if a cyclist lights dazzle a driver, its worth it...
Discussion
Dazzleingly bright lights are unnecessary. I have a 1200 lumen ebay, chinese light, which is helmet mounted. On full brightness it is ridiculous, i often go on night rides through the woods with it which it is perfect for. When using it for commuting i use it on half bright, which is more than sufficient to be seen (with the addition of a less powerful flashing handlebar mounted light).
GC8 said:
hairyben said:
GC8 said:
hairyben said:
Would a cyclist with a dazzle light face the manslaughter rap in this instance?
Youre being a silly boy.paranoid airbag said:
hairyben said:
Is it okay for me to stand on a overpass and shine a laser pen at the eyes of passing drivers?
No, but then you have no innocent reason to do so, whereas you're required to have some form of lighting, and have an incentive to be not just sufficiently bright on your own, but the brightest thing around. It seems to me a fairly simple case of technology outpacing legislation - 10 years ago I would have laughed at the idea that I could buy bike lights that were TOO bright 
. A limit on the peak light intensity (rather than total output) would seem sensible - as others have pointed out, it's not the total output (which is still fairly small compared to a normal headlight) but the nothing-nothing-nothing-AAAARGH WHY ARE YOU VAPORISING MY RETINAS-nothing distribution of the light.I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
Edited by hairyben on Sunday 7th April 10:31
hairyben said:
Cyclists have no "innocent reason" to use a light designed to be so bright it dazzles other road users, as it goes way beyond necessary levels of illumination..
So do those bloody new head lights on our cars, and most brake lights on new cars, ever tried sitting behind a stationary one when the retard keeps it on the foot rake, rather the handbrake.With all the amount of bright lights on our roads these days, there is some justification by the cyclist to make damm sure he is seen. One cyclist is a minor annoyance compared to the bloody inconsiderate car drivers these days. Yes I am a car driver and cyclist.
hairyben said:
Cyclists have no "innocent reason" to use a light designed to be so bright it dazzles other road users, as it goes way beyond necessary levels of illumination. Cars with badly adjusted/illegal lights can be served improvement notices, fail MOT's etc.
I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
This statement is just plain ridiculous. I can't understand why so many drivers get hot under the collar about cyclists. Some cyclists do stupid things, yes, but when I'm driving these are usually easy to anticipate and plan for and never make me fear for my personal safety. On the other hand, when I am cycling the behaviour of some motorists is not so easy to anticipate (someone coming up behind you with excess speed for the available view and hitting you, for example) and could quite easily lead to serious injury or death. This is why some cyclists may take a "militant" attitude. Personally, I think mutual respect is the best solution. I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
Edited by hairyben on Sunday 7th April 10:31
Cyclists with dazzling lights may be a problem on occasion but when compared with the hazards caused by motorists they are a pretty minor problem.
Vipers said:
hairyben said:
Cyclists have no "innocent reason" to use a light designed to be so bright it dazzles other road users, as it goes way beyond necessary levels of illumination..
So do those bloody new head lights on our cars, and most brake lights on new cars, ever tried sitting behind a stationary one when the retard keeps it on the foot rake, rather the handbrake.With all the amount of bright lights on our roads these days, there is some justification by the cyclist to make damm sure he is seen. One cyclist is a minor annoyance compared to the bloody inconsiderate car drivers these days. Yes I am a car driver and cyclist.
Or is it the flicker of LED meaning they're actually brighter but like with a RMS sine wave they average out to a lower light level?
hairyben said:
paranoid airbag said:
hairyben said:
Is it okay for me to stand on a overpass and shine a laser pen at the eyes of passing drivers?
No, but then you have no innocent reason to do so, whereas you're required to have some form of lighting, and have an incentive to be not just sufficiently bright on your own, but the brightest thing around. It seems to me a fairly simple case of technology outpacing legislation - 10 years ago I would have laughed at the idea that I could buy bike lights that were TOO bright . A limit on the peak light intensity (rather than total output) would seem sensible - as others have pointed out, it's not the total output (which is still fairly small compared to a normal headlight) but the nothing-nothing-nothing-AAAARGH WHY ARE YOU VAPORISING MY RETINAS-nothing distribution of the light.I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
Edited by hairyben on Sunday 7th April 10:31
Nobody is asking as a cyclist to be the no 1 priority, just to be seen, my neighbour who is about seventy and a keen road cyclist was knocked off a month ago and smashed his shoulder, they tried to fix it but it isn't healing so ne now faces a reconstruction, life changing injury and all because someone didn't see him, in broad daylight on a well sighted junction, he was lucky, well not being hit would have been luckier if he hadn't been hit but the driver didn't see the police car at was behind him, didn't see sometimes just means didn't look, nothing self important or militant, just and older chap that can no longer ride because someone can't drive, what i am saying is the stakes are higher for cyclists, would you want that on your conscience ?
DocSteve said:
hairyben said:
Cyclists have no "innocent reason" to use a light designed to be so bright it dazzles other road users, as it goes way beyond necessary levels of illumination. Cars with badly adjusted/illegal lights can be served improvement notices, fail MOT's etc.
I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
This statement is just plain ridiculous. I can't understand why so many drivers get hot under the collar about cyclists. Some cyclists do stupid things, yes, but when I'm driving these are usually easy to anticipate and plan for and never make me fear for my personal safety. On the other hand, when I am cycling the behaviour of some motorists is not so easy to anticipate (someone coming up behind you with excess speed for the available view and hitting you, for example) and could quite easily lead to serious injury or death. This is why some cyclists may take a "militant" attitude. Personally, I think mutual respect is the best solution. I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
Edited by hairyben on Sunday 7th April 10:31
Cyclists with dazzling lights may be a problem on occasion but when compared with the hazards caused by motorists they are a pretty minor problem.
hairyben said:
DocSteve said:
hairyben said:
Cyclists have no "innocent reason" to use a light designed to be so bright it dazzles other road users, as it goes way beyond necessary levels of illumination. Cars with badly adjusted/illegal lights can be served improvement notices, fail MOT's etc.
I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
This statement is just plain ridiculous. I can't understand why so many drivers get hot under the collar about cyclists. Some cyclists do stupid things, yes, but when I'm driving these are usually easy to anticipate and plan for and never make me fear for my personal safety. On the other hand, when I am cycling the behaviour of some motorists is not so easy to anticipate (someone coming up behind you with excess speed for the available view and hitting you, for example) and could quite easily lead to serious injury or death. This is why some cyclists may take a "militant" attitude. Personally, I think mutual respect is the best solution. I think this says a lot about the mentality of the militant idiot cyclist that gives all pedalpushers such a bad name- The assumption & self important expectation that they should be seen/registered/be-the-no1-priority of everyone in the vicinity rather than attempt to work in synergy with traffic, which says an awful lot about why they are in conflict all the time and feel roads are so dangerous for themselves.
Edited by hairyben on Sunday 7th April 10:31
Cyclists with dazzling lights may be a problem on occasion but when compared with the hazards caused by motorists they are a pretty minor problem.
J4CKO said:
The level of illumination is required, try cycling down a dark lane with your three quid halfords light and see how much illumination it gives off, these lights have made night cycling viable, they just need to be used correctly and considerately.
Ahh the good old extremes arguement. I once drove a combo van with about 20hp/ton which was dangerously underpowered, thus a lamborghini aventador is wholly justifiable and the only sensible car.J4CKO said:
Nobody is asking as a cyclist to be the no 1 priority, just to be seen, my neighbour who is about seventy and a keen road cyclist was knocked off a month ago and smashed his shoulder, they tried to fix it but it isn't healing so ne now faces a reconstruction, life changing injury and all because someone didn't see him, in broad daylight on a well sighted junction, he was lucky, well not being hit would have been luckier if he hadn't been hit but the driver didn't see the police car at was behind him, didn't see sometimes just means didn't look, nothing self important or militant, just and older chap that can no longer ride because someone can't drive, what i am saying is the stakes are higher for cyclists, would you want that on your conscience ?
- He can be seen with a sensible light though.
- whats my conscience got to with this accident you speak of?
- And doesn't that fact he was knocked in in broad daylight just underline the fact some drivers are idiots and how much illumination there is is irrelevant to safety?
If there was plod right behind him he might have been too busy staring at his speedo BTW, as we're told all the time 30=safe 31=dangerous, the result of simpleton logic in complex environments.
J4CKO said:
Nobody designed a light to intentionally dazzle and annoy, the tech comes from off road mountain bike lights, there are specific lower powered commuter lights, it is purely usage and education, I use mine considerately as have been on the end of them and they can be dazzling, just as in dipped car headlamps can be, it is funny how some drivers don't dip for anything but other cars.
This is what we're discussing FYI:[quote=Stephen Young, managing director of Lumicycle, makers of the LED4Si bicycle light] “You have to offset the vulnerability of the cyclist and if that means causing a dazzle to a driver, maybe it's worth it.
hairyben said:
J4CKO said:
Nobody designed a light to intentionally dazzle and annoy, the tech comes from off road mountain bike lights, there are specific lower powered commuter lights, it is purely usage and education, I use mine considerately as have been on the end of them and they can be dazzling, just as in dipped car headlamps can be, it is funny how some drivers don't dip for anything but other cars.
This is what we're discussing FYI:[quote=Stephen Young, managing director of Lumicycle, makers of the LED4Si bicycle light] “You have to offset the vulnerability of the cyclist and if that means causing a dazzle to a driver, maybe it's worth it.
Just checked out the lumicycle website 'what sort of lights do I need for commuting'
lumicycle site said:
For commuting being seen is as important as seeing where you are going if a substantial part of your journey is on the road. All the lights below provide good visibility as well as very good beams for picking out potholes, branches etc in the road. The important thing is to have a beam that exerts a strong presense on the road but does not unduly blind oncoming drivers.
Love it. I cycled around with some halfords special for years that was bright enough to see the road, but not if other cars were approaching but it was definitely sufficient for other motorists to see me. However I use an unlit, straight stretch of road and although wearing reflective gear and lit up like a f
king pansy at least half of the motorists I meet refuse to dip their main beam until another vehicle is behind me often causing me to come to a full stop to avoid hitting the curb. s.
So what did I do, I bought one of those feckers with a beam like a lightsaber that gives motorists a sun tan and they can see how they like being blinded if they refuse to dip. Funnily enough I have never needed to point it once at a motorist because although some motorists are full of ignorance and derision for the cyclists when you level the playing field against people who used to have the odds in their favor they soon back off like any playground bully. And now they're running to tell teacher on the naughty light polluters, well cry me a fking river.. Now the motorists has no choice but to realize you are there because sometimes the motorist needs the obvious pointing out to them, punctuated by a fking big light, so like it or not over the two years of using one of these lights they do give you more begrudging respect, this can be seen because motorists are actually dipping their main beam now.
king pansy at least half of the motorists I meet refuse to dip their main beam until another vehicle is behind me often causing me to come to a full stop to avoid hitting the curb. s. So what did I do, I bought one of those feckers with a beam like a lightsaber that gives motorists a sun tan and they can see how they like being blinded if they refuse to dip. Funnily enough I have never needed to point it once at a motorist because although some motorists are full of ignorance and derision for the cyclists when you level the playing field against people who used to have the odds in their favor they soon back off like any playground bully. And now they're running to tell teacher on the naughty light polluters, well cry me a f
king river.. Now the motorists has no choice but to realize you are there because sometimes the motorist needs the obvious pointing out to them, punctuated by a fking big light, so like it or not over the two years of using one of these lights they do give you more begrudging respect, this can be seen because motorists are actually dipping their main beam now.Edited by RV8 on Sunday 7th April 11:33
hairyben said:
J4CKO said:
The level of illumination is required, try cycling down a dark lane with your three quid halfords light and see how much illumination it gives off, these lights have made night cycling viable, they just need to be used correctly and considerately.
Ahh the good old extremes arguement. I once drove a combo van with about 20hp/ton which was dangerously underpowered, thus a lamborghini aventador is wholly justifiable and the only sensible car.J4CKO said:
Nobody is asking as a cyclist to be the no 1 priority, just to be seen, my neighbour who is about seventy and a keen road cyclist was knocked off a month ago and smashed his shoulder, they tried to fix it but it isn't healing so ne now faces a reconstruction, life changing injury and all because someone didn't see him, in broad daylight on a well sighted junction, he was lucky, well not being hit would have been luckier if he hadn't been hit but the driver didn't see the police car at was behind him, didn't see sometimes just means didn't look, nothing self important or militant, just and older chap that can no longer ride because someone can't drive, what i am saying is the stakes are higher for cyclists, would you want that on your conscience ?
- He can be seen with a sensible light though.
- whats my conscience got to with this accident you speak of?
- And doesn't that fact he was knocked in in broad daylight just underline the fact some drivers are idiots and how much illumination there is is irrelevant to safety?
If there was plod right behind him he might have been too busy staring at his speedo BTW, as we're told all the time 30=safe 31=dangerous, the result of simpleton logic in complex environments.
J4CKO said:
It isn't extremes, I cycle such roads every day, all year round, without decent lights it isn't really possible in the dark.
How is it not possible?I cycled 25 miles to work&back for a while in the late 90's- in dark, through towns and on fast A roads, using nothing more than bog-standard bike lights of the time.
In the early-mid 90's as a young'un I did a paper round in the town I lived, normally in the dark, using bog standard bike lights.
Yes there were a few prats on the road but never did I think "what I need to do is make myself a potential nuisance to ALL drivers"
Today I drive a large van yet people still fail to observe my progress, and I wonder if I shouldn't fit 5000w floodlights. Fortunately I have the power of reason to recognise it as a silly reactionary thought.
I enjoy cycling but doing it at night is utter madness in my view. There is to my mind an unacceptable risk in night cycling.
Drivers will often struggle to see you, struggle to work out what/where exactly you are and you can't properly see dangers on the road surface even with decent bike lights anyway.
Night cycling is simply akin to playing Russian Roulette.
Drivers will often struggle to see you, struggle to work out what/where exactly you are and you can't properly see dangers on the road surface even with decent bike lights anyway.
Night cycling is simply akin to playing Russian Roulette.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff