That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
F4R said:
Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.
Xenon headlights are about 3,000 lumens and they are on most cars. Are those owners idiots too?swisstoni said:
This has got nothing to do with safety in any case.
It is about decrying anything that could effect the take-up of cycling.
People either WANT to cycle, or you have to force/coerce them into it.It is about decrying anything that could effect the take-up of cycling.
Those that want to for personal reasons likely do so already and until fossil fuels and home working has a huge impact on commuting, I really cannot see people accepting the forced option being a vote winner.
From a health and fitness perspective, there are much simpler and cheaper options available to Mr and Mrs Average, to choose from.
F4R said:
Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.
1000 lumen? Lol pfft. Mine are brighter than that and whilst I usually take care to point them down and turn them down to avoid dazzling anyone, if it's rush hour and people are not leaving room I'll turn those bad boys up full brightness. Better to be seen. I'll even stick em on strobe if it means being seen rather than hit. f
king cars are too bright too fast and mostly too close these days. Even when I'm out driving in my car I get dazzled by other cars. It's stupidly bright car lights that are the main problem especially on those RUV type boxes.bmwmike said:
F4R said:
Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.
1000 lumen? Lol pfft. Mine are brighter than that and whilst I usually take care to point them down and turn them down to avoid dazzling anyone, if it's rush hour and people are not leaving room I'll turn those bad boys up full brightness. Better to be seen. I'll even stick em on strobe if it means being seen rather than hit. fking cars are too bright too fast and mostly too close these days. Even when I'm out driving in my car I get dazzled by other cars. It's stupidly bright car lights that are the main problem especially on those RUV type boxes.king turn it off?? Utter cretins. Schmed said:
I seriously can't believe cyclists are arguing on here against wearing helmets.
Anybody I know who competes either off or on road wears a helmet. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one, cycling is dangerous ; fall off even at 0 mph it's going to hurt. Anyone who argues against one must already be brain damaged.
But if you are competing you are compelled to wear a helmet. It'll say so in the event rules. No lid, no race. That will in turn be a condition of the event's insurance policy. In fact many non-competitive organised events require helmets as a condition of entry too. and if you need to wear one on race day, the logic says that you should wear one to train in too, to replicate race conditions and get used to your kit.Anybody I know who competes either off or on road wears a helmet. I just don't get why you wouldn't wear one, cycling is dangerous ; fall off even at 0 mph it's going to hurt. Anyone who argues against one must already be brain damaged.
I tend to wear a lid, but probably wouldn't to nip to the shop a mile away, nor if I were road-testing a repair or adjustment (when arguably I should be more careful to wear one!)
Many falls on bicycles are non-events, even at speed. I know of two top racers who admit to hitting trees and losing the trails on loamy sections at a recent race. One of them went down twice, but just threw a leg back over the bike and went on to finish 2nd in his category. So, no. Cycling per se isn't dangerous, even racing off road. But it can be. And falling off at 0 mph? You're more likely to fracture a collar bone or break an ankle if you're still clipped in. And I don't think anyone is arguing against helmets on this thread. But it's a bit weird (and crashingly hypocritical) to be erring on the side of compulsory helmets, yet on other threads on PH there are hundreds of posters bemoaning statutory interference and law enforcement in motoring matters.
Riders die on trails. There's one memorial I ride past at Swinley Forest to a chap who died on that section. Found dead at the base of a tree, cause of death declared to be heart failure. But to this day no-one has proved that it was heart failure caused by a collision with the tree. It could just as well have been a collision with a tree caused by heart failure. Nobody knee-jerked that one, and the unchanged section of trail (it's wicked fast and oodles of fun) is still there, still signposted and open to ride. But far more riders die of natural causes or accidents away from cycling than when they're riding, so we tend to weigh the risks, and plan our attire for ourselves, on a ride-by-ride, case-by-case basis.
I own several helmets, for a variety of purposes. I mostly wear one of them, but occasionally don't. I always wear glasses and gloves though, as I'm far more likely to get muck in my eye, or gravel rash on the palm of my hand, than I am to sustain the kind of head injury where a helmet would be of any use. But back in the 70s/80s, I didn't wear glasses (other than cheap plastic sunnies) nor did I habitually wear gloves other than to keep my hands warm in winter. And back then, the polystyrene bonce protector hadn't even arrived on the scene. Some pros wore padded leather hats, but most didn't bother, and in any case there has been a higher rate of deaths (other than to illness/natural causes) in the ranks of the pro peloton (or so I read in the cycling press just the other week) since the introduction of compulsory helmets to competitive cycling than ever there was before. I'm not stupid enough to claim that this is because cycle helmets kill, but it may be down to riders taking more risks descending Alpine passes these days with a helmet on their head than they might have done without one?
My take on it? Wear a helmet if you like, but don't sweat it if you choose not to, I'm not bothered either way on roads and along recreational paths, but if you are off roading on proper MTB trails, ffs get togged up with a lid, glasses and gloves as a minimum. Because getting t
tted on the head by a low-hanging branch hurts a lot less with a helmet on and could be the difference between a trip home via the hospital or finishing the ride and laughing at your misfortune with mates over a coffee at the trail-head cafe...thiscocks said:
Yep. It makes me laugh when some car drivers actually flash me when im on my bike with my light at %50 power (about 400 lumen, angled down, so miles less than a modern car headlight). What do they expect me to do, fking turn it off?? Utter cretins.
You want full beam ? Then you'll get full beam... Why constantly exacerbate these situations ? As the vunerable road user I'd be looking to defuse the tension, but who needs self preservation.king turn it off?? Utter cretins. bmwmike said:
1000 lumen? Lol pfft. Mine are brighter than that and whilst I usually take care to point them down and turn them down to avoid dazzling anyone, if it's rush hour and people are not leaving room I'll turn those bad boys up full brightness. Better to be seen. I'll even stick em on strobe if it means being seen rather than hit. fking cars are too bright too fast and mostly too close these days. Even when I'm out driving in my car I get dazzled by other cars. It's stupidly bright car lights that are the main problem especially on those RUV type boxes.
1000 lumens is far too bright to be used on the road. A lot of these new bike lights/torches are noticeably brighter than a dipped beam on a car and the beam pattern is not regulated. Dazzling oncoming drivers with your silly lights isn't particularly safe is it...king cars are too bright too fast and mostly too close these days. Even when I'm out driving in my car I get dazzled by other cars. It's stupidly bright car lights that are the main problem especially on those RUV type boxes.By your reckoning, do you think it's ok to drive around in your car with your main beam directed towards oncoming traffic then? Why should cyclists be allowed different rules to the rest of us?
thiscocks said:
Yep. It makes me laugh when some car drivers actually flash me when im on my bike with my light at %50 power (about 400 lumen, angled down, so miles less than a modern car headlight). What do they expect me to do, fking turn it off?? Utter cretins.
I don't think I have ever been dazzled by another cyclist when riding or driving.never thought about it before, I am sure there would be more (and justified IMO) anger at no light. king turn it off?? Utter cretins. I do sometimes find some rear strobe frequency (when it's the only light) to be a bit slow and bright. OK for marking a car wreck but with a 20mph cyclist it can sometimes be like waiting to see where a dolphin next pops up.
F4R said:
Has anyone else noticed that bike lights are getting uncomfortably bright? These idiots seem to think it's ok to strap a 1000 lumen light to the front of the bike/helmet and dazzle oncoming traffic.
Yes. I met one on a country road near me a few nights back. Two lights on the front. One constant (presumably to light the road), and one strobe (presumably to be seen). Both were incredibly bright, and angled in such a way that they shone into the faces of oncoming drivers rather than lighting the road ahead. Either selfish or dangerous, depending on whether or not it was deliberate.Funnily enough, I was dazzled by a bicycle light last night for the first time. The bicycle was coming towards me on the other side of the road on a narrow B road, and the only way I could continue safely was to hold a hand up and block him whilst driving with one hand, which is rather counter productive from a safety point of view. The issue with dazzling is twofold: first, it obviously hurts, but secondly and most importantly, the bright light shrinks your pupil and you can't see the rest of the road anymore, which is very dangerous at night on unlit roads.
Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
RobM77 said:
Funnily enough, I was dazzled by a bicycle light last night for the first time. The bicycle was coming towards me on the other side of the road on a narrow B road, and the only way I could continue safely was to hold a hand up and block him whilst driving with one hand, which is rather counter productive from a safety point of view. The issue with dazzling is twofold: first, it obviously hurts, but secondly and most importantly, the bright light shrinks your pupil and you can't see the rest of the road anymore, which is very dangerous at night on unlit roads.
Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
Bicycle lights can be used with a dip - I've got about 3 or 4 settings on mine. As regards to rear lights on bicycles, as a car driver I don't like the flashing red light - very difficult to work out distance, and the pulsating front light is a real pain in the ass.Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
Schmed said:
thiscocks said:
Yep. It makes me laugh when some car drivers actually flash me when im on my bike with my light at %50 power (about 400 lumen, angled down, so miles less than a modern car headlight). What do they expect me to do, fking turn it off?? Utter cretins.
You want full beam ? Then you'll get full beam... Why constantly exacerbate these situations ? As the vunerable road user I'd be looking to defuse the tension, but who needs self preservation.king turn it off?? Utter cretins. So we've sorted the helmets issue then? And the using/not using cycle paths thing? OK, cool.
No we can start on the lights thing.
For decades drivers have criticised cyclists for "not having bright enough lights" even when those dim lights conformed to British Standards.
Naughty cyclists! Not enough light for us to see you. Get brighter lights!
Now we have access to cheap LED technology, but bike lights tend not to conform British/European standards. Try finding one that does have an EU/BS certificate. You'll struggle.
So now they're "too bright" and "too dazzling". But because of the arms race to ever brighter car headlamps, older, dimmer bike lights are lost within the streetscape. So we can't win.
Mine are 1600 lumens. Used almost all the time two or three settings lower, because 1600 lumens is more than i really need. But because it's a big light output it has a bigger battery than the less bright lights, therefore it lasts longer at lower settings than a light with that same lower brightness being run at maximum output.
My lights point at the floor too. Anywhere else is of no use to me. But I accept that there's quite a bit of "light leakage" out of the top of the lens. This is probably because they're really meant for off-roading at this output level, and so have a dual flood/spot lens to both light the trails and also illuminate trees and overhanging branches.
On the road I'll push the light forward to point more at the road, or put a hand over the top to reduce the light leaking at the top of the lens.
I paid £35 for my lights at Halfords. I could have bought a light specifically designed for the road which does have a "dipped beam" feature operated from a remote control button so you don't need to let go of the bars. But that is too expensive for me, currently selling at £178 (including 30%off discount) so a list price of £255. https://www.wiggle.co.uk/exposure-strada-mk9-road-... There's a review here of the Mk3 version... http://www.bikelightsreview.com/reviews/exposure/s... ...but they're selling the Mk9 version now so improvements will have been made.
The thing with riders dazzling drivers is that they are committing the same offence as drivers dazzling cyclists and fellow drivers. The law is already there to prosecute miscreants. All we need now is the police numbers and court infrastructure with capacity and the will to clamp down on it. But judging by the "cyclops" SEAT I've seen several times this week with no offside front lighting whatsoever, and the window company van that's been driving around all week with it's rear foglights on despite no hint of fog, I'd very much doubt that this "too bright, too dazzling" lights issue is of any interest whatsoever to those employed to enforce our laws.
I'm not saying it's right to dazzle, just suggesting that the police are already out doing what speeding fine "victims" are always imploring them to do, and "catching real criminals"...
No we can start on the lights thing.
For decades drivers have criticised cyclists for "not having bright enough lights" even when those dim lights conformed to British Standards.
Naughty cyclists! Not enough light for us to see you. Get brighter lights!
Now we have access to cheap LED technology, but bike lights tend not to conform British/European standards. Try finding one that does have an EU/BS certificate. You'll struggle.
So now they're "too bright" and "too dazzling". But because of the arms race to ever brighter car headlamps, older, dimmer bike lights are lost within the streetscape. So we can't win.
Mine are 1600 lumens. Used almost all the time two or three settings lower, because 1600 lumens is more than i really need. But because it's a big light output it has a bigger battery than the less bright lights, therefore it lasts longer at lower settings than a light with that same lower brightness being run at maximum output.
My lights point at the floor too. Anywhere else is of no use to me. But I accept that there's quite a bit of "light leakage" out of the top of the lens. This is probably because they're really meant for off-roading at this output level, and so have a dual flood/spot lens to both light the trails and also illuminate trees and overhanging branches.
On the road I'll push the light forward to point more at the road, or put a hand over the top to reduce the light leaking at the top of the lens.
I paid £35 for my lights at Halfords. I could have bought a light specifically designed for the road which does have a "dipped beam" feature operated from a remote control button so you don't need to let go of the bars. But that is too expensive for me, currently selling at £178 (including 30%off discount) so a list price of £255. https://www.wiggle.co.uk/exposure-strada-mk9-road-... There's a review here of the Mk3 version... http://www.bikelightsreview.com/reviews/exposure/s... ...but they're selling the Mk9 version now so improvements will have been made.
The thing with riders dazzling drivers is that they are committing the same offence as drivers dazzling cyclists and fellow drivers. The law is already there to prosecute miscreants. All we need now is the police numbers and court infrastructure with capacity and the will to clamp down on it. But judging by the "cyclops" SEAT I've seen several times this week with no offside front lighting whatsoever, and the window company van that's been driving around all week with it's rear foglights on despite no hint of fog, I'd very much doubt that this "too bright, too dazzling" lights issue is of any interest whatsoever to those employed to enforce our laws.
I'm not saying it's right to dazzle, just suggesting that the police are already out doing what speeding fine "victims" are always imploring them to do, and "catching real criminals"...
Graveworm said:
thiscocks said:
Yep. It makes me laugh when some car drivers actually flash me when im on my bike with my light at %50 power (about 400 lumen, angled down, so miles less than a modern car headlight). What do they expect me to do, fking turn it off?? Utter cretins.
I don't think I have ever been dazzled by another cyclist when riding or driving.never thought about it before, I am sure there would be more (and justified IMO) anger at no light. king turn it off?? Utter cretins. I do sometimes find some rear strobe frequency (when it's the only light) to be a bit slow and bright. OK for marking a car wreck but with a 20mph cyclist it can sometimes be like waiting to see where a dolphin next pops up.
AllyBassman said:
I am normally one to defend cyclists on the roads, but last night tipped me over the edge.
There is a main road that I use every day, it's on a hill and it is quite narrow for the volume of traffic it carries. It has a path on the side of the road going down the hill.
Naturally, when a cyclists decides to take this route (going up the hill) it causes massive hold ups becuase:
- The cyclist isn't as fit as they think they are, so start flagging half way up the road and go at a near crawl
- As the road is narrow and normally busy in both directions, traffic cannot safely pass, so quite rightly does not.
Recently, the council has put in a lovely wide path/cycle path so that cyclists can use that to go up, rather than using the busy and dangerous road. So it's now got a small path on the side of the road going down the hill (not suitable for cyclists) and a lovely wide one on the side of the road going up.
Have I seen any cyclists use it? Nope.
Was I stuck behind a massive throbber going up the road instead of the cycle path causing hold-ups behind? Yes.
Rant over, cool story bro etc, etc!
Thanks for reading.
A road I frequent has cycle lanes on BOTH SIDES of the road and the cyclists all cycle on the road instead, in both directions, holding everyone up.There is a main road that I use every day, it's on a hill and it is quite narrow for the volume of traffic it carries. It has a path on the side of the road going down the hill.
Naturally, when a cyclists decides to take this route (going up the hill) it causes massive hold ups becuase:
- The cyclist isn't as fit as they think they are, so start flagging half way up the road and go at a near crawl
- As the road is narrow and normally busy in both directions, traffic cannot safely pass, so quite rightly does not.
Recently, the council has put in a lovely wide path/cycle path so that cyclists can use that to go up, rather than using the busy and dangerous road. So it's now got a small path on the side of the road going down the hill (not suitable for cyclists) and a lovely wide one on the side of the road going up.
Have I seen any cyclists use it? Nope.
Was I stuck behind a massive throbber going up the road instead of the cycle path causing hold-ups behind? Yes.
Rant over, cool story bro etc, etc!
Thanks for reading.
Here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.
No helmet of course
mcelliott said:
RobM77 said:
Funnily enough, I was dazzled by a bicycle light last night for the first time. The bicycle was coming towards me on the other side of the road on a narrow B road, and the only way I could continue safely was to hold a hand up and block him whilst driving with one hand, which is rather counter productive from a safety point of view. The issue with dazzling is twofold: first, it obviously hurts, but secondly and most importantly, the bright light shrinks your pupil and you can't see the rest of the road anymore, which is very dangerous at night on unlit roads.
Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
Bicycle lights can be used with a dip - I've got about 3 or 4 settings on mine. As regards to rear lights on bicycles, as a car driver I don't like the flashing red light - very difficult to work out distance, and the pulsating front light is a real pain in the ass.Car and motorbike headlights dip, but bicycle lights don't, and the only reason for that I can presume is that bicycle lights have never been bright enough to require it. Perhaps now we need a law either limiting their brightness, or a requirement beyond a certain light level to have an auto-dip sensor and two beams: one full brightness and one dimmer. I'd go for the latter option, because off-road cyclists will always need as bright lights as they can get, and they will get used on the road, regardless of regulations.
Flashing red lights aren't legal on their own; not sure about you but when they're paired with a steady light I find them fine - just like an approaching police car with its flashing radiator grille lights.
F4R said:
1000 lumens is far too bright to be used on the road. A lot of these new bike lights/torches are noticeably brighter than a dipped beam on a car and the beam pattern is not regulated. Dazzling oncoming drivers with your silly lights isn't particularly safe is it...
By your reckoning, do you think it's ok to drive around in your car with your main beam directed towards oncoming traffic then? Why should cyclists be allowed different rules to the rest of us?
He said he angles his lights downward, but let’s not let facts get in the way..By your reckoning, do you think it's ok to drive around in your car with your main beam directed towards oncoming traffic then? Why should cyclists be allowed different rules to the rest of us?
mehmehmeh said:
A road I frequent has cycle lanes on BOTH SIDES of the road and the cyclists all cycle on the road instead, in both directions, holding everyone up...
...here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.
No helmet of course
Very poor quality rant. Plus there's not necessarily a "right way" to cycle on a shared use path, otherwise the cyclists would need to cross the road, waiting ages to be permitted to do so by nugget car drivers. Which is probably why you see so many riders using the carriageway instead, by the way....here's a bonus pic of the same road from Google Maps showing a cyclist using one...but going the wrong way.
No helmet of course
You also neglected to mention the dangerously overloaded bicycle. That huge bag can't be helping the fat lad to keep full control of his bike. And also, "colour me surprised!", but in the right hand side of your second picture, I'm pretty sure that is an SUV of some sort parked not only on double yellow lines (thereby holding up traffic far more than any moving cyclist) but also partly on the shared use footpath/cycling facility. So there is another reason why riders revert to the carriageway ~ because the cycle path is partially or completely obstructed by illegal/inconsiderate parking.
Not only that, but you make the assertion that "all" cyclists ride on the road instead, then immediately undermine this assertion by providing unstaged photographic evidence of a cyclist NOT on the carriageway, but on your beloved cycle path.
Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 16th January 17:33
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff