This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Another thread in the vein of "things some cyclists strap to their heads".
I'm turning into an increasingly grumpy old man over LED lights on the roads. Visibly stroboscopic rear lights and brake lights on cars, coaxial rear indictor and brake light clusters that make the indicators really hard to see, visibly stroboscopic self-illuminated cats eyes, ludicrously bright car headlights etc... Most of these are relatively minor and manageable distractions.
However, it seems some combinations of super-bright and flashing cycle helmet mounted LED lights are outright dangerous in terms of the effect they have on other road users. There's a reason cars have dipped beams... Have we got to a tipping point where a purported safety feature for cyclists is actually putting them - and all other road users - at increased risk?
Will the law ever catch up to the LED menace?
Post edited at 21:11
10
8
In reply to wintertree:
Good question. Although I am not sure why you say just helmet lights?
There is a problem with decently powered lights being badly adjusted. Having ridden a sustrans route occasionally over the winter it is quite amazing how badly some cycle lights are set up. Given that its a old train track it is particularly bad since its very straight so a light blinds for a long time.
I am not sure for some people whether they can actually view the path immediately in front of them given the angle of the lights.
Personally I use a pair of lights. One a specific commuter set with low/high beam and then a "lets play properly offroad since chances of anyone coming the other direction are slim" however not everyone can afford that option or may care about when the second option is the better choice.
On the flipside I have found a helmet light rather useful when cycling on country lanes. My suspicion is cars aint quite certain what you are and hence are a bit more cautious/sensible. Run on fairly low power (I have a fenix which goes from about 40 lumen to 150+) I do find it useful. Whether on full power offroad or on limited on road. It reduces the chances of someone claiming at a roundabout/junction that they havent seen me when they have a bright light looking straight at them.
Good question. Although I am not sure why you say just helmet lights?
There is a problem with decently powered lights being badly adjusted. Having ridden a sustrans route occasionally over the winter it is quite amazing how badly some cycle lights are set up. Given that its a old train track it is particularly bad since its very straight so a light blinds for a long time.
I am not sure for some people whether they can actually view the path immediately in front of them given the angle of the lights.
Personally I use a pair of lights. One a specific commuter set with low/high beam and then a "lets play properly offroad since chances of anyone coming the other direction are slim" however not everyone can afford that option or may care about when the second option is the better choice.
On the flipside I have found a helmet light rather useful when cycling on country lanes. My suspicion is cars aint quite certain what you are and hence are a bit more cautious/sensible. Run on fairly low power (I have a fenix which goes from about 40 lumen to 150+) I do find it useful. Whether on full power offroad or on limited on road. It reduces the chances of someone claiming at a roundabout/junction that they havent seen me when they have a bright light looking straight at them.
2
In reply to wintertree:
Why is it putting them at risk? Ive ridden my bike for years and with the newer LEDs motorists know you are there when I had the old lights I lost count of how many near misses I had (usually at tea time when everyone was rushing home).
Mark
Why is it putting them at risk? Ive ridden my bike for years and with the newer LEDs motorists know you are there when I had the old lights I lost count of how many near misses I had (usually at tea time when everyone was rushing home).
Mark
4
1
In reply to ERB:
For the same reason that driving with headlights on full beam is putting yourself at risk perhaps? (Dazzle)
For the same reason that driving with headlights on full beam is putting yourself at risk perhaps? (Dazzle)
7
1
In reply to wintertree:
Some LED lights are getting stupidly bright and I think we should have some sensible standards for lights, but we've had this arguments before and it was futile trying to convince some people of the problem.
I cycle down the prom in Swansea in the dark very often, it's away from the road and unlit but normally I can easily see where I'm going and can be easily seen using a little blackburn voyager 3.3. Some people seem to think that they need a stadium floodlight to see by which totally knackers my night vision and I am forced to slow right down and creep past them until my eyes re-adjust to the darkness. To combat this I've recently bought a super bright light of my own that I only ever use when idiots are approaching.
I usually angle it directly at the faces of the tools with stupid lights so they can experience what it's like on the other side.
Some LED lights are getting stupidly bright and I think we should have some sensible standards for lights, but we've had this arguments before and it was futile trying to convince some people of the problem.
I cycle down the prom in Swansea in the dark very often, it's away from the road and unlit but normally I can easily see where I'm going and can be easily seen using a little blackburn voyager 3.3. Some people seem to think that they need a stadium floodlight to see by which totally knackers my night vision and I am forced to slow right down and creep past them until my eyes re-adjust to the darkness. To combat this I've recently bought a super bright light of my own that I only ever use when idiots are approaching.
I usually angle it directly at the faces of the tools with stupid lights so they can experience what it's like on the other side.
14
In reply to KevinD:
I said helmet lights because they're the main ones that cause dazzle and distraction when I'm driving/cycling/running. I think it's because handlebar lights are below my eye level and are normally pointing down, where-as helmet lights are around my eye level and are pointing horizontally (on average, they move all over the place) - that is, at me.
> Although I am not sure why you say just helmet lights?
I said helmet lights because they're the main ones that cause dazzle and distraction when I'm driving/cycling/running. I think it's because handlebar lights are below my eye level and are normally pointing down, where-as helmet lights are around my eye level and are pointing horizontally (on average, they move all over the place) - that is, at me.
1
In reply to ERB:
With helmet mounted lights - dazzle and distraction.
With handlebar mounted lights - I think it's because they're very bright point sources, compared to the more spread out, less flux per 2D angle (from the viewer) lights on cars. These very bright point sources can trigger I think the eye to reduce its sensitivity to light and make other sources of light harder to see/follow, as well as demanding attention in a way other lights don't.
So whilst the motorists can see you perfectly well, you are perhaps trashing their general situational awareness. I deal with this by slowing down, but there's still and at-risk period when I'm suddenly and unexpectedly dazzled or distracted, and perhaps someone behind me gets impatient raising the risk of them overtaking right into you... I suspect a fair few drivers don't slow down and just don't realise how badly their visual perception is being hammered.
> Why is it putting them at risk? Ive ridden my bike for years and with the newer LEDs motorists know you are there when I had the old lights I lost count of how many near misses I had (usually at tea time when everyone was rushing home).
With helmet mounted lights - dazzle and distraction.
With handlebar mounted lights - I think it's because they're very bright point sources, compared to the more spread out, less flux per 2D angle (from the viewer) lights on cars. These very bright point sources can trigger I think the eye to reduce its sensitivity to light and make other sources of light harder to see/follow, as well as demanding attention in a way other lights don't.
So whilst the motorists can see you perfectly well, you are perhaps trashing their general situational awareness. I deal with this by slowing down, but there's still and at-risk period when I'm suddenly and unexpectedly dazzled or distracted, and perhaps someone behind me gets impatient raising the risk of them overtaking right into you... I suspect a fair few drivers don't slow down and just don't realise how badly their visual perception is being hammered.
Post edited at 22:16
1
In reply to wintertree:
I guess experiences must vary. I have never had issues with helmet mounted lights coming the other way. Everyone I have encounted has them sensibly angled so they dont blind. At most they can be slightly confusing in that you cant tell what it is coming towrds you but thats it.
Handlebar mounted lights are far more of a problem where I am since some people havent figured out the mount them at an angle principle.
That said I dont think they really stand out from some of the stupidly overpowered car lights nowadays.
> I said helmet lights because they're the main ones that cause dazzle and distraction when I'm driving/cycling/running.
I guess experiences must vary. I have never had issues with helmet mounted lights coming the other way. Everyone I have encounted has them sensibly angled so they dont blind. At most they can be slightly confusing in that you cant tell what it is coming towrds you but thats it.
Handlebar mounted lights are far more of a problem where I am since some people havent figured out the mount them at an angle principle.
That said I dont think they really stand out from some of the stupidly overpowered car lights nowadays.
Post edited at 22:28
1
In reply to KevinD:
It may or may not explain the difference in experiences, but it's a very hilly area where I am. The hills also exacerbate the effect of the stupidly overpowered car headlights they you mention...
> I have never had issues with helmet mounted lights coming the other way
It may or may not explain the difference in experiences, but it's a very hilly area where I am. The hills also exacerbate the effect of the stupidly overpowered car headlights they you mention...
In reply to wintertree:
Now you come to the crux of the problem, car headlights are massively overpowered leading to an arms race just to be seen.
Now you come to the crux of the problem, car headlights are massively overpowered leading to an arms race just to be seen.
12
1
In reply to wintertree:
Dunno. I guess it depends on what the headlights are set up to achieve and what the cyclist has chosen to set the angle at. How I have mine set would be pretty much unimpacted by the hilliness and I think all of the others I have seen would be the same.
I do like the headlight option on road since it does seem to make people more cautious even when at an angle which wont blind them (yes I have tested this with mates). I dont ramp it up full power until offroad though.
LED lights have changed things massively both for cars and cycles. For a dubious laugh I did try riding a offroad with what was decent lighting when i was a lad(so twenty and a bit years back) vs now. The difference in the speed i could achieve was rather startling due to how well it was lit.
> It may or may not explain the difference in experiences, but it's a very hilly area where I am. The hills also exacerbate the effect of the stupidly overpowered car headlights they you mention...
Dunno. I guess it depends on what the headlights are set up to achieve and what the cyclist has chosen to set the angle at. How I have mine set would be pretty much unimpacted by the hilliness and I think all of the others I have seen would be the same.
I do like the headlight option on road since it does seem to make people more cautious even when at an angle which wont blind them (yes I have tested this with mates). I dont ramp it up full power until offroad though.
LED lights have changed things massively both for cars and cycles. For a dubious laugh I did try riding a offroad with what was decent lighting when i was a lad(so twenty and a bit years back) vs now. The difference in the speed i could achieve was rather startling due to how well it was lit.
In reply to Siward:
Id rather get noticed than run over, until there is some legislation to keep vehical head lights and cyclists head lights at a determined light level you have to bring attention to yourself somehow.
Having a candle in a jar just is'nt enough.
Id rather get noticed than run over, until there is some legislation to keep vehical head lights and cyclists head lights at a determined light level you have to bring attention to yourself somehow.
Having a candle in a jar just is'nt enough.
2
2
In reply to wintertree:
I agree pretty much with your original post, but have to say that car manufacturers lead the way in stupidly bright and dangerous light design. Give it a few more years and sunglasses will be essential for night driving, with pedestrians, street furniture and traffic lights all needing at least 1000 lumen lights to be visible against the glare...
I agree pretty much with your original post, but have to say that car manufacturers lead the way in stupidly bright and dangerous light design. Give it a few more years and sunglasses will be essential for night driving, with pedestrians, street furniture and traffic lights all needing at least 1000 lumen lights to be visible against the glare...
4
I already use 1080 lm light with 120 degree beam on my bicycle in London. Only downside is that it has to be recharged every 90 minutes on such setting, but at least it's bright. As long as it's legal it's just stupid not to.
3
In reply to Ridge:
There is something very directional about modern headlights too that makes it look like you are being flashed (why? what's ahead!?) when the car coming towards you has simply gone over a bump.
There is something very directional about modern headlights too that makes it look like you are being flashed (why? what's ahead!?) when the car coming towards you has simply gone over a bump.
1
In reply to ERB:
My experience is that ultrabright bike lights, especially white ones can be so dazzling especially in the rain that it becomes impossible to properly judge depth and therefore position of the light. Personally when that happens I just stop (and quietly seethe) while the bike comes past but plenty won't, they'll squint, look away from the light and hope for the best which is the last thing you want them to do.
The other thing I dislike about being dazzled (and bike lights are now the worst offenders by some margin on my country road commute) is that for sometimes several hundred meters ahead of me I can now no longer see what's on my side of the road, commonly on my commute that's other cyclists and dog walkers (no pavement) so again I'm forced to stop sometimes for a minute or so if they're climbing slowly towards me with their little white sun turned on.
Just part of modern life, it's hard to get too worked up about it.
jk
> Why is it putting them at risk?
My experience is that ultrabright bike lights, especially white ones can be so dazzling especially in the rain that it becomes impossible to properly judge depth and therefore position of the light. Personally when that happens I just stop (and quietly seethe) while the bike comes past but plenty won't, they'll squint, look away from the light and hope for the best which is the last thing you want them to do.
The other thing I dislike about being dazzled (and bike lights are now the worst offenders by some margin on my country road commute) is that for sometimes several hundred meters ahead of me I can now no longer see what's on my side of the road, commonly on my commute that's other cyclists and dog walkers (no pavement) so again I'm forced to stop sometimes for a minute or so if they're climbing slowly towards me with their little white sun turned on.
Just part of modern life, it's hard to get too worked up about it.
jk
3
1
In reply to KevinD:
The problem with helmet lights specifically is that on making eye contact with a driver (which you of course should do) you also blind them[1]. On those grounds I actually believe they should be banned above a "marker" level of brightness, or at the very least a certain level of dip should be mandated when used with a bicycle such that the light does not go in the same direction as the eyes. It's less of an issue with runners/walkers as they tend to point them much lower.
[1] I'm forever telling my Scouts not to look at others while using badly adjusted headtorches. On the road, that's really dangerous, not just annoying.
Have as much brightness as you like fixed to the bike or to your body (rather than head) of course, though I would say that high-intensity headlights should have a dim-dip function just like car ones do, because these days they're just as blinding as main-beam car headlights.
I also find pulsed (i.e. about 50Hz, not 0.5-1Hz flashing which is quite effective at what it does, namely making a bicycle stand out as being one) car tail-lights a problem, and do hope there is a law mandating a minimum frequency of at least 100Hz by the time we start having LED headlamps as a common thing.
> Good question. Although I am not sure why you say just helmet lights?
The problem with helmet lights specifically is that on making eye contact with a driver (which you of course should do) you also blind them[1]. On those grounds I actually believe they should be banned above a "marker" level of brightness, or at the very least a certain level of dip should be mandated when used with a bicycle such that the light does not go in the same direction as the eyes. It's less of an issue with runners/walkers as they tend to point them much lower.
[1] I'm forever telling my Scouts not to look at others while using badly adjusted headtorches. On the road, that's really dangerous, not just annoying.
Have as much brightness as you like fixed to the bike or to your body (rather than head) of course, though I would say that high-intensity headlights should have a dim-dip function just like car ones do, because these days they're just as blinding as main-beam car headlights.
I also find pulsed (i.e. about 50Hz, not 0.5-1Hz flashing which is quite effective at what it does, namely making a bicycle stand out as being one) car tail-lights a problem, and do hope there is a law mandating a minimum frequency of at least 100Hz by the time we start having LED headlamps as a common thing.
Post edited at 13:21
2
In reply to MG:
This is really annoying, especially when it flashes blue in my peripheral vision triggering a period of looking for a blue light vehicle. I think it's chromatic aberration on cheap replicated plastic optics for HID lamps. As a distraction to other road users it can only worsen safety.
Many different aspects of road lighting need some serious common sense legislation. With car headlights the problem is that legislation concerns electrical power consumed and not optical power out. Insanity.
> There is something very directional about modern headlights too that makes it look like you are being flashed (why? what's ahead!?) when the car coming towards you has simply gone over a bump.
This is really annoying, especially when it flashes blue in my peripheral vision triggering a period of looking for a blue light vehicle. I think it's chromatic aberration on cheap replicated plastic optics for HID lamps. As a distraction to other road users it can only worsen safety.
Many different aspects of road lighting need some serious common sense legislation. With car headlights the problem is that legislation concerns electrical power consumed and not optical power out. Insanity.
Post edited at 13:25
1
In reply to wintertree:
When i used to ride a lot on the roads it became a choice between a light that got you seen (Most of the time) or a light that let you see enough to maintain your speeds both on the road bike at upto 30mph and off road on the mtb at similar speeds downhill.
Eventually you have enough incidents where the car didnt see you lit up like a christmas tree with your 'be seen' lights that you decide that you need your more powerfull lights. All those cars that come up the centre of A & B roads at 70mph on a dark evening scaring you to death have no excuse anymore for 'not seeing you'. If you are really lucky you look the guy striaght in the eyes enough to force him to slow down a little or even move over a little.
I liked the look of the volvo safe paint idea and once that kind of thing takes off the lights should be able to be tapered down a little. Until then its safer to blind the idiot and force him to slow down than it is to take your chances with the high percentage of drivers on the road who 'didnt see you'.
When i used to ride a lot on the roads it became a choice between a light that got you seen (Most of the time) or a light that let you see enough to maintain your speeds both on the road bike at upto 30mph and off road on the mtb at similar speeds downhill.
Eventually you have enough incidents where the car didnt see you lit up like a christmas tree with your 'be seen' lights that you decide that you need your more powerfull lights. All those cars that come up the centre of A & B roads at 70mph on a dark evening scaring you to death have no excuse anymore for 'not seeing you'. If you are really lucky you look the guy striaght in the eyes enough to force him to slow down a little or even move over a little.
I liked the look of the volvo safe paint idea and once that kind of thing takes off the lights should be able to be tapered down a little. Until then its safer to blind the idiot and force him to slow down than it is to take your chances with the high percentage of drivers on the road who 'didnt see you'.
2
2
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:
You keep telling yourself that but bear in mind you're not actually forcing anyone to slow down.
You're dazzling them, dangerously reducing their situational awareness. Some folk will realise this and slow down or stop as you apparently desire (which I think is a pretty idiotic attitude). Some people and I doubt it's a small minority simply won't realise how impaired they are by your light and will plough on squinting unable to judge your position or even see other road users (which could still cause a collision you get caught up in). Some will be so pissed at you they just flick to full beam and keep coming at you but angry and intent on making a point. Does any of that actually make for a safer ride?
jk
> I liked the look of the volvo safe paint idea and once that kind of thing takes off the lights should be able to be tapered down a little. Until then its safer to blind the idiot and force him to slow down than it is to take your chances with the high percentage of drivers on the road who 'didnt see you'.
You keep telling yourself that but bear in mind you're not actually forcing anyone to slow down.
You're dazzling them, dangerously reducing their situational awareness. Some folk will realise this and slow down or stop as you apparently desire (which I think is a pretty idiotic attitude). Some people and I doubt it's a small minority simply won't realise how impaired they are by your light and will plough on squinting unable to judge your position or even see other road users (which could still cause a collision you get caught up in). Some will be so pissed at you they just flick to full beam and keep coming at you but angry and intent on making a point. Does any of that actually make for a safer ride?
jk
4
1
In reply to wintertree:
German law already has. Front bike lights there have to have a proper reflector like a dip-beam headlight so you only see a reflection of the filament (LED diode) and not flash. The ones you see on the road here have rubbish optics, but then what do you expect when it was £30 from China for something as bright as a car headlight?
Busch and Muller make nice ones with proper optics that you can buy in the UK, as do Phillips, the beam pattern is much better for riding at night on unlit roads as well. I like my flashing front light in urban areas though, but its not that bright. A mate runs a flasher pointing backwards at his body so that his high vis gear is illuminated which seems quite sensible on reflection.
I sold a stupid magicshine that just blinded everybody and was basically antisocial. Most people are using off road trail riding lights on the road.
> Will the law ever catch up to the LED menace?
German law already has. Front bike lights there have to have a proper reflector like a dip-beam headlight so you only see a reflection of the filament (LED diode) and not flash. The ones you see on the road here have rubbish optics, but then what do you expect when it was £30 from China for something as bright as a car headlight?
Busch and Muller make nice ones with proper optics that you can buy in the UK, as do Phillips, the beam pattern is much better for riding at night on unlit roads as well. I like my flashing front light in urban areas though, but its not that bright. A mate runs a flasher pointing backwards at his body so that his high vis gear is illuminated which seems quite sensible on reflection.
I sold a stupid magicshine that just blinded everybody and was basically antisocial. Most people are using off road trail riding lights on the road.
5
In reply to petellis:
German law was always a lot more sensible with bicycles, recognising them as proper grown-up road vehicles rather than just playthings as British law sometimes seems to regard them.
German law was always a lot more sensible with bicycles, recognising them as proper grown-up road vehicles rather than just playthings as British law sometimes seems to regard them.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
exactly how is this minimum level of dip going to work? Personally cant say i have ever been fussed by headmounted torches. Badly mounted bar ones yes. Although even they pale into insignificance compared to the shiny new lights on 4X4s which just happen to be at seated head level on a normal car.
> The problem with helmet lights specifically is that on making eye contact with a driver (which you of course should do) you also blind them[1]. On those grounds I actually believe they should be banned above a "marker" level of brightness, or at the very least a certain level of dip should be mandated when used with a bicycle such that the light does not go in the same direction as the eyes.
exactly how is this minimum level of dip going to work? Personally cant say i have ever been fussed by headmounted torches. Badly mounted bar ones yes. Although even they pale into insignificance compared to the shiny new lights on 4X4s which just happen to be at seated head level on a normal car.
1
In reply to jkarran:
You make a lot of presumtions there
Your not forcing them to slow down...........How do you know? In most circumstances with a car travelling towards a cyclist with a head torch of decent output all the car can see is the light. In this situation the car has a few thoughts.
1) Its a cyclist - Either plough on or be considerate (Maybe your angry man will come out so can be negative)
2) Its a car with a light out - Slow down or give enough room for a car (Ie safer)
3) Its a motorbike - Give it enough room, possibly slow down (Ie safer)
Your dazzling them and reducing their situational awareness............How do you know? Most situations the car has had plenty of time to see the light. Hell even driving at 60mph in the dark coming the opposite direction i have plenty of time to dip my lights on my car so i dare say these drivers dont get caught unawares. I have a button on my lights to dim them 100%/75%/50%. I often do that and look at the verge when i meet cars coming the other way. Its just the considerate way to be.
Some people will slow down or stop as you desire..................- I dont desire anyone to stop. Be aware of me on the road by seeing my supa dupa light is all i want. I will happily turn it down or point it away if needs be (I ride with a helmet light plus a bar light. The bar light is much more of a flood so much more sociable).
Some will plough on regardless of how impaired their vision is.............Well now how is that worse than them ploughing on unaware that i am even there? At least i have made the effort for them to try to avoid me. If i have used a lesser light and they just plough through me, how is that safer?
Some will be so pissed at you they just flick to full beam and keep coming at you but angry and intent on making a point. Does any of that actually make for a safer ride......................How does a cyclist deal with someone of that nature? The cyclist just wants to ensure he is seen. 99% of the drivers i have witnessed on country lanes doing 1000's of miles in the dark acknowledge the light from distance, adjust their speed and position on the road and i do the same. Its angry, agressive drivers in their metal boxes who make things so dangerous.
You make a lot of presumtions there
Your not forcing them to slow down...........How do you know? In most circumstances with a car travelling towards a cyclist with a head torch of decent output all the car can see is the light. In this situation the car has a few thoughts.
1) Its a cyclist - Either plough on or be considerate (Maybe your angry man will come out so can be negative)
2) Its a car with a light out - Slow down or give enough room for a car (Ie safer)
3) Its a motorbike - Give it enough room, possibly slow down (Ie safer)
Your dazzling them and reducing their situational awareness............How do you know? Most situations the car has had plenty of time to see the light. Hell even driving at 60mph in the dark coming the opposite direction i have plenty of time to dip my lights on my car so i dare say these drivers dont get caught unawares. I have a button on my lights to dim them 100%/75%/50%. I often do that and look at the verge when i meet cars coming the other way. Its just the considerate way to be.
Some people will slow down or stop as you desire..................- I dont desire anyone to stop. Be aware of me on the road by seeing my supa dupa light is all i want. I will happily turn it down or point it away if needs be (I ride with a helmet light plus a bar light. The bar light is much more of a flood so much more sociable).
Some will plough on regardless of how impaired their vision is.............Well now how is that worse than them ploughing on unaware that i am even there? At least i have made the effort for them to try to avoid me. If i have used a lesser light and they just plough through me, how is that safer?
Some will be so pissed at you they just flick to full beam and keep coming at you but angry and intent on making a point. Does any of that actually make for a safer ride......................How does a cyclist deal with someone of that nature? The cyclist just wants to ensure he is seen. 99% of the drivers i have witnessed on country lanes doing 1000's of miles in the dark acknowledge the light from distance, adjust their speed and position on the road and i do the same. Its angry, agressive drivers in their metal boxes who make things so dangerous.
1
2
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:
I don't feel I did. I think I reasonably responded to what you actually wrote.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word force. At least it seems we agree on the meaning of the word dazzling.
I know that being dazzled while driving dramatically reduces my situational awareness and I know that the worst offenders out there are bike lights by quite some margin. I'll concede it's possible my eyes are different from everyone else's but I've never come across any evidence to substantiate that.
How do you know when you shine your lamp in the eyes of an oncoming driver what information you're depriving them of, would you be able to see a pedestrian in their path? Are you certain?
If you dazzle me to make me slow down you've robbed me of the view I need to drive safely. Since I have no idea if you'll do it again in reality, I tend to stop which is frustrating as hell but safe for you and safe for whoever else might be in the road between us. Personally I think it's rather inconsiderate behavior to put someone in that position.
Because now they're dazzled and less able to accurately see and judge where you and other road users are. There's a gulf between being clearly visible and aiming a 1000 lumen lamp at a wet windscreen.
jk
> You make a lot of presumtions there
I don't feel I did. I think I reasonably responded to what you actually wrote.
> Your not forcing them to slow down...........How do you know? In most circumstances with a car travelling towards a cyclist with a head torch of decent output all the car can see is the light. In this situation the car has a few thoughts.
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the word force. At least it seems we agree on the meaning of the word dazzling.
> Your dazzling them and reducing their situational awareness............How do you know? Most situations the car has had plenty of time to see the light. Hell even driving at 60mph in the dark coming the opposite direction i have plenty of time to dip my lights on my car so i dare say these drivers dont get caught unawares. I have a button on my lights to dim them 100%/75%/50%. I often do that and look at the verge when i meet cars coming the other way. Its just the considerate way to be.
I know that being dazzled while driving dramatically reduces my situational awareness and I know that the worst offenders out there are bike lights by quite some margin. I'll concede it's possible my eyes are different from everyone else's but I've never come across any evidence to substantiate that.
How do you know when you shine your lamp in the eyes of an oncoming driver what information you're depriving them of, would you be able to see a pedestrian in their path? Are you certain?
> Some people will slow down or stop as you desire..................- I dont desire anyone to stop. Be aware of me on the road by seeing my supa dupa light is all i want. I will happily turn it down or point it away if needs be (I ride with a helmet light plus a bar light. The bar light is much more of a flood so much more sociable).
If you dazzle me to make me slow down you've robbed me of the view I need to drive safely. Since I have no idea if you'll do it again in reality, I tend to stop which is frustrating as hell but safe for you and safe for whoever else might be in the road between us. Personally I think it's rather inconsiderate behavior to put someone in that position.
> Some will plough on regardless of how impaired their vision is.............Well now how is that worse than them ploughing on unaware that i am even there? At least i have made the effort for them to try to avoid me. If i have used a lesser light and they just plough through me, how is that safer?
Because now they're dazzled and less able to accurately see and judge where you and other road users are. There's a gulf between being clearly visible and aiming a 1000 lumen lamp at a wet windscreen.
jk
Post edited at 16:26
3
In reply to jkarran:
Lets not forget its the vehical operator/ drivers legal obligation to give way to cyclists all we are doing by using LED lights is letting them know we are there.
Lets not forget its the vehical operator/ drivers legal obligation to give way to cyclists all we are doing by using LED lights is letting them know we are there.
3
In reply to jkarran:
All your responses seem to presume that in all situations the cyclist has somehow jumped out of the bushes and ambushed the poor car driver. The point of the light on the bike is two fold. To be able to see the road and conditions to be able to ride safer. AND to be seen from further distances with no 'i didnt see you' excuses. It has no place to be used to dazzle a driver other than if the driver has blatant disregard for a cyclists saferty. Maybe if i ask, is it safer to be approached by
1) A driver who is unaware of your presence
2) A driver aware of your presence but angry man enough to not give a hoot and plough straight on
3) A driver who has been made aware of your presence by being dazzled from a distance and given time to adjust
If you have seen a cyclist light from a distance and are driving considerately then the cyclist is a knob if he persists with causing you issues. Its strange in that its always angry shouty man who feels its him thats been put in a dangerous situation whilst driving his 1000kg lump of metal at the cyclist who is aproaching at about 1/10th of his speed with zero to protect him other than a light.
All your responses seem to presume that in all situations the cyclist has somehow jumped out of the bushes and ambushed the poor car driver. The point of the light on the bike is two fold. To be able to see the road and conditions to be able to ride safer. AND to be seen from further distances with no 'i didnt see you' excuses. It has no place to be used to dazzle a driver other than if the driver has blatant disregard for a cyclists saferty. Maybe if i ask, is it safer to be approached by
1) A driver who is unaware of your presence
2) A driver aware of your presence but angry man enough to not give a hoot and plough straight on
3) A driver who has been made aware of your presence by being dazzled from a distance and given time to adjust
If you have seen a cyclist light from a distance and are driving considerately then the cyclist is a knob if he persists with causing you issues. Its strange in that its always angry shouty man who feels its him thats been put in a dangerous situation whilst driving his 1000kg lump of metal at the cyclist who is aproaching at about 1/10th of his speed with zero to protect him other than a light.
3
1
In reply to wintertree:
If you dazzle me to make me slow down you've robbed me of the view I need to drive safely. Since I have no idea if you'll do it again in reality, I tend to stop which is frustrating as hell but safe for you and safe for whoever else might be in the road between us. Personally I think it's rather inconsiderate behavior to put someone in that position.
I particularly like this. I would rather be considered inconsiderate 100% of the time if it saves me from the 1 time i come across 'i didnt see you' guy and he ends my life.
If you dazzle me to make me slow down you've robbed me of the view I need to drive safely. Since I have no idea if you'll do it again in reality, I tend to stop which is frustrating as hell but safe for you and safe for whoever else might be in the road between us. Personally I think it's rather inconsiderate behavior to put someone in that position.
I particularly like this. I would rather be considered inconsiderate 100% of the time if it saves me from the 1 time i come across 'i didnt see you' guy and he ends my life.
2
2
In reply to wintertree:
Well, not sure about helmet lights, but many of the highpowered lights on bikes have mulitple settings at the press of a button, not sure why, if you are cycling out in the countryside, you can't dim lower the output once the car is nearer. I have noticed this issue grow more common as both a cyclist, driver and runner. Sometimes cycling at night ultra bright rear flashing lights ruin my vision and I either slow down and let some distance grow between me and the bike in front or overtake them, depends on their speed. Running in the park at night I often encounter cyclists coming towards me with high powered flashing front lights practically blind me to them and the path and leave me with after effects. But as others have pointed out it is a stupid arms race on all transport. Driving around London its now common for me to have cars sitting behind me with their stupid bright lights shining into the car, and making the mirrors useless. Not sure what the solution is, as the law can't enforce existing laws on lights, if a max output was put in place, I could not see it being enforced.
Well, not sure about helmet lights, but many of the highpowered lights on bikes have mulitple settings at the press of a button, not sure why, if you are cycling out in the countryside, you can't dim lower the output once the car is nearer. I have noticed this issue grow more common as both a cyclist, driver and runner. Sometimes cycling at night ultra bright rear flashing lights ruin my vision and I either slow down and let some distance grow between me and the bike in front or overtake them, depends on their speed. Running in the park at night I often encounter cyclists coming towards me with high powered flashing front lights practically blind me to them and the path and leave me with after effects. But as others have pointed out it is a stupid arms race on all transport. Driving around London its now common for me to have cars sitting behind me with their stupid bright lights shining into the car, and making the mirrors useless. Not sure what the solution is, as the law can't enforce existing laws on lights, if a max output was put in place, I could not see it being enforced.
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:
You think I'm an angry shouty man? You might be right I suppose but not about cyclists out on the road.
What makes me angry is the idea that by dazzling (sorry if I misquote, I checked back and you actually said 'blinding') other road users you're making yourself safer. You're not. It's not just inconsiderate to the driver but to anyone who might be in their path between you and it's fecking stupid because most will keep coming at you anyway but now with impaired vision.
Now I have no problem with giving people a little flash of the head torch when approaching a junction or when they're coming at me to make sure I've been seen but you said "blind the idiot and force him to slow down" which is what I take exception to. Now that may be macho posturing on your part but it's a near daily reality of my winter drive home.
jk
> If you have seen a cyclist light from a distance and are driving considerately then the cyclist is a knob if he persists with causing you issues. Its strange in that its always angry shouty man who feels its him thats been put in a dangerous situation whilst driving his 1000kg lump of metal at the cyclist who is aproaching at about 1/10th of his speed with zero to protect him other than a light.
You think I'm an angry shouty man? You might be right I suppose but not about cyclists out on the road.
What makes me angry is the idea that by dazzling (sorry if I misquote, I checked back and you actually said 'blinding') other road users you're making yourself safer. You're not. It's not just inconsiderate to the driver but to anyone who might be in their path between you and it's fecking stupid because most will keep coming at you anyway but now with impaired vision.
Now I have no problem with giving people a little flash of the head torch when approaching a junction or when they're coming at me to make sure I've been seen but you said "blind the idiot and force him to slow down" which is what I take exception to. Now that may be macho posturing on your part but it's a near daily reality of my winter drive home.
jk
4
1
In reply to ERB:
It's hard to tell serious posts from satire sometimes.
Just in case you're serious: I'm not talking about reasonable, even bright bike lighting so long as it's properly adjusted. I'm not even talking about people with headtorch type lights moving it around and giving you a quick flash of it to improve their chances of being seen. I'm talking about the morons with a little bottled sun strapped to their head or bars aimed solidly at windscreen height it doesn't make you safer, it hides you and other road users in a shower of dazzling light.
jk
> Lets not forget its the vehical operator/ drivers legal obligation to give way to cyclists all we are doing by using LED lights is letting them know we are there.
It's hard to tell serious posts from satire sometimes.
Just in case you're serious: I'm not talking about reasonable, even bright bike lighting so long as it's properly adjusted. I'm not even talking about people with headtorch type lights moving it around and giving you a quick flash of it to improve their chances of being seen. I'm talking about the morons with a little bottled sun strapped to their head or bars aimed solidly at windscreen height it doesn't make you safer, it hides you and other road users in a shower of dazzling light.
jk
3
1
In reply to RX-78:
A very good point. Depressing, but true. There is basically zero enforcement of the existing law on having cycle lights and night in my local city. That's a far more serious concern than lights that are to bright, and one where the safety argument is far less ambiguous.
> Not sure what the solution is, as the law can't enforce existing laws on lights, if a max output was put in place, I could not see it being enforced.
A very good point. Depressing, but true. There is basically zero enforcement of the existing law on having cycle lights and night in my local city. That's a far more serious concern than lights that are to bright, and one where the safety argument is far less ambiguous.
In reply to RX-78:
Definately most lights have at least 3 settings. Very usefull when you are up Helvelyn on a late evening ride and taken a wrong turn and you need to account for extra time needed to recover your route. Those settings also double or even triple battery run times. On the roads its not often you need them to be on full 'retina burn' setting.
Its all a case of respect. I respect other road users in that i dont ever want to dazzle them. In return i expect them to drive in such a way that i dont feel they are going to endanger myself out on the road. Unfortunately angry man in a metal box sometimes doesnt see the little lights on the bike or choses to ignore them. In that situation i dont know what is best but i prefer to have the chance to make it 100% sure he has seen me.
Definately most lights have at least 3 settings. Very usefull when you are up Helvelyn on a late evening ride and taken a wrong turn and you need to account for extra time needed to recover your route. Those settings also double or even triple battery run times. On the roads its not often you need them to be on full 'retina burn' setting.
Its all a case of respect. I respect other road users in that i dont ever want to dazzle them. In return i expect them to drive in such a way that i dont feel they are going to endanger myself out on the road. Unfortunately angry man in a metal box sometimes doesnt see the little lights on the bike or choses to ignore them. In that situation i dont know what is best but i prefer to have the chance to make it 100% sure he has seen me.
1
1
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:
I'm afraid I don't really understand the context of your message. Re: your general point however, I think many motorists do not slow when dazzled, so you a cyclist using dazzle as a tool is putting everyone on the road at increased risk.
I'm afraid I don't really understand the context of your message. Re: your general point however, I think many motorists do not slow when dazzled, so you a cyclist using dazzle as a tool is putting everyone on the road at increased risk.
2
In reply to petellis:
This is what I prefer - a moderately bright handlebar light going at a few flashes a second, and a off road headlight on the handlebars that is manually dipped and set to its lowest brightness with in urban areas, and used on higher power out in the sticks.
I think anecdotally that medium intensity flashing with a wide angle beam is far more noticeable on average than a brighter narrow beam headlight intended for seeing difficult terrain.
I don't know if there is much decent evidence put the on this?
> I like my flashing front light in urban areas though, but its not that bright.
This is what I prefer - a moderately bright handlebar light going at a few flashes a second, and a off road headlight on the handlebars that is manually dipped and set to its lowest brightness with in urban areas, and used on higher power out in the sticks.
I think anecdotally that medium intensity flashing with a wide angle beam is far more noticeable on average than a brighter narrow beam headlight intended for seeing difficult terrain.
I don't know if there is much decent evidence put the on this?
3
In reply to jkarran:
Sorry to challenge your superiority but this little moron has ridden with both the older bulb lights and the newer LEDs and speaking from experiance I feel a lot safer with the LEDs .
Sorry to challenge your superiority but this little moron has ridden with both the older bulb lights and the newer LEDs and speaking from experiance I feel a lot safer with the LEDs .
2
1
In reply to jkarran:
As i said earlier, if cyclists are persisting in dazzling/blinding you even if you are driving considerately then they are knobs. Have you looked at it from their perspective? Are you aware of your position in the road? Have you checked your own headlights adjustment? Are you adjusting your speed on narrow roads that has a single light coming towards you that may or may not be a cyclist?
It may be that they are being intimidated by your driving. In the thousands of miles i have ridden over the years with some amazing people on the roads and off road i have never once experienced a cyclist who wanted to dazzle a car driver just for the hell of it. That person wouldnt last long on the roads before they were squished.
As i said earlier, if cyclists are persisting in dazzling/blinding you even if you are driving considerately then they are knobs. Have you looked at it from their perspective? Are you aware of your position in the road? Have you checked your own headlights adjustment? Are you adjusting your speed on narrow roads that has a single light coming towards you that may or may not be a cyclist?
It may be that they are being intimidated by your driving. In the thousands of miles i have ridden over the years with some amazing people on the roads and off road i have never once experienced a cyclist who wanted to dazzle a car driver just for the hell of it. That person wouldnt last long on the roads before they were squished.
1
2
In reply to ERB:
I also prefer modern lights but 'LEDs' cover a broad spectrum of devices that can be used and abused in a number of ways. Unless you're condoning deliberately dazzling other road users which is what I'm taking exception to I suspect we might have a broadly similar experience and viewpoint on this.
jk
> Sorry to challenge your superiority but this little moron has ridden with both the older bulb lights and the newer LEDs and speaking from experiance I feel a lot safer with the LEDs .
I also prefer modern lights but 'LEDs' cover a broad spectrum of devices that can be used and abused in a number of ways. Unless you're condoning deliberately dazzling other road users which is what I'm taking exception to I suspect we might have a broadly similar experience and viewpoint on this.
jk
In reply to ERB:
I actually preferred the older halogen lights for off road riding. The yellower light gave more depth perception of rocks because it cast shadows.
The new LEDS just turn everything white and i struggle with potholes etc.
I think we all want the same thing for everyone to be safe on the road. I would hate to dazzle someone who is driving considerately and safely. Conversely i want the highest power possible to ensure the idiot who doesnt account for a cyclist on the road with appropriate lights etc. I want him to know i am there and the brighter the light to warn him of that from a distance the better
I actually preferred the older halogen lights for off road riding. The yellower light gave more depth perception of rocks because it cast shadows.
The new LEDS just turn everything white and i struggle with potholes etc.
I think we all want the same thing for everyone to be safe on the road. I would hate to dazzle someone who is driving considerately and safely. Conversely i want the highest power possible to ensure the idiot who doesnt account for a cyclist on the road with appropriate lights etc. I want him to know i am there and the brighter the light to warn him of that from a distance the better
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
Never mind front lights, when I cycle in London amongst the commuting cyclists the latest fashion is incredibly bright rear lights. It dazzles me and is really annoying. It doesn't add to visibility; normal rear lights are very visible, particularly if they're flashing.
Thank heavens for Edinburgh where cyclists sensibly wear black, have no lights at all, and the council helpfully ignore bottomless potholes in the cycling area. Oh and have no bike parking anywhere so why bother cycling in the first place?
I may have strayed off the subject a bit.
Never mind front lights, when I cycle in London amongst the commuting cyclists the latest fashion is incredibly bright rear lights. It dazzles me and is really annoying. It doesn't add to visibility; normal rear lights are very visible, particularly if they're flashing.
Thank heavens for Edinburgh where cyclists sensibly wear black, have no lights at all, and the council helpfully ignore bottomless potholes in the cycling area. Oh and have no bike parking anywhere so why bother cycling in the first place?
I may have strayed off the subject a bit.
3
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:
I've spent half my life driving on little windy roads without markings or curbs, I'm very well aware of my position on them. I'm not an aggressive driver and there's nothing wrong with my eyes or my headlight adjustment. I don't have any problem with other cars, motorcycles, horses, pedestrians or the vast majority of cyclists, it's just a select few with dangerously badly adjusted ultrabright lights that put themselves and others at risk I object to.
I'm just telling you from the driver's perspective (perhaps nobody has ever done it to you) what happens when you choose to shine that ultra-bright lamp into an oncoming windscreen, especially a wet one to "look the guy straight in the eyes and blind the idiot" as you put it:
You, everyone around you and the road edges/markings disappear in an instant into a shower of sparkles and glare. You're saying you do this to make you safe from idiots, I'm suggesting assuming you know this is what happens and you continue to dazzle people the idiot may not be in the oncoming car.
I don't imagine for a moment it's just for the hell of it. In the case of the chap who routinely dazzles me I suspect it's thoughtlessness, he has it on bright and adjusted high to see the pot holes well down the road, he just doesn't realise or perhaps care about his impact on others (and his own safety as a result of that thoughtlessness).
jk
> As i said earlier, if cyclists are persisting in dazzling/blinding you even if you are driving considerately then they are knobs. Have you looked at it from their perspective? Are you aware of your position in the road? Have you checked your own headlights adjustment? Are you adjusting your speed on narrow roads that has a single light coming towards you that may or may not be a cyclist?
I've spent half my life driving on little windy roads without markings or curbs, I'm very well aware of my position on them. I'm not an aggressive driver and there's nothing wrong with my eyes or my headlight adjustment. I don't have any problem with other cars, motorcycles, horses, pedestrians or the vast majority of cyclists, it's just a select few with dangerously badly adjusted ultrabright lights that put themselves and others at risk I object to.
I'm just telling you from the driver's perspective (perhaps nobody has ever done it to you) what happens when you choose to shine that ultra-bright lamp into an oncoming windscreen, especially a wet one to "look the guy straight in the eyes and blind the idiot" as you put it:
You, everyone around you and the road edges/markings disappear in an instant into a shower of sparkles and glare. You're saying you do this to make you safe from idiots, I'm suggesting assuming you know this is what happens and you continue to dazzle people the idiot may not be in the oncoming car.
> It may be that they are being intimidated by your driving. In the thousands of miles i have ridden over the years with some amazing people on the roads and off road i have never once experienced a cyclist who wanted to dazzle a car driver just for the hell of it. That person wouldnt last long on the roads before they were squished.
I don't imagine for a moment it's just for the hell of it. In the case of the chap who routinely dazzles me I suspect it's thoughtlessness, he has it on bright and adjusted high to see the pot holes well down the road, he just doesn't realise or perhaps care about his impact on others (and his own safety as a result of that thoughtlessness).
jk
5
In reply to wintertree:
I cycle with 2 LED front lights, each with similar intensity to car lights on dipped beam, and a helmet light also with similar intensity. As a cyclist and a motorist, I am better positioned than most people to take a balanced view on this topic and my balanced view is that the failure of a large minority of motorists to pay proper attention to other traffic whilst they are driving renders this level of illumination entirely justified.
If you would rather that cyclists had less intense lights then you need to start by telling your fellow motorists to pay attention to the f*cking road.
http://www.fenixtorch.co.uk/ - I highly recommend the products of this company. They really are the dogs proverbials when it comes to modern LED headtorches and bike lights.
I cycle with 2 LED front lights, each with similar intensity to car lights on dipped beam, and a helmet light also with similar intensity. As a cyclist and a motorist, I am better positioned than most people to take a balanced view on this topic and my balanced view is that the failure of a large minority of motorists to pay proper attention to other traffic whilst they are driving renders this level of illumination entirely justified.
If you would rather that cyclists had less intense lights then you need to start by telling your fellow motorists to pay attention to the f*cking road.
http://www.fenixtorch.co.uk/ - I highly recommend the products of this company. They really are the dogs proverbials when it comes to modern LED headtorches and bike lights.
3
In reply to JdotP:
Exactly-
Having been driven off the road numerous times by cars that don't dip their headlights for bikes I can say with complete certainty that it is only since I got a powerful front light that cars behave properly in this respect.
I commute mixed routes that go straight from off-road to city traffic and run a full beam for both, I lower the power for cycle paths. Off road you get a decent view ahead and on road / in traffic you get a noticeable improvement in driver behaviour with a bright light.
I also think that drivers who bike regularly will automatically look for bikes with or without lights but drivers who do not bike regularly don't seem adept at this and often appear to lose bikes in the background or ambient artificial light - being brighter than the background of street lights, shop lights and distant cars etc makes a big difference.
Exactly-
Having been driven off the road numerous times by cars that don't dip their headlights for bikes I can say with complete certainty that it is only since I got a powerful front light that cars behave properly in this respect.
I commute mixed routes that go straight from off-road to city traffic and run a full beam for both, I lower the power for cycle paths. Off road you get a decent view ahead and on road / in traffic you get a noticeable improvement in driver behaviour with a bright light.
I also think that drivers who bike regularly will automatically look for bikes with or without lights but drivers who do not bike regularly don't seem adept at this and often appear to lose bikes in the background or ambient artificial light - being brighter than the background of street lights, shop lights and distant cars etc makes a big difference.
1
In reply to JdotP:
Dipped beam intensity is quite acceptable, provided it *is* dipped. Even higher intensity is more than acceptable provided it can be, and is, easily dipped when a vehicle comes the other way. I can't support using that intensity of light on a helmet as you *will* end up shining it in drivers' (and other cyclists') eyes - I retain my view that this should not be legal as it is highly dangerous.
I too am both a cyclist and a driver, FWIW.
As for "telling our fellow motorists" things, it doesn't work like that. We otherwise get onto "telling your fellow cyclists" not to run red lights etc. I'm sure you don't (well, I hope you don't) but I can't see why it could be seen as your problem if they did.
> If you would rather that cyclists had less intense lights then you need to start by telling your fellow motorists to pay attention to the f*cking road.
Dipped beam intensity is quite acceptable, provided it *is* dipped. Even higher intensity is more than acceptable provided it can be, and is, easily dipped when a vehicle comes the other way. I can't support using that intensity of light on a helmet as you *will* end up shining it in drivers' (and other cyclists') eyes - I retain my view that this should not be legal as it is highly dangerous.
I too am both a cyclist and a driver, FWIW.
As for "telling our fellow motorists" things, it doesn't work like that. We otherwise get onto "telling your fellow cyclists" not to run red lights etc. I'm sure you don't (well, I hope you don't) but I can't see why it could be seen as your problem if they did.
Post edited at 09:08
4
In reply to duchessofmalfi:
So you find it acceptable (and sensible) to dazzle drivers of dangerous, oncoming vehicles?
I don't want a dazzled lorry driver closing on me at 56mph.
Why not dip the beams on the road and flash them when necessary as a car driver does?
> I commute mixed routes that go straight from off-road to city traffic and run a full beam for both, I lower the power for cycle paths. Off road you get a decent view ahead and on road / in traffic you get a noticeable improvement in driver behaviour with a bright light.
So you find it acceptable (and sensible) to dazzle drivers of dangerous, oncoming vehicles?
I don't want a dazzled lorry driver closing on me at 56mph.
Why not dip the beams on the road and flash them when necessary as a car driver does?
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
What about all the cars that just leave their beams on full when pedestrians and cyclists are coming towards them (rather than a car). Its as if a significant proportion of drivers (5-10%) don't even consider other road users than other drivers.
What about all the cars that just leave their beams on full when pedestrians and cyclists are coming towards them (rather than a car). Its as if a significant proportion of drivers (5-10%) don't even consider other road users than other drivers.
2
In reply to CurlyStevo:
They shouldn't do it either (and I don't). But two wrongs do not make a right. Two dangerous uses of headlights create a bigger danger than one.
They shouldn't do it either (and I don't). But two wrongs do not make a right. Two dangerous uses of headlights create a bigger danger than one.
2
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
I drive and cycle and I'm yet to come across a cyclist who's lights are anything like as annoying as a car that forgets to ( / doesn't consider the need to) dip its beams.
I have recently upgraded to 400 lumen front light and 80 lumen back which I now use on the brightest hyper constant mode (and run in the day time also). I consider any slight dazzling worth it compared with the Sorry I Didn't See You types, one of which caused me a visit to hospital last year.
I drive and cycle and I'm yet to come across a cyclist who's lights are anything like as annoying as a car that forgets to ( / doesn't consider the need to) dip its beams.
I have recently upgraded to 400 lumen front light and 80 lumen back which I now use on the brightest hyper constant mode (and run in the day time also). I consider any slight dazzling worth it compared with the Sorry I Didn't See You types, one of which caused me a visit to hospital last year.
Post edited at 10:57
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
PS I aim to buy a similar strength helmet light next winter, currently I'm running a super cheapo front rear set that I managed to retro fit on to it, but they aren't really strong enough.
PS I aim to buy a similar strength helmet light next winter, currently I'm running a super cheapo front rear set that I managed to retro fit on to it, but they aren't really strong enough.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Nor I - but most cars do not forget / not consider the need to dip their beams - and I have found that a quick "dipping" hand signal reminds them if they do.
If you dazzle me I really don't appreciate it. And some people have them so poorly adjusted that they dazzle me *on my bike* - which means they are pointing *far* too high.
Bicycle headlights should fulfil the same requirements as motor vehicle headlights if they are as bright as them. I would welcome legislation and enforcement on the matter (including against those with inadequate lighting - now LEDs are widely available and cheap I think minimum brightnesses could also be increased).
> I drive and cycle and I'm yet to come across a cyclist who's lights are anything like as annoying as a car that forgets to ( / doesn't consider the need to) dip its beams.
Nor I - but most cars do not forget / not consider the need to dip their beams - and I have found that a quick "dipping" hand signal reminds them if they do.
> I have recently upgraded to 400 lumen front light and 80 lumen back which I now use on the brightest hyper constant mode (and run in the day time also). I consider any slight dazzling worth it compared with the Sorry I Didn't See You types, one of which caused me a visit to hospital last year.
If you dazzle me I really don't appreciate it. And some people have them so poorly adjusted that they dazzle me *on my bike* - which means they are pointing *far* too high.
Bicycle headlights should fulfil the same requirements as motor vehicle headlights if they are as bright as them. I would welcome legislation and enforcement on the matter (including against those with inadequate lighting - now LEDs are widely available and cheap I think minimum brightnesses could also be increased).
Post edited at 12:12
4
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I retain my view that, because eye contact is important for road users, this is dangerous and helmet lamps should be restricted legally to the kind of "marker" brightness that doesn't dazzle if shone into eyes, as that will happen much of the time naturally.
Load your bike up with car-spec headlights by all means - this is most welcome - but they should be fixed and have a car-type dim-dip feature on an easily accessible switch, and this should in my view be required by law.
I have also wondered if lorry-style yellow side lighting might be a good thing to be fitted to bicycles, avoiding the SMIDSY while alongside.
> PS I aim to buy a similar strength helmet light next winter, currently I'm running a super cheapo front rear set that I managed to retro fit on to it, but they aren't really strong enough.
I retain my view that, because eye contact is important for road users, this is dangerous and helmet lamps should be restricted legally to the kind of "marker" brightness that doesn't dazzle if shone into eyes, as that will happen much of the time naturally.
Load your bike up with car-spec headlights by all means - this is most welcome - but they should be fixed and have a car-type dim-dip feature on an easily accessible switch, and this should in my view be required by law.
I have also wondered if lorry-style yellow side lighting might be a good thing to be fitted to bicycles, avoiding the SMIDSY while alongside.
Post edited at 12:11
3
1
In reply to wintertree:
If cyclists paid road tax and had full insurance then they'd get more sympathy, oh yeah, and there should be a national register and test to take before being let onto the open road.
If cyclists paid road tax and had full insurance then they'd get more sympathy, oh yeah, and there should be a national register and test to take before being let onto the open road.
1
2
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Many cyclists are insured via the general liability clause of their home insurance, they often just don't know it. But provided they pay the cost of damage caused, who cares? It will only ever be low.
Road tax is irrelevant as zero-pollution cars also pay no road tax.
I do support Cycling Proficiency in schools.
> If cyclists paid road tax and had full insurance then they'd get more sympathy, oh yeah, and there should be a national register and test to take before being let onto the open road.
Many cyclists are insured via the general liability clause of their home insurance, they often just don't know it. But provided they pay the cost of damage caused, who cares? It will only ever be low.
Road tax is irrelevant as zero-pollution cars also pay no road tax.
I do support Cycling Proficiency in schools.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
Sorry Neil, I was being facetious, I know about insurance, VED and zero emissions etc.
And I too think the cycling proficiency should be reintroduced, although not mandatory.
Sorry Neil, I was being facetious, I know about insurance, VED and zero emissions etc.
And I too think the cycling proficiency should be reintroduced, although not mandatory.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
I think its about the upper threshold of what people should use as a helmet light. Unfortunately you have to weight up the driver getting a little dazzled compared with just not seeing the cyclist and possibly killing them.
I think its about the upper threshold of what people should use as a helmet light. Unfortunately you have to weight up the driver getting a little dazzled compared with just not seeing the cyclist and possibly killing them.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
And what if that driver then collides with someone else as a result of being dazzled? A pedestrian, perhaps?
This is where we fundamentally differ. Dazzling people on the road is not acceptable, not ever. By (unfortunate) design a high brightness helmet lamp will do this, therefore I do not believe such lamps should be legal.
We act on the road for everyone's benefit, not just our own.
> I think its about the upper threshold of what people should use as a helmet light. Unfortunately you have to weight up the driver getting a little dazzled compared with just not seeing the cyclist and possibly killing them.
And what if that driver then collides with someone else as a result of being dazzled? A pedestrian, perhaps?
This is where we fundamentally differ. Dazzling people on the road is not acceptable, not ever. By (unfortunate) design a high brightness helmet lamp will do this, therefore I do not believe such lamps should be legal.
We act on the road for everyone's benefit, not just our own.
Post edited at 13:08
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
400 lumens is generally accepted as a reasonable brightness for a helmet light. I get a little dazzled from car lights of one type or another regularly. Its normal on the roads, if you can't handle it I suggest walking or public transport.
These bike lights which are thousands of lumens are another matter IMO .
400 lumens is generally accepted as a reasonable brightness for a helmet light. I get a little dazzled from car lights of one type or another regularly. Its normal on the roads, if you can't handle it I suggest walking or public transport.
These bike lights which are thousands of lumens are another matter IMO .
Post edited at 13:10
1
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Generally accepted by whom?
A 35W GU10 is around 250 lumens. I don't want that in my face either. The issue with helmet lamps is that when you look a driver in the eye, as you should do, you will be shining the light directly at their face. It is this that is dangerous.
I retain the view that these should be marker light brightness only - no brighter than a typical rear light, possibly lower. Put your big lights on the bike.
Those absolutely do need dim-dip.
> 400 lumens is generally accepted as a reasonable brightness for a helmet light. I get a little dazzled from car lights of one type or another regularly. Its normal on the roads, if you can't handle it I suggest walking or public transport.
Generally accepted by whom?
A 35W GU10 is around 250 lumens. I don't want that in my face either. The issue with helmet lamps is that when you look a driver in the eye, as you should do, you will be shining the light directly at their face. It is this that is dangerous.
I retain the view that these should be marker light brightness only - no brighter than a typical rear light, possibly lower. Put your big lights on the bike.
> These bike lights which are thousands of lumens are another matter IMO .
Those absolutely do need dim-dip.
2
In reply to wintertree:
Got one of these for my superbright exposure:
https://www.evanscycles.com/exposure-remote-switch-00105892
Commute home has a pot holed road, no lights and is 50 mph (though cars usually lot faster). Needed something powerful enough to see potholes but not blind drivers.
Button sits nicely next to thumb, you can dip bit late to make sure cars see you but you don't blind them. (And even flash people if they pass too close!)
Got one of these for my superbright exposure:
https://www.evanscycles.com/exposure-remote-switch-00105892
Commute home has a pot holed road, no lights and is 50 mph (though cars usually lot faster). Needed something powerful enough to see potholes but not blind drivers.
Button sits nicely next to thumb, you can dip bit late to make sure cars see you but you don't blind them. (And even flash people if they pass too close!)
Post edited at 14:04
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
During the day 250 lumens would be a bit borderline if its bright enough to attract attention.
After being knocked off my bike by a car that didn't see me in broad day light I don't really care what you think about my 400 lumen light tbh.
During the day 250 lumens would be a bit borderline if its bright enough to attract attention.
After being knocked off my bike by a car that didn't see me in broad day light I don't really care what you think about my 400 lumen light tbh.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I sort of empathise, but I still think that's "road wars" and thus a little selfish.
I sort of empathise, but I still think that's "road wars" and thus a little selfish.
1
In reply to owennewcastle:
The potholes will be in the same place as they were the day before and the one before that.
> Commute home has a pot holed road, no lights and is 50 mph (though cars usually lot faster). Needed something powerful enough to see potholes but not blind drivers.
The potholes will be in the same place as they were the day before and the one before that.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
once you are flying through the air head first as a car from the other side of the road whacks in to you turning right without indicating enough in advance and without stopping you realise at that point anything could happen, luckily the only think I hit was the road - head first though.
Slightly dazzled eyes I care little about as long as next time I get seen. I'm not talking about a 3000 lumen light here mines 400 lumens.
Its not road wars its survival.
once you are flying through the air head first as a car from the other side of the road whacks in to you turning right without indicating enough in advance and without stopping you realise at that point anything could happen, luckily the only think I hit was the road - head first though.
Slightly dazzled eyes I care little about as long as next time I get seen. I'm not talking about a 3000 lumen light here mines 400 lumens.
Its not road wars its survival.
Post edited at 14:59
2
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
It's road wars, because it is doing something to the detriment of other road users to increase your safety. An example of a safety feature that is not road wars is a properly-installed 1000 lumen front light with a dim-dip feature, or a helmet, or a hi-vis jacket. Those items protect you without having any detrimental effect on others.
It's road wars, because it is doing something to the detriment of other road users to increase your safety. An example of a safety feature that is not road wars is a properly-installed 1000 lumen front light with a dim-dip feature, or a helmet, or a hi-vis jacket. Those items protect you without having any detrimental effect on others.
Post edited at 15:11
4
In reply to Neil Williams:
don't be daft - its a 400 lumen light on my handlebars angled down run on hyper constant. roadwars - you sound childish.
If I got one on my helmet I'd probably only run it at 400 lumens at specific times when that much brightness is needed (like in fog etc)
don't be daft - its a 400 lumen light on my handlebars angled down run on hyper constant. roadwars - you sound childish.
If I got one on my helmet I'd probably only run it at 400 lumens at specific times when that much brightness is needed (like in fog etc)
Post edited at 15:16
1
In reply to Mike Highbury:
What about new ones ? What about sticks or other rubbish ? Roadkill ?
> The potholes will be in the same place as they were the day before and the one before that.
What about new ones ? What about sticks or other rubbish ? Roadkill ?
In reply to CurlyStevo:
An average Halogen bulb on a car is around 1500 lumens and the newer HID can be upwards of 3000 lumens.
I get the point about helmet mounting as that is why a 3000 lumen car dips its beam - it still produces the same light output, it just points it down.
However we are talking about 400 lumens being bright on a bike which is small fry compared to anything on an Audi
I have a handlebar mounted light that is on day or night - flashing during day, steady at night. i have to do something to stand out against all the day time running lights, and if that is now law on new cars, then why not for bikes?
(Cyclist, runner, car driver and ex-motorbike rider)
An average Halogen bulb on a car is around 1500 lumens and the newer HID can be upwards of 3000 lumens.
I get the point about helmet mounting as that is why a 3000 lumen car dips its beam - it still produces the same light output, it just points it down.
However we are talking about 400 lumens being bright on a bike which is small fry compared to anything on an Audi
I have a handlebar mounted light that is on day or night - flashing during day, steady at night. i have to do something to stand out against all the day time running lights, and if that is now law on new cars, then why not for bikes?
(Cyclist, runner, car driver and ex-motorbike rider)
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
As in all the new fangled ultra bright car headlights, first the Xenon ones and now LED, that you have to look away from even if you are on a separate cycle lane? I will not apologize to anyone for having a bike light of the same brightness, and if car drivers have to look to the side than they will at least have seen me.
CB
> It's road wars, because it is doing something to the detriment of other road users to increase your safety.
As in all the new fangled ultra bright car headlights, first the Xenon ones and now LED, that you have to look away from even if you are on a separate cycle lane? I will not apologize to anyone for having a bike light of the same brightness, and if car drivers have to look to the side than they will at least have seen me.
CB
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
Problem with this particular war, is that generally, there is only one winner.
> I sort of empathise, but I still think that's "road wars" and thus a little selfish.
Problem with this particular war, is that generally, there is only one winner.
1
1
In reply to Tony the Blade:
It is. It's called Bikabilty and there are two levels.
The problem is mothers think it's too dangerous for their children to be out on the roads.
I we flooded the roads with children on bicycles all these car/bike wars would stop in an instant.
> Sorry Neil, I was being facetious, I know about insurance, VED and zero emissions etc.
> And I too think the cycling proficiency should be reintroduced, although not mandatory.
It is. It's called Bikabilty and there are two levels.
The problem is mothers think it's too dangerous for their children to be out on the roads.
I we flooded the roads with children on bicycles all these car/bike wars would stop in an instant.
2
In reply to CurlyStevo:
We were talking about helmet lights. 400 lumens on your bars angled down is quite reasonable - would be happy with more provided it is properly dipped as required.
Again good.
> don't be daft - its a 400 lumen light on my handlebars angled down run on hyper constant. roadwars - you sound childish.
We were talking about helmet lights. 400 lumens on your bars angled down is quite reasonable - would be happy with more provided it is properly dipped as required.
> If I got one on my helmet I'd probably only run it at 400 lumens at specific times when that much brightness is needed (like in fog etc)
Again good.
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
That isn't true, though, is it? Most of the time, all different types of traffic exist in harmony. Occasionally there is an accident, and someone loses[1]. But the best types of safety measure are those benefitting everyone, not "aggressive" ones. And the best way to cycle, ride, walk etc is defensively, not offensively.
[1] A car driver is unlikely to lose physically against a cyclist. However, frankly, I'd rather have a broken leg than have the torment of having killed someone, even if it was not my fault. A broken leg fixes itself in time, that kind of experience stays with you for the rest of your life.
> Problem with this particular war, is that generally, there is only one winner.
That isn't true, though, is it? Most of the time, all different types of traffic exist in harmony. Occasionally there is an accident, and someone loses[1]. But the best types of safety measure are those benefitting everyone, not "aggressive" ones. And the best way to cycle, ride, walk etc is defensively, not offensively.
[1] A car driver is unlikely to lose physically against a cyclist. However, frankly, I'd rather have a broken leg than have the torment of having killed someone, even if it was not my fault. A broken leg fixes itself in time, that kind of experience stays with you for the rest of your life.
Post edited at 16:24
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The huge number of cyclists in London are heading it that way. But it doesn't work so well because London has more than its fair quota of aggressive, selfish people. If everyone - whatever they were driving or riding - calmed down a bit, London's streets might not actually be that bad a place to be.
> I we flooded the roads with children on bicycles all these car/bike wars would stop in an instant.
The huge number of cyclists in London are heading it that way. But it doesn't work so well because London has more than its fair quota of aggressive, selfish people. If everyone - whatever they were driving or riding - calmed down a bit, London's streets might not actually be that bad a place to be.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
I would imagine my typical use for a helmet light would be hyper constant highest during the day (constant 50 fairly intermittent and brief flashes of 400) and the next notch down constant during the night which on my current light is 100 lumens.
I would imagine my typical use for a helmet light would be hyper constant highest during the day (constant 50 fairly intermittent and brief flashes of 400) and the next notch down constant during the night which on my current light is 100 lumens.
Post edited at 16:37
1
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Sounds sensible (nothing says "bike" like flashing lights).
Sounds sensible (nothing says "bike" like flashing lights).
Post edited at 16:55
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Ditto.
I have 400 and 600 flashing on the front - both beams point reasonably at the ground in front of me. I have two bright flashing ones on the back (one of which is also a camera). I do 30 miles a day through sub-urban London and, no, I will not switch them off. It was raining this morning and so in addition to the lights I also had day-glo yellow jacket and overshoes. I stopped at a T-junction because a car was approaching from the left - not indicating. He then steered straight towards me, before waking up and passing behind me to my left (i./e cutting the corner completely). Someone else pulled straight out from the left without even looking. For the avoidance of doubt, raising a hand in acknowledgement of stupidity does four fifths of f-all to lower my heart rate.
So long as 1 in 1,000 drivers are complete and utter f'''wits I shall continue to make myself as bright as possible.
The car that knocked me over drove straight into me from a T junction to the right, as I was turning right into the same junction. On what conceivable grounds would I wish to tone down anything? That day I was dayglo and brightly lit too - it was cold and sunny.
For what it's worth, I know that I will have to avoid at least one car doing something stupid this evening.
> After being knocked off my bike by a car that didn't see me in broad day light I don't really care what you think about my 400 lumen light tbh.
Ditto.
I have 400 and 600 flashing on the front - both beams point reasonably at the ground in front of me. I have two bright flashing ones on the back (one of which is also a camera). I do 30 miles a day through sub-urban London and, no, I will not switch them off. It was raining this morning and so in addition to the lights I also had day-glo yellow jacket and overshoes. I stopped at a T-junction because a car was approaching from the left - not indicating. He then steered straight towards me, before waking up and passing behind me to my left (i./e cutting the corner completely). Someone else pulled straight out from the left without even looking. For the avoidance of doubt, raising a hand in acknowledgement of stupidity does four fifths of f-all to lower my heart rate.
So long as 1 in 1,000 drivers are complete and utter f'''wits I shall continue to make myself as bright as possible.
The car that knocked me over drove straight into me from a T junction to the right, as I was turning right into the same junction. On what conceivable grounds would I wish to tone down anything? That day I was dayglo and brightly lit too - it was cold and sunny.
For what it's worth, I know that I will have to avoid at least one car doing something stupid this evening.
Post edited at 17:26
1
In reply to nniff:
Here's a related, though not very, question: why did I get told off for having the lights on my Brompton on at the station? They're dynamo and have a capacitor thingy so when the bloke said "Oi! Turn them off!" I had to say "Sorry - I can't - but they'll go off in a minute".
I don't want to be a pain so I now have to try to remember to turn them off as I arrive at the station (I usually leave them on all the time - they're not massively bright), but assume it's something to do with signalling?
Here's a related, though not very, question: why did I get told off for having the lights on my Brompton on at the station? They're dynamo and have a capacitor thingy so when the bloke said "Oi! Turn them off!" I had to say "Sorry - I can't - but they'll go off in a minute".
I don't want to be a pain so I now have to try to remember to turn them off as I arrive at the station (I usually leave them on all the time - they're not massively bright), but assume it's something to do with signalling?
1
In reply to RedFive:
I know you mean a different kind of small, but a bicycle light is physically much smaller than a car light, so that the brightness per unit area of light emission is much higher than a car headlight.
A bicycle light is much closer to a point source in other words. This makes problems with scattered light worse for people seeing it, and also causes more problems for the human vision system as it creates a much brighter (albeit smaller) spot of light on the retina.
> However we are talking about 400 lumens being bright on a bike which is small fry compared to anything on an Audi
I know you mean a different kind of small, but a bicycle light is physically much smaller than a car light, so that the brightness per unit area of light emission is much higher than a car headlight.
A bicycle light is much closer to a point source in other words. This makes problems with scattered light worse for people seeing it, and also causes more problems for the human vision system as it creates a much brighter (albeit smaller) spot of light on the retina.
1
1
In reply to andy:
Waving a red light is one way of signalling a train to stop at night if there is an emergency (e.g. line blocked by vehicle/tree/dead cow).
As a result if a train driver sees any bright red light, especially if they just catch a glimpse at high speed, there is a good chance they'll interpret it as a danger signal and drop anchor. When you put the emergency brakes on at 125mph it tends to annoy the passengers and cause delays.
> Here's a related, though not very, question: why did I get told off for having the lights on my Brompton on at the station?
> I don't want to be a pain so I now have to try to remember to turn them off as I arrive at the station (I usually leave them on all the time - they're not massively bright), but assume it's something to do with signalling?
> I don't want to be a pain so I now have to try to remember to turn them off as I arrive at the station (I usually leave them on all the time - they're not massively bright), but assume it's something to do with signalling?
Waving a red light is one way of signalling a train to stop at night if there is an emergency (e.g. line blocked by vehicle/tree/dead cow).
As a result if a train driver sees any bright red light, especially if they just catch a glimpse at high speed, there is a good chance they'll interpret it as a danger signal and drop anchor. When you put the emergency brakes on at 125mph it tends to annoy the passengers and cause delays.
1
In reply to stewieatb:
Thanks - I've no problem turning them off (assuming I remember - and as important remember to turn them back on when I head off into the dark) - just wondered why (though this was broad daylight when they mentioned it).
Are they as concerned about Jenny Agutter waving her pants?
Thanks - I've no problem turning them off (assuming I remember - and as important remember to turn them back on when I head off into the dark) - just wondered why (though this was broad daylight when they mentioned it).
Are they as concerned about Jenny Agutter waving her pants?
In reply to andy:
As a consequence of what I said above, it's a general rule on the railway of "no red lights". Not a well known one and it's not widely enforced - depends on the platform staff.
Britain's railways are goldmine of weird rules and customs, but generally they were laid down by sensible men who smoked pipes and wore hats.
> Thanks - I've no problem turning them off (assuming I remember - and as important remember to turn them back on when I head off into the dark) - just wondered why (though this was broad daylight when they mentioned it).
> Are they as concerned about Jenny Agutter waving her pants?
As a consequence of what I said above, it's a general rule on the railway of "no red lights". Not a well known one and it's not widely enforced - depends on the platform staff.
Britain's railways are goldmine of weird rules and customs, but generally they were laid down by sensible men who smoked pipes and wore hats.
1
In reply to stewieatb:
Well it'd have been far more entertaining if the bloke who told me had been wearing a big hat and smoking a pipe, rather than being a weasely little Brummie with an inadequate moustache and a day-glo tabard.
> Britain's railways are goldmine of weird rules and customs, but generally they were laid down by sensible men who smoked pipes and wore hats.
Well it'd have been far more entertaining if the bloke who told me had been wearing a big hat and smoking a pipe, rather than being a weasely little Brummie with an inadequate moustache and a day-glo tabard.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...