Why not generator lights?



Neil Brooks wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>What I'm talking about is cyclists who had the sort of headlights,
>>reflectors, etc. that are sold in the greatest volumes. That would
>>include lights less than six watts, more or less standard reflectors,
>>and perhaps ordinary LED blinkies.
>>
>>And I'm not talking just about "Gee, I personally don't think that
>>guy's sufficiently visible." I'm talking about "Damn! I almost hit
>>him because I didn't see his headlight, even though it's on!" Has
>>that ever happened to you while you were driving? "
>>
>>
>>So yes, I guess you could say I was excluding those situations where
>>someone nearly hit a legally-lit cyclist and are _still_ completely
>>unaware of it; that is, those situations where the cyclist was
>>literally, totally and permanently invisible to the motorist.
>>
>>So I'm going to concentrate on those situations where the cyclist
>>eventually became visible to some degree. I'm going to assume that
>>there are approximately zero "total invisibility" cases. Anyone who
>>wants to explore those cases further should start another thread.

>
>
> I'm going to just jump in and take issue with your methodology:
>
> 1) Sampling a group of /bicyclists/ to find out if/how often they see/don't
> see "legally illuminated" cyclists is flawed. We're not representative;
> we're more conscious of cyclists than the average motorist;


Here's the rationale: First, I have easy access to an interested group
of readers. Second, these readers are more capable of judging the
typical legal requirements for bike lighting. Third, I know these
readers are less likely to include those who want cyclists off the road,
and might say anything to help accomplish that end. (This would
certainly be true of denizens of rec.autos.driving, for example.)

I don't expect perfect results. I'm just trying to get a preliminary
handle on the situation from a relatively knowledgeable pool of witnesses.

>
> 2) Asking how often somebody /didn't/ see something is flawed. That answer
> is hugely important. Passing it off to the next guy to inquire about it
> seems to ignore a material factor in this equation;


I think your phrasing became garbled in the first two sentences - they
don't match. Did you mean "not flawed"?

In any case, I have no idea how to ask "Did you, as a driver, ever have
a near miss with a cyclist that you never ever detected to this day?"
If you have suggestions on that, I'll certainly entertain them! But to
me, it sounds impossibly confusing - and/or confusingly impossible.
Hence I'm not eager to take it on.

> 3) Assuming that there are "approximately zero 'total invisibility' cases"
> presupposes a conclusion that you are (should be) trying to test. Flawed.


Well, give me some suggestions on how to test for proximity of a totally
invisible cyclist. Seriously. How do we ask about that?

>
> Sort of reminds me of a guy who used to justify his position about h*lmets
> by studying people who showed up at the emergency room. Basic flaw there:
> you have to study the entire population of bicyclists involved in accidents,
> and the outcome of those who wore vs. those who didn't wear.
>
> Wait a minute, Frank . . . wasn't that you, too?


Your statement about what "you have to" do shows little knowledge of
what can be done and what has been done. But if you want to morph this
into a helmet thread, you really need to start it afresh, and change to
an appropriate newsgroup. I plan no more responses to that in this thread.

So, to get back on topic: I think you understand that I'm trying to
evaluate typical, legal and low-cost nighttime equipment. I've already
done some tests with my local bike club members, and their opinions were
unanimous that such equipment is perfectly adequate. I was hoping to
gain preliminary information from a wider knowledgeable audience.

What's your suggestion for a better array of questions?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
(Pete Cresswell) wrote:
> Nope, no sarcasam intended.
> These guys were surviving day-to-day. If they weren't, I'd think there would
> be numerous crashes on the stretch of road where I'd see them....and that wasn't
> the case.
> I can't even look at the radio dial without feeling at risk...and these guys
> were reading newspapers.


Sure, I read the paper driving on Interstates sometimes when
I'm in a situation that requires driving the speed limit. It
isn't that unusual.

Reading the paper driving on a city street populated by
cyclists? That's weird - and unsafe.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

>>> What I'm talking about is cyclists who had the sort of headlights,
>>> reflectors, etc. that are sold in the greatest volumes. That would
>>> include lights less than six watts, more or less standard
>>> reflectors, and perhaps ordinary LED blinkies.
>>>
>>> And I'm not talking just about "Gee, I personally don't think that
>>> guy's sufficiently visible." I'm talking about "Damn! I almost hit
>>> him because I didn't see his headlight, even though it's on!" Has
>>> that ever happened to you while you were driving? "
>>>
>>> So yes, I guess you could say I was excluding those situations where
>>> someone nearly hit a legally-lit cyclist and are _still_ completely
>>> unaware of it; that is, those situations where the cyclist was
>>> literally, totally and permanently invisible to the motorist.
>>>
>>> So I'm going to concentrate on those situations where the cyclist
>>> eventually became visible to some degree. I'm going to assume that
>>> there are approximately zero "total invisibility" cases. Anyone who
>>> wants to explore those cases further should start another thread.


Neil Brooks wrote:

>> I'm going to just jump in and take issue with your methodology:
>>
>> 1) Sampling a group of /bicyclists/ to find out if/how often they
>> see/don't see "legally illuminated" cyclists is flawed. We're not
>> representative; we're more conscious of cyclists than the average
>> motorist;


Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Here's the rationale: First, I have easy access to an interested
> group
> of readers. Second, these readers are more capable of judging the
> typical legal requirements for bike lighting. Third, I know these
> readers are less likely to include those who want cyclists off the
> road, and might say anything to help accomplish that end. (This would
> certainly be true of denizens of rec.autos.driving, for example.)
>
> I don't expect perfect results. I'm just trying to get a preliminary
> handle on the situation from a relatively knowledgeable pool of
> witnesses.


Fair enough, but an equal and opposite bias is likely to exist among the
universe of cyclists. As I've mentioned before on these NG's, a) I'm
visually impaired, and b) I live on a street that is part of a popular San
Diego bike path network. It also leads a fair number of cycle-piloting
homeless folks (dark clothes, no lights, no reflectors) to their respective
places in the canyons and near the train tracks. I see 'em all--because I'm
looking for them.

Self-selecting groups (in this case, the rec.autos.driving denizens who have
a homicidal predisposition toward bicyclists and rec.bicycles.* denizens who
are quite likely far more aware than the average driver) are avoided through
randomizing your samples. In other words, fifty random motorists. More
below.

>> 2) Asking how often somebody /didn't/ see something is flawed. That
>> answer is hugely important. Passing it off to the next guy to
>> inquire about it seems to ignore a material factor in this equation;


> I think your phrasing became garbled in the first two sentences - they
> don't match. Did you mean "not flawed"?


No, Frank . . . my phrasing there actually /sucked/. I'm sorry . . . as is,
I'm sure, Mrs. Taft, my 11th grade Comp teacher (who was fairly hot for a
stern woman in her 40's with braces, but that's /way/ OT). What I meant was
that :

a) it's difficult to give a definitive answer about what one didn't see
/in an uncontrolled environment/. . . because one didn't see it;

b) knowing what one /didn't/ see is likely the most important bit of
data to gather.

The methodology might be something like:

- a random group of drivers is gathered, perhaps asked to sit in the
driver's seat of a parked car on X (deserted) street one at a time. It's
after dark. Street and ambient lighting are constant. We'd assume the
headlights are on;

- at some set distance away -- and perhaps from different angles (head on,
tail on, side on), a series of bicyclists ride by at a prescribed speed.
These bicyclsts are controlled for:

- clothing and bicycle color

- lighting

- reflectors

- the motorist test participants are asked to rate the ease with which they
saw each bicyclist in each group. If they did not see a particular
bicyclist, but that bicyclist most assuredly properly rode by, then a 0 is
given (or equivalent). That's how you arrive at the "How often does a
random motorist /not/ see a legally-lit/reflective bicyclist.

Clearly, that's not particularly real world because cars move, drivers are
distracted, and bikes move. A second option (or second data point) would be
to have the motorists drive up a (deserted) stretch of road at a prescribed
speed. Along that road, the cyclists are either stationary or pedaling at a
set speed, representing the various illumination configurations. Again, the
motorist is asked to rate how well he/she saw bike 1, bike 2, bike 3, etc.
If they pass a bike without seeing it, that's noted (though, if they
understand the goal of the test, they'll likely not miss a bike. In this
case, the lowest visibility score becomes important).

> In any case, I have no idea how to ask "Did you, as a driver, ever
> have
> a near miss with a cyclist that you never ever detected to this day?"
> If you have suggestions on that, I'll certainly entertain them! But
> to me, it sounds impossibly confusing - and/or confusingly impossible.
> Hence I'm not eager to take it on.


And there's the rub. I'm neither suggesting that such testing is easy nor
volunteering to pursue it. I'm just being a satirist here, pointing out the
dangers of drawing firm conclusions from such methodology. The problem /is/
exactly as you suggest: it's a major PITA to really figure this out,
/really/.

>> 3) Assuming that there are "approximately zero 'total invisibility'
>> cases" presupposes a conclusion that you are (should be) trying to
>> test. Flawed.

>
> Well, give me some suggestions on how to test for proximity of a
> totally invisible cyclist. Seriously. How do we ask about that?
>


Above.

>>
>> Sort of reminds me of a guy who used to justify his position about
>> h*lmets by studying people who showed up at the emergency room.
>> Basic flaw there: you have to study the entire population of
>> bicyclists involved in accidents, and the outcome of those who wore
>> vs. those who didn't wear.
>>
>> Wait a minute, Frank . . . wasn't that you, too?

>
> Your statement about what "you have to" do shows little knowledge of
> what can be done and what has been done. But if you want to morph
> this into a helmet thread, you really need to start it afresh, and
> change to
> an appropriate newsgroup. I plan no more responses to that in this
> thread.


Again, fair enough. Not trying to take it there, nor launch a shot across
anyone's bow.

> So, to get back on topic: I think you understand that I'm trying to
> evaluate typical, legal and low-cost nighttime equipment. I've
> already done some tests with my local bike club members, and their
> opinions were unanimous that such equipment is perfectly adequate. I
> was hoping to
> gain preliminary information from a wider knowledgeable audience.
>
> What's your suggestion for a better array of questions?


I think the question approach offers very limited utility for the reasons
that I've outlined above. Even if you genuinely survey a random sample, its
value is dramatically limited by the "I can't attest to not seeing something
that I didn't see" factor. And, again, knowing how many cyclists, using
what configuration of lighting/reflectivity, /escaped notice entirely/ seems
to be of the utmost importance.
 
A Muzi wrote:
> (Pete Cresswell) wrote:
>> Nope, no sarcasam intended.
>> These guys were surviving day-to-day. If they weren't, I'd think
>> there would be numerous crashes on the stretch of road where I'd see
>> them....and that wasn't the case.
>> I can't even look at the radio dial without feeling at risk...and
>> these guys were reading newspapers.

>
> Sure, I read the paper driving on Interstates sometimes when
> I'm in a situation that requires driving the speed limit. It
> isn't that unusual.
>
> Reading the paper driving on a city street populated by
> cyclists? That's weird - and unsafe.


From the days of my motorcycle commute (between lanes), I saw /countless/
people:

eating (fully-involved lap, both hands, bowls of cereal with spoons,
fork/knife meals)

reading novels

having . . . uh . . . nice things done to them by their partner

makeup, shaving

the whole cell phone while writing thing

briefcase on the lap while cell phone held by ear against shoulder

the kids in the back seat

watching the portable DVD player

typing on the laptop

. . . the list is endless . . . and things were /very often/ done in
conjunction (add any two or more of the above together) . . . and this is in
San Diego/Orange County/LA bumper-to-bumper traffic.

My nemesis always was--and still is on the bicycle--the cell-phone wielding
driver of the larger SUV's with the tinted windows. High lethality index.
 
Neil Brooks wrote:

> …but your approach to these sorts of "tests" is /bound/ to lead you

toward faulty conclusions.

Duh.

Do you honestly believe that he is unaware of _exactly_ what you pointed
out? Lighting, helmets, whatever--these so-called "tests" and the
methodology are intentionally designed to reach unsupportable
conclusions, because the conclusions cannot be reached any other way. As
the responses to this thread made clear, most people aren't taken in.

I respect knowledge. I respect opinions that at least have some basis in
fact (g-d knows that I have a lot of them!). Starting from false
premises and reaching false conclusions is not knowledge, you’d be
thrown off a debating team for these kinds of antics.

The premise in this thread was a classic. I added it to
http://nordicgroup.us/s78/myths.html.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com (or Google “bicycle light facts”)
http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com (of Google “bicycle coffee”)
 
Neil Brooks wrote:

>
> The methodology might be something like:
>
> - a random group of drivers is gathered, perhaps asked to sit in the
> driver's seat of a parked car on X (deserted) street one at a time. It's
> after dark. Street and ambient lighting are constant. We'd assume the
> headlights are on;
>
> - at some set distance away -- and perhaps from different angles (head on,
> tail on, side on), a series of bicyclists ride by at a prescribed speed.
> These bicyclsts are controlled for:
>
> - clothing and bicycle color
>
> - lighting
>
> - reflectors
>
> - the motorist test participants are asked to rate the ease with which they
> saw each bicyclist in each group. If they did not see a particular
> bicyclist, but that bicyclist most assuredly properly rode by, then a 0 is
> given (or equivalent). That's how you arrive at the "How often does a
> random motorist /not/ see a legally-lit/reflective bicyclist.


This is a pretty precise description of the study I quoted earlier,
"Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Conspicuity-Enhancement
Techniques for Pedestrians and Bicyclists" by Richard Blomberg et. al,
Jounal of Safety Research, Vol 17 pp 1-12, 1986.

That's the study whose subjects detected low power leg lights at 1300
feet, and flashlights in pedestrians hands at about the same distance.
It's one of the many factors that leads me to believe that ordinary
lights and reflectors are fine.

>>In any case, I have no idea how to ask "Did you, as a driver, ever
>>have
>>a near miss with a cyclist that you never ever detected to this day?"
>>If you have suggestions on that, I'll certainly entertain them! But
>>to me, it sounds impossibly confusing - and/or confusingly impossible.
>>Hence I'm not eager to take it on.

>
>
> And there's the rub. I'm neither suggesting that such testing is easy nor
> volunteering to pursue it. I'm just being a satirist here, pointing out the
> dangers of drawing firm conclusions from such methodology. The problem /is/
> exactly as you suggest: it's a major PITA to really figure this out,
> /really/.


....
>>What's your suggestion for a better array of questions?

>
>
> I think the question approach offers very limited utility for the reasons
> that I've outlined above. Even if you genuinely survey a random sample, its
> value is dramatically limited by the "I can't attest to not seeing something
> that I didn't see" factor. And, again, knowing how many cyclists, using
> what configuration of lighting/reflectivity, /escaped notice entirely/ seems
> to be of the utmost importance.


Various relevant points:

First, I don't think I'll be attempting to duplicate Blomberg's work,
(although it's not beyond reason). Someone once said "A couple of
months in the laboratory can sometimes save a couple of hours in the
laboratory." I was recently given a possible source or more research
data on this topic, which I'll check out when time permits.

Second, if I were going to attempt an actual study such as you suggest,
I'd first want to gauge the proper ground rules. It makes no sense to
spend time and money, then later find that a slight change in method
would yield much better results. An inquiry like I'm making can yield
hints about the ground rules.

Third, considering legally lit cyclists: I really do think that it's
unlikely that you'd have lots of them _totally_ undetected, without
having an even greater number who were detected at the last possible
second. IOW, I'm assuming detection of cyclists (like so many things)
follows a bell curve. So far, we've had a maximum of five examples of
"last second" detection, giving perhaps more credit than some of those
examples deserve.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> This is a pretty precise description of the study I quoted earlier,
> "Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Conspicuity-Enhancement
> Techniques for Pedestrians and Bicyclists" by Richard Blomberg et. al,
> Jounal of Safety Research, Vol 17 pp 1-12, 1986.
>
> That's the study whose subjects detected low power leg lights at 1300
> feet, and flashlights in pedestrians hands at about the same distance.
> It's one of the many factors that leads me to believe that ordinary
> lights and reflectors are fine.


If you have the full paper, I'd be grateful for a copy of it.

The Abstract of this paper:

A field experiment was conducted to determine the extent of conspicuity
enhancement provided pedestrians and bicyclists at night by various
commercially available retroreflective materials and lights. The conspicuous
materials were designed to be worn or carried by the pedestrians and
bicyclists. Detection and recognition distances for the various experimental
and baseline conditions were determined using subjects driving instrumented
vehicles over a predetermined route on a realistic closed-course roadway
system. Field experimenters were used to model the conspicuity-enhancing
materials employing natural motion associated with walking and bicycling.
Comparisons of the detection and recognition distances suggested that
pedestrians and bicyclists can greatly enhance their conspicuity to drivers
at night by wearing certain types of apparel and by using devices that are
currently available in the marketplace. Nevertheless, it was concluded that
nighttime pedestrian and bicyclist activity is inherently dangerous, even
with these devices, and should be avoided
Sounds to me like you're taking one result out of context and ignoring their
(basically) contradictory conclusion. That conclusion /seems/ to be: when
it comes to reflectivity, more is better. I am extrapolating that active
lighting will produce a similar result (seems logical).

I would also be extremely interested in the specifics of "driving
instrumented vehicles over a predetermined route on a realistic
closed-course roadway system." Bear in mind that closed-course simulations
don't necessarily include drivers reading maps with the map light on, eating
burgers from the drive-thru, yakking on the cell-phone, flipping through
their CD collection, etc., etc.

Take a look at http://www.enhancements.org/trb/trb2004/TRB2004-001332.pdf.

This paper concludes that we /think/ we are more visible at night than we
actually /are/, and that we underestimate the benefits of additional
photoreflectivity.

In ideal conditions, IIRC, one can see the flame from a match at something
like a mile distance. I think one would have to be a fool, though, to
conclude that this is adequate nighttime lighting for real-world cycling,
though that mile figure seems to imply ample security.

Once again, cost-benefit is the only issue. If there is a point of
diminishing returns in using additional lighting and reflectivity,
then--until that point is reached--more lighting and more reflectivity is
better and everybody should make their own decision about how much
visibility they are willing to buy.

Arguing that the legal minimum is adequate, then, seems to fly in the face
of the studies you cite.
 
> The general idea of "more is better" may be roughly valid, as far as it
> goes.


It is valid, up to a point. At some point, it levels off.

The question is at what point does increasing the
brightness and visibility have no additional return.

I bought one of the new Cateye tail lights ($30 at my
LBS), after seeing the thread on these, since
my old LED blinkie was a piece of junk, both
physically (poorly built), and in terms of visibility
(LEDs weren't bright enough, and no side visibility).
I was also lucky to buy one of the old Performance 6W
xenon lights before they were discontinued (on sale for
1/2 price at only $30. It doesn't go for long between
charges (which is probably why it was discontinued
in favor of the lower power LED headlights), but it's
good enough for my needs, and very bright.

I was reading the history of where the legal standards
came from, and they appear to be more based on
what a generator is capable of providing in terms of
power, than on the amount of light that is necessary
for safe cycling. These standards are very old, and
haven't kept up with changes in the urban environment, the vastly increased
numbers of drivers,
and the easing of licensing requirements for drivers,
and the increasing numbers of elderly drivers with
poor night vision (in South Florida this is a particular
problem!).

Amusingly, in researching this, I found that
Germany has finally updated their standards,
but they are still clueless! They will now allow battery
powered lights, as long as the battery is at least 6
volts! What does the voltage have to do with anything? I can buy a
lithium-ion powered light that
blows away a light powered by 4AA batteries, but the
battery is around 3.6 volts. And what if the consumer
puts in 4 NiMH cells, each of which is rated at 1.2V
rather than the 1.5V of alkaline batteries? They are
now operating illegally.

This was an interesting thread, and it certainly proved
that "legally lit" is not sufficient. Enough posters did
NOT see legally lit cyclists to make it clear that it's
necessary to go beyond the bare minimum.

Joe
 
Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:31:37 -0500, Joe Haggadah:

>I was reading the history of where the legal standards
>came from, and they appear to be more based on
>what a generator is capable of providing in terms of
>power, than on the amount of light that is necessary
>for safe cycling. These standards are very old, and
>haven't kept up with changes in the urban environment, the vastly increased
>numbers of drivers,


German standards have changed several times during the last 20 years.
Minimum illumination levels for front and rear lights have more than
doubled.

>Amusingly, in researching this, I found that
>Germany has finally updated their standards,
>but they are still clueless! They will now allow battery
>powered lights, as long as the battery is at least 6
>volts!


Wrong! Voltage for battery lights is not defined - only minimum
illumination levels and distribution.

>This was an interesting thread, and it certainly proved
>that "legally lit" is not sufficient.


Where is the prove?

Andreas
 
Joe Haggadah wrote:

>
>
> This was an interesting thread, and it certainly proved
> that "legally lit" is not sufficient. Enough posters did
> NOT see legally lit cyclists to make it clear that it's
> necessary to go beyond the bare minimum.


It's interesting you say that. Here's a summary, so far:

What I asked for was accounts where cyclists reading this group were
driving cars, and noticed night-riding cyclists who were insufficiently
conspicuous, despite legal equipment.

What we got were these:

1) Josh Putnam told of one incident with a cyclist whose (only?) rear
reflector was covered with mud. Good lesson there: keep reflectors
clean. Also, use multiple reflectors.

2) Jay Beattie told of a cyclist descending a hill, with only dim white
front blinkies. Note that these may not be legal front lights in many
areas, so this case may not qualify.

3) Werehatrack told of one cyclist whose (only?) rear reflector was
lost in the other city lights. He said if the person had a blinkie,
they'd have been fine. Good lesson.


There were three related stories, where a driver told a posting cyclist
that they weren't sufficiently visible. I view these with a bit of
skepticism, because some motorists can complain about a cyclist simply
being on the road; but still, perhaps we can learn a bit:

1) Josh Putnam was told by a co-worker that she almost hit him in the
fog. Good point. Fog is dangerous, and might call for truly extreme
lighting.

2) "dvt" was hit head on by a left turning cyclist, despite his two 2
watt headlights. This is noteworthy. OTOH, we can come up with far
more cases where cyclists were hit this way in daylight. It's the most
common cause of car-bike collisions, IIRC. One might say that getting
only one nighttime account is very good news.

3) Neil Brooks was festooned with reflectors and reflective triangles,
plus a blinkie, but was shouted out by an angry driver who claimed he
was invisible. I give this one very little credence - if for no other
reason than the motorist obviously saw him to do the shouting!


If we accept that fog is dangerous (I certainly do) and that reflectors
should not be covered with mud, I'm not seeing much evidence that a
cyclist with a legal headlight, a rear blinkie, and a couple reflectors
is less visible than a cyclist in the daytime.

Finally, I'll remind people that it's a very good idea to observe your
own lighting setup by having a volunteer ride your bike as you drive by
it. I've done this several times, with different people. The unanimous
opinion has always been that legal lighting (perhaps with one added
blinkie) is easily sufficient.

You're free to use more, of course. But given the fact that cyclists
are sometimes hit in broad daylight, I don't see that the case for
mega-lights is very strong.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Joe Haggadah wrote:

> I was reading the history of where the legal standards
> came from, and they appear to be more based on
> what a generator is capable of providing in terms of
> power, than on the amount of light that is necessary
> for safe cycling. These standards are very old, and
> haven't kept up with changes in the urban environment, the vastly
> increased numbers of drivers,
> and the easing of licensing requirements for drivers,
> and the increasing numbers of elderly drivers with
> poor night vision (in South Florida this is a particular
> problem!).
>
> Amusingly, in researching this, I found that
> Germany has finally updated their standards,
> but they are still clueless! They will now allow battery
> powered lights, as long as the battery is at least 6
> volts! What does the voltage have to do with anything? I can buy a
> lithium-ion powered light that
> blows away a light powered by 4AA batteries, but the
> battery is around 3.6 volts. And what if the consumer
> puts in 4 NiMH cells, each of which is rated at 1.2V
> rather than the 1.5V of alkaline batteries? They are
> now operating illegally.


One of the reasons we have "clueless" standards like this is to encourage
uniformity and commodification of available products. This brings prices down
and helps ensure availability of parts and service, which is especially
important for safety equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if you could buy bike
light bulbs in most German convenience stores. This wouldn't be the case if too
much variety was allowed, and every light system had its own, unique parts.

This is why we had standardized, sealed-beam headlights in the US until about 20
years ago. If a piece of gravel broke your headlight, you could always count on
a replacement bulb *and lens* being available at the next gas station, for just
a few dollars -- even way out in the boondocks. These days the bulbs are widely
available, but the lenses are not, because every car has its own design.

Also, uniformity in lights and reflectors aids conspicuity. When each vehicle
has a certain light pattern or signature, it's more likely to be recognized for
what it is. Non-standard lighting can and does cause problems. For example,
sport motorcycles with twin headlights are involved in a much higher than
average incidence of head-on collisions, because they're often mistaken for
far-off automobiles.

Matt O.
 
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Joe Haggadah wrote:
>
>> I was reading the history of where the legal standards
>> came from, and they appear to be more based on
>> what a generator is capable of providing in terms of
>> power, than on the amount of light that is necessary
>> for safe cycling. These standards are very old, and
>> haven't kept up with changes in the urban environment, the vastly
>> increased numbers of drivers,
>> and the easing of licensing requirements for drivers,
>> and the increasing numbers of elderly drivers with
>> poor night vision (in South Florida this is a particular
>> problem!).
>>
>> Amusingly, in researching this, I found that
>> Germany has finally updated their standards,
>> but they are still clueless! They will now allow battery
>> powered lights, as long as the battery is at least 6
>> volts! What does the voltage have to do with anything? I can buy a
>> lithium-ion powered light that
>> blows away a light powered by 4AA batteries, but the
>> battery is around 3.6 volts. And what if the consumer
>> puts in 4 NiMH cells, each of which is rated at 1.2V
>> rather than the 1.5V of alkaline batteries? They are
>> now operating illegally.

>
> One of the reasons we have "clueless" standards like this is to encourage
> uniformity and commodification of available products. This brings prices
> down
> and helps ensure availability of parts and service, which is especially
> important for safety equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if you could buy
> bike
> light bulbs in most German convenience stores. This wouldn't be the case
> if too
> much variety was allowed, and every light system had its own, unique
> parts.
>
> This is why we had standardized, sealed-beam headlights in the US until
> about 20
> years ago. If a piece of gravel broke your headlight, you could always
> count on
> a replacement bulb *and lens* being available at the next gas station, for
> just
> a few dollars -- even way out in the boondocks.


Good points. I remember having a sealed beam burn out in the middle of
nowhere and buying one at a supermarket.
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> > :) Joe, I don't feel
frantic at all. And I already ride using good
> sets of "quartz-halogen" lights. Don't confuse bulb technology with power
> source!


Sorry, I must have misread the thread. I thought you
were using a generator lightset with a 2.4W or
3W headlight, which everyone agrees is not sufficient
for nighttime city riding.

What is the good set of lights that you are using now?
 
Joe Haggadah wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> > :) Joe, I don't feel
> frantic at all. And I already ride using good
>
>>sets of "quartz-halogen" lights. Don't confuse bulb technology with power
>>source!

>
>
> Sorry, I must have misread the thread. I thought you
> were using a generator lightset with a 2.4W or
> 3W headlight, which everyone agrees is not sufficient
> for nighttime city riding.


Your "everyone" appears not to include the majority of
cyclists around the world who currently bicycle at night.
Nor does it include the organizations that specify
the lighting requirements for bicycles used at night.

BTW, quartz-halogen lights are available in a variety of
wattages and voltages.
 
"Joe Haggadah" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> > :)
>> Joe, I don't feel frantic at all. And I already ride using good
>> sets of "quartz-halogen" lights. Don't confuse bulb technology
>> with power source!

>
> Sorry, I must have misread the thread. I thought you were using a
> generator lightset with a 2.4W or 3W headlight, which everyone
> agrees is not sufficient for nighttime city riding.


You're making grand assumptions here that are inaccurate. I certainly
don't agree that a 2.4W or 3W headlight is inadequate for city riding.
I live in a city (St. Paul MN) and those are the lights I use at night
for every ride I go on. I've ridden dusk to dawn many times with my
lights in great happiness, since I love night riding and don't want to
have to limit myself to the vagaries of battery life.

> What is the good set of lights that you are using now?


Frank has already specified this numerous times in several threads,
but I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you again. In my case, I use a
Lumotec Oval with a 3W bulb, and a Schmidt SON hub generator. Great
light, no perceptible drag and, since it's always on the bike,
available at the flick of a switch. This is combined with a 3 LED
taillight which is quite visible.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:

> ...
> ROTFL! Those "toy" lights, as you call them, are fine. Tens of
> thousands of cyclists use them every night. In my case, since I am
> not running a taillight from my generator, I use a 3W bulb and ride
> all night long with great happiness and plenty of light....


I will be happy when I get a practical fuel cell so I can run an 80W/55W
high beam/low beam halogen light. No problems seeing way down the road,
and the autoforms will think I am a motorcycle.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
 
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> > :) Joe, I don't feel
> frantic at all. And I already ride using good
>>sets of "quartz-halogen" lights. Don't confuse bulb technology with power
>>source!


Joe Haggadah wrote:
> Sorry, I must have misread the thread. I thought you
> were using a generator lightset with a 2.4W or
> 3W headlight, which everyone agrees is not sufficient
> for nighttime city riding.
> What is the good set of lights that you are using now?


Uh, Joe, you should get out more.

If you actually ride a bicyle at night once in a while,
you'll pass cyclists who overwhelmingly use 2.4W systems.

Sure there are some measly white blinkies. You'll see a
duct-taped flashlight now and again. There are more 10, 20,
40W units every year. But 2.4W halogen battery/dynamo
lights together are on the bulk of night riding bicycles
which have lights ( "none whatsoever" being another popular
format).

"Not sufficient"???
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
Tom Sherman wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:


>> ROTFL! Those "toy" lights, as you call them, are fine. Tens of
>> thousands of cyclists use them every night. In my case, since I am
>> not running a taillight from my generator, I use a 3W bulb and ride
>> all night long with great happiness and plenty of light....


> I will be happy when I get a practical fuel cell so I can run an
> 80W/55W high beam/low beam halogen light. No problems seeing way down
> the road, and the autoforms will think I am a motorcycle.


If you can put up with a more reasonable wattage, 15W fuel cells appropriate for
bike lights will probably be available in the next year or so. If you need more
light, just carry more fuel. Unfortunately, the commercially available ones
will probably only take fuel in sealed cartridges, in a battery/razorblade
marketing model.

Matt O.
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:

> ...
> If you can put up with a more reasonable wattage, 15W fuel cells appropriate for
> bike lights will probably be available in the next year or so. If you need more
> light, just carry more fuel. Unfortunately, the commercially available ones
> will probably only take fuel in sealed cartridges, in a battery/razorblade
> marketing model.


I hope this comes to pass, since battery life is terrible in cold
weather (in the winter when it is dark early). Hub generators will not
work on a tadpole trike (for winter riding) and other generators tend to
slip in snowy/icy conditions. The only real alternative for my purposes
is an extremely heavy battery that would increase overall weight of the
trike by well over 50%.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Joe Haggadah wrote:
>> sometimes hit in broad daylight has nothing to do with
>> seeing cyclists at night. This is a ridiculous comparison.

>
>
> Here's why I mentioned that: We all know of daytime cases where
> motorists hit cyclists they didn't see, sometimes despite bright colored
> jerseys, etc. IOW, our daytime conspicuity is not absolutely perfect,
> yet we continue to ride in daytime.


"daytime conspicuity not perfect". Hmmm... as I've heatedly said to a
few drivers who have claimed not to have seen me (in full daylight), "To
see, you have to look."

Lack of conspicuity is often not the problem. Being seen and
subconsciously assigned irrelevance by the hind brain is often the
problem, IMNSHO.

Not sure which of you two I might be arguing with; I tend to ride with
mega-lights myself*, but let's not any of us think that fixing
"conspicuity" is going to eliminate car drivers' failure to properly
yield right-of-way.

* Does anybody remember Kearney lights?

Mark Janeba
 

Similar threads