid east-west roads, or I wait until the sun has moved.

- Frank Krygowski

A safety tip I read about many, many years ago read: "If your long shadow on the road at night doesn't move as a vehicle approaches you from behind it means the vehicle is on a collision course with you."

Cheers