Bike lights.

[Rosanne]

I'm new to cycling. What are the brightest strobing front lamps that are available ?
Thanks.

[warp9]

Most LED handheld and mounted torches will strobe. Have a mooch on Ebay, you can pick up decent cree torches for less than £10. My view is that they are disposable at that price.

The issue I have is that there are some ridiculously powerful torches e.g. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-Ship-32000Lm-12x-LED... which in my opinion are dangerous as they just blind anyone coming towards you. Coupled with a strobe effect you are likely going to leave a trail of people having epileptic fits behind you.

I think there is a legal brightness limit, hopefully someone will come along to educate. Consider how you will use them - if you are riding around town them something around 1500 lumins will suffice, if you're going to do some XC night trails then the one above is more fit for purpose.

Edit: Useful article here http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/bike-li... There is no legal brightness limit, but you can be pulled up for dazzling and causing discomfort to other road/bike users.

Edited by warp9 on Friday 3rd November 16:39

[Magic919]

Exposure make some decent front lights that have a flashing mode. They generally have a steady output whilst the light flashes.

[bigdom]

Rosanne said:

I'm new to cycling. What are the brightest strobing front lamps that are available ?
Thanks.

As mentioned above, seriously bright lights on the road are not the best idea. It's personal choice, although I don't tend to use strobe at night, only in daytime.

Depends where you're riding, is it to see the road, or to be seen?

If the former, my 1200 lumen exposure light more than adequately lights an unlit country lane, however that is quite pricey, so around lit roads 600/800 should happily suffice. If the latter, I'd suggest a small strobe light. A light on your helmet is a good idea, and another static light for the handlebars as this creates two reference points.

Below isn't a bad light for the price.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Xeccon-Striver-600-Lumen...

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/bike-lights/

[frisbee]

They are an even worse idea if you decide to test them in the office!

[SmilerFTM]

I love my Exposure Strada light, it has a button you can attach to your grip somewhere. It lights up dark country lanes and pathways no problem, you can dip the light so it doesn't dazzle oncoming cars and bikes and it also has a strobe effect if you feel the need. Mind it is on the expensive side of lights but it comes with an inbuilt rechargeable battery instead of a separate powerpack and loads of leads

[Rosanne]

Thanks Guys, this is all useful stuff.
Cheers, Rosanne.

[dudleybloke]

I've had these two lights for 4 years now and they still work perfectly.

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/3000LM-CREE-XML-T6-LED-Bi...

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/REAR-BIKE-LIGHT-KIT-3W-85...

I get about 3 hours on a full charge with the front light on full power solid beam and the rear at the brightest setting.
You will be seen.

Edited by dudleybloke on Saturday 4th November 02:26

[anonymous-user]

Rosanne said:

I'm new to cycling. What are the brightest strobing front lamps that are available ?
Thanks.

From a car drivers perspective these things are a nightmare and basically blind on-coming drivers. I don't understand how having a very bright strobing light on the front of your bike that blinds the driver of a vehicle weighing over a tonne or more improves your safety?

[ad13]

gottans said:

From a car drivers perspective these things are a nightmare and basically blind on-coming drivers. I don't understand how having a very bright strobing light on the front of your bike that blinds the driver of a vehicle weighing over a tonne or more improves your safety?

I've never really seen the need for super-bright strobing lights at night at all. They don't illuminate the road and they really do annoy drivers. I find I'm much better off with downward-angled constant beam so I can actually see where I'm going. My front light actually has two LEDs, and has some "hyper-constant" thing where one is constant and one blinks, but I find that causes *me* to have issues with seeing with the constant change in light levels. Then again, I cycle a lot of unlit road on my commute so maybe it's less necessary to have the constant beam in streetlit areas?

Rear lights are different though, I have one constant and one blinking. Can never have too much red!

[warp9]

Has anyone ever seen evidence to suggest a strobing light is safer? I've heard that a strobe is more noticeable, but not sure if that actually stacks up and given how powerful they are now I think they are more a hindrance to other road users than a help.

[bigdom]

Not in relation to strobes, although with 80% of bicycle accidents occurring in daylight hours, you could deduce it would be prudent to ride with lights on at all time. It's a choice thing, some do in cars (most new ones come with drls) all the cars in my household do. I always do if out on my motorbikes. At the start of this year, I purchased an exposure light with daybright function, my experience would suggest it makes you visible during daylight hours, even in bright sunlight. Let's face it, most of us tend to dress quite dark so we can blend into the scenery. I personally prefer to give other road users presence of my existence at an early opportunity, whatever mode of transport I'm in/on. I tend to cycle Surrey/Berkshire/Hampshire border, plenty of unlit country lanes, I don't use it in night hours, and I'm not sure anyone would want me too either.

[dudleybloke]

Strobes mean you get peoples attention but they will have problems judging your speed and distance.
A solid beam is the better option in my opinion.

[BeirutTaxi]

Exposure are the only brand I use for lights - all other brands I've tried have been sub quality in either overall product life, battery life, water resistance and brightness.

Exposure lights typically aren't cheap but that's for a very good reason.

[vikingaero]

dudleybloke said:

Strobes mean you get peoples attention but they will have problems judging your speed and distance.
A solid beam is the better option in my opinion.

The best option is both. A strobe will get drivers attention. A solid light allows a driver to gauge their distance from you.

I saw this guy regularly cycling on a dual carriageway with a strobe only, pulled into a layby ahead of him, and offered him one of my spare cheapo rear lights that probably cost £1. At first he thought I was mental when I flagged him down but when I explained he was grateful.

[nickfrog]

IME, this is the best value rechargeable light atm https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/ribble-front-light/...

Proper weather sealing should allow it to outlast the ebay cheapo stuff. Hopefully !

[anonymous-user]

You know if strobed lights are such a brilliant idea why don't cars have them fitted as standard?

These things when used as a front light on a bike are a menace to other road users and really should be illegal.

[yellowjack]

gottans said:

You know if strobed lights are such a brilliant idea why don't cars have them fitted as standard?

These things when used as a front light on a bike are a menace to other road users and really should be illegal.

I don't use one, I prefer REALLY bright 'solid' front lights.

BUT. I can see exactly why some people do use them. Lighting has become an arms race. Cars now have Xenons, HIDs, etc, and all sorts of bright LEDs both front and rear. If a cyclist were to stick with lights that legally conform to 'British Standards' then a) no-one would have bike lights as it's very difficult to find a light that's actually been tested to the required standard, and b) The light would make about as much difference as pissing in the Pacific. It would be drowned out and lost in a see of bright shop fronts, street lighting, and aftermarket illegal crap fitted to the front of cars.

No-one fits these things because they think it's a giggle to dazzle other traffic. They do it because it's the ONLY way to feel like you stand a chance of being seen sometimes.

Why do cars have ever brighter lights? Is it to "be able to see further, so that I can go faster"? I very much think it is. If, instead, car drivers actually slowed down in the dark, concentrated on driving for a few moments instead of smoking, drinking coffee, or watching fking Youtube videos on their phones, and you know? Actually made an effort to keep a proper lookout for other road users? If they did all that there'd be far less need (perceived or actual) for cyclists to reach for ever more eyecatching strobe/flash patterns, and ever greater lumens counts.

They're not a "menace" as you so eloquently put it. They are an instinctive defence mechanism. If drivers made it less necessary to jump through such hoops just to "be seen" then cyclists would save themselves the readies and buy cheaper, less bright lights.

[nickfrog]

gottans said:

You know if strobed lights are such a brilliant idea why don't cars have them fitted as standard?

These things when used as a front light on a bike are a menace to other road users and really should be illegal.

I have genuinely no idea what you mean.

The lights have a strobbing function to save battery. They're not better or worse than a continuous light from a car driver perspective. They should be aimed properly irrespective of strobbing or not.

[Zigster]

nickfrog said:

I have genuinely no idea what you mean.

The lights have a strobbing function to save battery. They're not better or worse than a continuous light from a car driver perspective. They should be aimed properly irrespective of strobbing or not.

Strobing is a bit different from flashing. Flashing is a good idea and extends battery life; strobing can be very disorienting (including for the rider when on a dark country lane).