"Choosing Lights for Your Bicycle: Ten No-Compromise Requirements"article

On 8/18/2013 1:05 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/18/2013 10:40 AM, Dan wrote:

For me, while I can see (ha, ha :-) that flashing light gains notice
more effectively, I never rely on being noticed anyway - it only makes
cooperative traffic interaction more feasible (which I can do without).
And yes, being noticed and given due attention also generally enhances
safety; my situational awareness is not infallible, and limited in any
case.

But it's not all upside. Solid on lights are less apt to annoy people
(including myself!), and I suspect less apt to induce target fixation.
Also, they're legal, whereas flashing lights are not (here).

Be careful with the use of "annoy." Certainly we are all much more aware
of bicycles with flashing lights, after all, flashing lights by design
gain attention. Is it really "annoyance" or just "awareness." Or are
some people annoyed by being forced to be aware of bicycles?

The flashing white strobe lights on school buses are certainly annoying.

What would be cool to substantially eliminate the annoyance factor and
still have the noticeability advantage available would be a handy un-
obtrusive push button that actuates something like PB's attention-
getting "Superflash" mode for, say, four cycles and then stops - a sort
of optical equivalent to the handy little audible "ding-ding" bell.

On Peter White's site, he touts the advantage of handlebar switch for
one light he sells because you can manually create a flash mode
(originally he thought that flash mode was built in), "In daytime, with
the light switched "off", you can flash a motorist ahead with a quick
press of the handlebar mounted button. (Note: This is not a continuous
flashing mode, as I originally thought. Sorry for any confusion.)"

What's upsetting in this whole debate is reflective of a disturbing
trend in the U.S., that's become more obvious since the advent of the
"Tea Party." You see more people that are actually proud to be
uninformed about a subject. Sarah Palin made it cool to be dumb, and
attracted a large following in that way. But my feeling is that it's
actually _not_ okay to "refudiate" facts.

To paraphrase Frank Zappa - Scharf would not recognize a fact if one bit
him on the arse.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 8/18/2013 10:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The same principle applies to being conspicuous to other traffic. A bicycle approaches oncoming left (in the U.S.) turning traffic at a much lower speed than a motorcycle. A driver who's wanting to turn across your path has much more time to see you, and should he somehow fail to see you, both he and you will have a much easier time stopping than a Harley guy at speed.

For some reason H-D riders prefer crappy brakes that require a
four-finger squeeze with all the force one can apply, and even that will
have trouble locking up the hard rubber compound tires they usually use.
On a proper moto, one can either do a stoppie or skid the front tire
with only two fingers on the lever (leaving the other two free to
operate the throttle when trail braking).

--
T0m $herm@n

On 8/18/2013 12:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/18/2013 9:09 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

Problem is, when you get to near-automotive light output levels, you
ought to be considerate of other road users, hence my objections a few
people's (OK, really one) insistence on flashlight-like beam patterns as
being "optimal."

Cute, since you're about the only one insisting that a cut-off beam is
optimal.

Scharf cannot even be honest about what is posted in a Usenet thread.

--
T0m $herm@n

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:05:06 -0700, sms
wrote:

Be careful with the use of "annoy." Certainly we are all much more aware
of bicycles with flashing lights, after all, flashing lights by design
gain attention. Is it really "annoyance" or just "awareness." Or are
some people annoyed by being forced to be aware of bicycles?

Aimed in the drivers face = annoyance
Aimed at the road = awareness
Aimed into the sky = idiocy

On Peter White's site, he touts the advantage of handlebar switch for
one light he sells because you can manually create a flash mode
(originally he thought that flash mode was built in), "In daytime, with
the light switched "off", you can flash a motorist ahead with a quick
press of the handlebar mounted button. (Note: This is not a continuous
flashing mode, as I originally thought. Sorry for any confusion.)"

I don't think that's a good idea. Visualize me desperately trying to
maneuver out of the oncoming path of a homicidal vehicle driver, while
sending him Morse code with my headlight. I can multitask, but I
suspect the adrenaline rush might affect my ability to properly
operate the code key. Bad idea.

What's upsetting in this whole debate is reflective of a disturbing
trend in the U.S., that's become more obvious since the advent of the
"Tea Party." You see more people that are actually proud to be
uninformed about a subject. Sarah Palin made it cool to be dumb, and
attracted a large following in that way. But my feeling is that it's
actually _not_ okay to "refudiate" facts.

Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Sarah Paulin... the trend is ominous.
I guess the theory is that if we elect an idiot, he will probably do
less damage than an intelligent politician with an agenda.

Anyway, disagreeing with your point of view does not demonstrate a
lack of intelligence. Rather, I suspect the contrary might be more
appropriate.

Back to the Japanese (Subaru) oil change ceremony. (Making a mental
note not to sit in the computer chair before cleaning the dirt and oil
off my pants).

--
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 8/18/2013 1:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Back to the Japanese (Subaru) oil change ceremony.

Is what is said about Subaru true?

--
T0m $herm@n

On 8/18/2013 11:48 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:05:06 -0700, sms
wrote:

Be careful with the use of "annoy." Certainly we are all much more aware
of bicycles with flashing lights, after all, flashing lights by design
gain attention. Is it really "annoyance" or just "awareness." Or are
some people annoyed by being forced to be aware of bicycles?

Aimed in the drivers face = annoyance
Aimed at the road = awareness
Aimed into the sky = idiocy

Agreed. Apparently the problem is that some people believe that a light
with a symmetrical beam automatically falls into one of those three
categories, when it's actually not true.

On Peter White's site, he touts the advantage of handlebar switch for
one light he sells because you can manually create a flash mode
(originally he thought that flash mode was built in), "In daytime, with
the light switched "off", you can flash a motorist ahead with a quick
press of the handlebar mounted button. (Note: This is not a continuous
flashing mode, as I originally thought. Sorry for any confusion.)"

I don't think that's a good idea. Visualize me desperately trying to
maneuver out of the oncoming path of a homicidal vehicle driver, while
sending him Morse code with my headlight. I can multitask, but I
suspect the adrenaline rush might affect my ability to properly
operate the code key. Bad idea.

I agree, but the light in question is from Germany, and they were not
going to do a special version for non-StVZO countries, even though that
might have been a good idea if they wanted to increase sales.


What's upsetting in this whole debate is reflective of a disturbing
trend in the U.S., that's become more obvious since the advent of the
"Tea Party." You see more people that are actually proud to be
uninformed about a subject. Sarah Palin made it cool to be dumb, and
attracted a large following in that way. But my feeling is that it's
actually _not_ okay to "refudiate" facts.

Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, Sarah Paulin... the trend is ominous.
I guess the theory is that if we elect an idiot, he will probably do
less damage than an intelligent politician with an agenda.

That didn't work in the case of W.

Anyway, disagreeing with your point of view does not demonstrate a
lack of intelligence.

It indicates the lack of willingness to examine evidence that might lead
someone to understand that their position is not based on facts.

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:55:24 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:29:43 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

Since this thread started I've been paying more attention to bik

lights I see on my rides. Now, granted that I live in a tropical

country, but from what I see and from a "Hey, look I'm here"

viewpoint, almost any light helps make the bike more visible in low

light conditions but are essentially useless in bright sunlight, and

that in low light conditions - early in the morning or evening or in

overcast conditions - flashing lights are far more noticeable.

After dark, in city traffic, I have yet to see a bicycle light, front

or rear, that made the bike particularly noticeable, as all of the

other traffic have far larger and brighter lights.

It might also be noted that with all the discussion of generators and

batteries that most small motorcycles have at least 50 watts of

headlight and larger motorcycles and cars, trucks, usually have 100

watt or more. (A Honda Goldwing has four 50 watt headlights :-)

While one might compare a bicycle light with another bicycle light if

one compares it with all the other highway users' lights bike lights

are all very feeble indeed.

I think it's fundamental that a bicycle's lights don't _need_ to be as powerful or conspicuous as those of a motor vehicle, just as a bicycle's tires, spokes, etc. don't need to be as robust as those on a motorcycle.

A motorcycle headlight probably needs to show potholes, rocks, etc. about 200 feet down the road so the rider doesn't overdrive his headlight at 60 mph. A bicyclist won't be going anywhere near that fast in the dark; typical speeds are more like 15 mph, and stopping distances perhaps 20 feet. Yet my Cyo headlight lights up stop signs nearly 1/4 mile from me. It's less than 3 Watts, yet plenty strong enough.

The same principle applies to being conspicuous to other traffic. A bicycle approaches oncoming left (in the U.S.) turning traffic at a much lower speed than a motorcycle. A driver who's wanting to turn across your path has much more time to see you, and should he somehow fail to see you, both he and you will have a much easier time stopping than a Harley guy at speed. (You may recall tales from me and others about motorists waiting for long times for us to ride past at night, when they could easily and safely made their turns.)

Regarding bike taillights: Since drivers have to watch for unlit stationary hazards like potholes, dropped mufflers and pedestrians, there's no great difficulty in providing enough light to the rear, especially since red LEDs have been extremely efficient for decades. The motorist's closing speed with a properly riding cyclist is lower than for a pedestrian, and the cyclist can also fit reflectors, letting the motorist pay for part of the needed lumens.

I've tested my bike lights and reflectors several times, and helped others test theirs with real-world riding. Any headlight that sufficiently illuminates the road will be plenty conspicuous enough to other road users.

If safe night cycling really required super-powered lights, some legislative jurisdiction somewhere would have written that requirement into law by now. But none has.

- Frank Krygowski

There are a number of bicycle commuters/riders who ride at night who do not want to be limited to 15 mph by their lights. Again we have a situation where what's adequate for one group of riders is dangerously inadequate for another segment of riders. I'd far prefer to have a light that is more powerful than what I need than to have one that is often times not powerful enough.

Why do many night time riders ride slowly? Is it because they want to ride slowly or is it because their light is not adequate enough to safely light road hazards a reasonable distance ahead of them?

Cheers

On 8/18/2013 1:15 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/18/2013 9:09 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

Problem is, when you get to near-automotive light output levels, you
ought to be considerate of other road users, hence my objections a few
people's (OK, really one) insistence on flashlight-like beam patterns as
being "optimal."

Cute, since you're about the only one insisting that a cut-off beam is
optimal.

Bull****. Resorting to flat out lying now Steven?

On 8/18/2013 2:05 PM, sms wrote:

What's upsetting in this whole debate is reflective of a disturbing
trend in the U.S., that's become more obvious since the advent of the
"Tea Party." You see more people that are actually proud to be
uninformed about a subject. Sarah Palin made it cool to be dumb, and
attracted a large following in that way. But my feeling is that it's
actually _not_ okay to "refudiate" facts.


Indeed. And yet you're still posting.

Seriously, you have just described your "expertise" on this subject and
are starting to stray into serious Dunning-Kruger territory.

You'd be laughed off of CPF with your wacky "ideas" about transportation
lighting.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 10:15:15 -0700, sms wrote:

On 8/18/2013 9:09 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

Problem is, when you get to near-automotive light output levels, you
ought to be considerate of other road users, hence my objections a few
people's (OK, really one) insistence on flashlight-like beam patterns
as being "optimal."

Cute, since you're about the only one insisting that a cut-off beam is
optimal.

No. He's not.

There are many arguments for having an appropriately shaped beam for the
purpose intended. We want as much of the available light where it is
doing the most good.

Problem 1. The spill and trees argument.

OK so a bit of spill is good but we don't need to be throwing light at
the sky as there is nothing for it to reflect off meaning it carries on
along its merry way giving us no useful information. Wasted energy, as it
were. So we need some kind of focusing arrangement with lenses to prevent
this waste of our limited electrical supply and maximise efficiency in
more important areas.

Problem 2. Dazzling and blinding.

High power blinkies. *Wow!* They are good nowadays. You can see them from
miles and miles away but when you get up close and personal with a 3W led
blinking at you from an oncoming bicycle they are actually painful to
look at yet somehow mesmerising. Blink, blink, blink, blink, blink,
blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink,
blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink,
blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, CRASH!

Has anyone heard of this little thing called target fixation. There is a
reason people espouse the idea you should look through the corner at
where you are aiming to be. We tend to drive at what we look at. More so
in moments of stress. Being attention grabbing and visible vs being a
target is a trade off that we make whether we are aware or not. I like
blinkies myself for the attention but I wouldn't ever go for a 3W one
with a bare LED. And I certainly won't go for blinkies only. A good solid
light augmented with blinkies is easier to judge speed and distance on
when you are looking at it from a car or in fact another bicycle.

Solutions
---------

Lenses to focus the light so you have enough light in the distance to see
well enough. Less light is needed in the nearfield area so the main part
of the beam should be ahead. To prevent blinding and dazzling spill needs
to be controlled by shuttering, or by use of lenses and beam shaping
reflectors, thus producing a nice tight beam. Areas in which you desire a
bit more spill can be easily modified by changing the characteristics of
the front lens in appropriate areas by use of diffusion techniques.
Sandpaper the edges a bit?

The Wrong Answer
----------------

Hand held flash-lights designed to **** **** loads of light everywhere.

The inner city argument for the wrong answer
--------------------------------------------
But, but, but... It's also for self defense. In response to this I say,
one does not take a D-Cell maglite to a gun fight.


Closing
-------
Forethought, care, control, finnesse and elegance should be our
watchwords on the road.

Lets leave "nuclear powered", "Holy hell", "overkill", and "Blindingly
bright, dude!" for the hardcore offroaders amongst us. May their tree
branches shine bright in the skywash of excess power.
--
davethedave