Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets - How do you define a bicycle lighting system?

After seeing another "best light for "x" dollars" posting - I have decided that at some point we could discuss what cyclists think of when talking about "all the lights" they need to be safe when out and about in any conditions.

I've posted "ultimate system" threads before - but this thread - I would just like to know what forum members think the "minimum light setup" for fool proof night riding should be.

It seems to me that no matter what devices you use - you need two for front lighting and two for tail lighting. And fine point to this "minimum" is four individual battery sources as well.

I know many would not agree, but just for kicks, shouldn't a good light system have a bar mounted as well as helmet mounted light? And shouldn't they use separate batteries?

And shouldn't you always have a "backup tail light", with a "backup" battery as well?

So if you happen to think this way, what kind of dollars are we talking for a "bike light" - now......?

You brilliant comments are requested.:innocent:

Like everything to do with bicycle riding, it depends on the environment. People riding at night through a city have different requirements than people riding on country roads. People who can stick to residential streets during their entire ride have different requirements than people who have to ride on heavily traveled main roads with lots of distracting lighting in the area. People who can take MUPs have even different needs.

The lightest weight system would be one where people are riding residential streets with street lighting, and they just need to be seen. For that, a small flashing LED front and back, bright enough to be seen but not to see by, is probably fine.

If any riding on high speed roads is needed, I'd say the rider should step up to something like at a minimum a 200 lumen flashlight up front and a Cygolite Hotshot or one of the other premium taillights (PDW Danger Zone or Radbot, Cherry Bomb, Mars 4, etc)

If the rider will be in either an area where there are a lot of other lights to contend with and their light might get lost, I think front and back should be beefed up - one or two 400 lumen front lights, probably a couple of tail lights as above or one of the more serious ones like a Dinotte 400.

In dark rural areas (where I ride, so this is the only suggestion I've posted that comes from actual experience), a 400 lumen light is nice if you are on sketchy road surfaces (I ride gravel for a few miles), 200 lumens is find most of the time, and any of the above taillights is fine. I think a strong taillight is good because people are approaching your butt at 60+ MPH, possibly over blind hills, possibly sucking on a coffee or messing with stuff, you want to get their attention ASAP.

Doubling up on everything is nice if you can, for reduncancy. More important on the taillight since if it fails you may not notice. I think you should be RUNNING two taillights at night. Up front it's OK to just HAVE two lights, or maybe even just a spare battery if you trust the light to not actually fail.

My preferences: Dynamo hub, hardwired headlight and taillight. (best solution)

Alternate: Dynamo hub, hardwired headlight, battery taillight. (compromise, simplified wiring)

Dynamo alternate: battery headlight, battery taillight. (minimum, can usually transfer easily from bike to bike)

I don't feel a need for redundancies, but one can always add another battery light if you feel that way. Hard wired dynamo lighting, I don't feel it's necessary to have redundancy.

Legal requirements here in the US are typically Head light, tail light, rear reflector, front reflector, and spoke reflectors. Some require pedal reflectors.

I would consider a complete "system" to be lighting that meets the legal requirements in your locale.

Hub dynamo: $36 (Sanyo), Headlight: $38 (Spanninga Micro LED), Taillight: $20 (Spanninga Pixio), Wire, sundries:$10

The above will meet my minimum requirements. I have re-used spokes after cutting and re-threading them to the length required for the dynamo hub. The labor was my own. The proper comparison to this setup would be a Planet Bike Blaze front and Super Flash rear (as low as $38 for both online). The labor is a lot less on the battery lights.

My baseline for dynamo lighting is old incandescent lighting, 2.4w front, .6w rear. Anything modern and LED will beat this, easily.

Edit: I only use dynamo lighting equipped with standlight circuits.

It's been years (and now, two dyno hubs on the commuter and spare commuter bikes) since I had problems with a front headlight. Even then, it was an old battery early in the winter that didn't hold its charge. So personally, I don't see the need for two up front. The reason for two rear lights is that you won't see it when one's batteries go flat -- believe me, you'll see it up front!

While not a randonneur myself, I think that group has pretty much honed in on optimum lighting systems, which they need for riding for hours at night on unlit roads under all weather conditions. The 'randonneur system' seems to have converged on dynamo powered Schmidt headlamps (sometimes in pairs) coupled with a dynamo powered taillight, possibly with a backup battery taillight. Not a cheap system, by any means, but optimal for both city and country riding.

I see the lighting requirement being split into two different types of lights - there are the lights to see by, and the lights to make you be seen. I believe that the most effective lights in the 'to be seen' category are flashing lights, and in my ideal world, those would be powered by a dyno-hub. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a dyno powered headlight or tail light which offer a blinking mode. The lights to see with could be either battery or dyno powered, and there, the brightness and beam pattern will depend on where you ride.

My commute bike has as it's lighting complement:
Dyno-hub powered always on headlight and tail light (Schmidt and Supernova)
Battery powered tail light (Dinotte 140)
Battery powered front blinky (Cateye Loop).

Not ideal, but it works.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

But I can't get real responses because of my reputation on the forums.

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -

I love dyno lighting systems for the "forget about it" factor. I also own a DiNotte battery set. They have different characteristics for different uses. You can't easily swap dyno-powered lights between bikes.

My "around town" bike used to use cheap AAA powered lights. I didn't have a backup, but I was never far from home either. If I'm riding distance at night with dyno-powered lights, I'll either have a battery light also, or carry a flashlight. That's handy for any bike repair.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

There seem to be a small number of dyno users that have been jumping in to every lighting discussion and saying "Get a dyno."

Honestly, I've looked at dynos, and I've never been impressed. I ride on roads where people typically drive 60+ MPH and there's no shoulder and no alternate route, and I want a light that someone half asleep and sucking on the first coffee of the morning can see from 1/2 mile away and say "Whoa, what the hell is that?" not from 100 feet back "what's that, a firefly?"

Many car drivers have said that they really appreciate the MagicShine tail light, which is really quite bright.

I ride on downhills on gravel roads where there are arrays of potholes that can screw you over by thinking that you're avoiding one when they're just steering you into a minefield, and you should have gone the other way around that first hole. To ride those I need to see 50+ feet in front of me clearly in the pitch dark. I want a hell of a lot of light. When I get to pavement I can cut it to 200 lumens, but on that gravel I need to throw a beam 60 or 80 feet that's powerful enough to notice a series of dips in a brown gravel expanse.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

But I can't get real responses because of my reputation on the forums.

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -

It is really hard to walk your car home. A bike, not so much problem. A lot of motorcycles have one headlight and one taillight. Certainly not all of them, but for a long time that was the standard.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

But I can't get real responses because of my reputation on the forums.

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -
I actually posted a very detailed description of my own personal viewpoints a while back: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/791045-This-year-s-experiment

At this point I can say "I'll see your DX or MJ and raise you a couple thousand lumen ..... and still be more waterproof and have more runtime."

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -
I use a dyno headlight, which I'm very happy with. I also have a dyno powered tail light on steady, and a battery powered light that flashes. If I am riding long distances, I have a backup AAA battery powered headlight. I carry spare batteries. Never had to use the battery powered headlight, knock wood. I almost always have a helmet light, that's far superior to any headlight for flats. In fact, I am known to wear my helmet off the bike when the helmet light is useful to me. This has the added advantage of eliciting entertaining insults from my family.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

Why the surprise? I have used a dynamo hub since 2003 or so. I don't have to charge up the lights in my automobile. I don't charge them up on a motorcycle. I'd like the same convenience in my bicycle, since there has been a solution to this since the 1930s. Before the high efficiency, high power white LED, they weren't very bright. Shortly after the Luxeons came to market, I decided it was time to go dynamo. Before this, I'd been using a 15w halogen nite-rider with the water bottle sized ni-cad battery pack, with a battery powered LED taillight.

At the time, nobody had LED dynamo headlights on the market, so I made my own, with a voltage regulator, some super caps and a luxeon with optic. It was cobbled together with some perforated circuit board, in a plastic bag, zipped tied to the handlebars. The hub was a Sturmey Archer dynohub, typically rated for 2w, (though I've heard they actually produce less than this?). This was for my urbanized mountain bike. I used a battery operated taillight, because of the anemic power of the dynohub. That light lasted me several years, until I upgraded to a Spinninga Luceo. It failed me once, due to a wire that broke due to fatigue, because of the cobbled together nature of it. Chalk that up to bad implementation by me.

At the time, there was only the Schmidt Son and Shimano offerings in dynamo hubs, unless one went with the used market. I got the SA dynohub for $20 or so on Ebay. I had the LBS lace it into a new rim for another $100 at the time(price includes a Salsa Delgato rim). I've ridden a Raliegh with the SA and incandescent lighting, when I say that is my baseline, I mean my baseline for comparison. My theory is that if that was considered "good enough" at one time, then todays modern LED lights and dynamo hubs completely blow that out of the water.

I live in a college town. We've got lots of students that ride around with no lights. Some ride with just a rear blinky. Some ride with front and rear red blinkys. Thus far, I feel as though my lighting has been adequate, though I used to run twin amber "Red Alert" lights on my fork, one on each blade, with two magnets on the front spokes, which caused them to alternate, left/right. This was in addition to my front LED dynamo powered headlight. The Red Alert predates the Reelight (which was originally called the Freelight, both it and the "Red Alert" suffered by the name, try doing an internet search for them and you'll see what I mean). They both work with an induction coil driven by a magnet on the spokes. Red Alert had an amber front and a red rear model, with a standlight option. I'd say Red Alert lights predated the popular internet. I was never able to find them until long after they were discontinued, and only then from a fellow forum member located in the Netherlands. He only had the amber fronts, with the exception of a broken red standlight rear. I have the broken rear also, I've pretty much reverse engineered the circuit, but I haven't yet followed up, the market has caught up with the gap and I'm lazy.

These days, my main ride has a Schmidt Edelux headlight, with the Sanyo dynamo hub. I was running a Spanninga luceo on my main ride prior, with the SA dynohub. Both of these setups are with battery taillights. I had a sweet ride setup with fenders and a novatech dynamo hub, with a Lumotec Lyt headlight and a B&M Securilite plus taillight, that was a nice inexpensive setup, with the lights around $75 and the hub around $35. I think that the Lumotec IQ Cyo is the same as the Edelex, optically and circuit-wise, but I'm not 100% sure on that. It is packaged in plastic vs. machined aluminum.

I'll wholeheartedly agree that if you are riding on trails on your mountain or downhill bike and you want to go at daytime speeds, a dynamo solution will most likely not work for you. If you're mixing it up in traffic with a ~45-50mph speed differential, a dynamo solution might work fine for you, but I also understand that you might feel the need for more lighting. In my case, a lot of my riding is in a town with a speed limit of up to 45mph, a bright headlight like the Edelux is really more than adequate. I have cars wait on me to go by. I have used dynamo lighting on trails with no troubles, you just cannot go very fast. It all depends on what your riding conditions are and what is considered "good enough".

I think a lot of us with dynamo lighting didn't arrive there as a first solution. For me, it was freedom from having to be tied to a charged battery. This is less of a concern now with LEDs and Li-ion and NiMh batteries, you younger guys don't know how bad it used to be, with incandescents and Ni-cad batteries. Having your 15w nite-rider going flat on the ride home isn't pleasant. Having your Cree LED flashlight clamped to the handlebars step down to a lower level automatically with an additional 5 hours on the battery, not so unpleasant.

I can understand you guys in dense urban areas concerned about theft. A light you can take with you when you park is nice. On the other hand, an inexpensive headlight (I've seen Spinninga Micro's on sale for $25) bolted down with an inexpensive dynamo hub (Sanyo) and bolted down taillight, is somewhat theft averse. Unfortunately, if someone is intent on vandalism, they make easy targets.

As far as changing flats or making repairs at night on the side of the road, a keychain LED light is probably adequate. I myself always have a decent flashlight at hand, one that I could hold or clip to the brim of my ball cap and it can provide up to 100 lumens or so, good enough for a headlight if need be.

As a driver, I find blinking headlights annoying, but I suppose if you are annoying me, I see you. As a driver and a rider, I find blinking taillights annoying. As a driver, I feel that some blinking lights have a blink pattern that make them less safe, because it makes it hard to judge the exact vector that the rider is taking. As a rider, riding in a group with blinking lights is annoying, unnecessary and uncomfortable. I wish that more had the option for a steady burning LED with a blinking LED in addition, as well as the usual steady burning option. As a driver and rider, I also don't want to be blinded by a crazy bright metal halide "stadium light". The German market lights have good beams that respect drivers (along with pedestrians and fellow cyclists), as a good example. The Germans also have pretty strict regulations. It my town, we have existing laws that cover bicycle headlights, but I believe enforcement is next to zero. If you're riding off-road, I don't believe there is any legal issues, and generally no traffic to speak of (but fellow trail users).

I believe that a Schmidt Son 28 classic will saturate at around 7w*, so you can run some serious front and rear lighting with it. I haven't tried Supernova lights, they look well made. Of course, with a dyno, it isn't free, you're losing some speed and effort to make the light. (*I'll have to look that up, I'm going on memory)

Whew! that was long. Is there anything I haven't covered?

Here in Australia I consider the Audax Australia requirements as being the minimum. Furthermore we have minimum legal requirements for lights. Personally I run two rear Radbot 1000 with a Dinotte 400L up front on two bikes and a Dynamo system on the other.

Andrew

There does seem to be an odd schism between some dynamo hub users and those that swear by battery lights and are certain that a dynamo solution won't work for them. There is a bit of dynamo evangelism for sure. I certainly have it. Once you've 'seen the light', you can't help but start knocking on people's doors and spreading the gospel. I think some of that strong advocacy comes from past criticisms of older dynamo lighting technology. Whenever I tell people about my odd obsession with dynamo lighting they almost always reference the bottle dynamo they had on their old clunker. It's even been parodied in The Simpsons.

I have a friend, a cycling nut who custom builds everything, who scoffs at the idea of putting a dynamo system on any of his bikes. It's just not for him. Fair enough.

With respect to off road riding, Supernova makes dyno powered lights for trail riding and sponsors downhill teams, so they must be doing something right.

... It's even been parodied in The Simpsons.


I had to look that one up. Found a clip, but it is in a foreign language, still, one gets the gist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7kgzgcqe5s

This is why I'm a big dynamo hub advocate. I took off the sidewall dyno on a Peugeot, replacing it with a dyno hub. But it is LED lighting that really makes the difference.

I have to say that I usually try not to be too much of an evangelist, but for the kinds of riding I have done a dyno is the way to go. I can't tell you how many times I've gone for a ride and gotten back in the dark with no lights. It's not a pleasant thing. Nowadays, I always have lights and they are always ready to go. This could be true with battery powered lights, but I really don't think it's the same. When I only had one dynohub and I moved it from my commuter to my road bike, it was really annoying to try to keep ahead of the battery requirement on the commuter. I've gotten a dynohub and decent lights for the commuter, and I like that bike a lot more now.

I always had a bottle dyno on my bike BITD. Noisy, but they work. Glad I don't have to do that anymore.

There does seem to be an odd schism between some dynamo hub users and those that swear by battery lights and are certain that a dynamo solution won't work for them. There is a bit of dynamo evangelism for sure. I certainly have it. Once you've 'seen the light', you can't help but start knocking on people's doors and spreading the gospel. I think some of that strong advocacy comes from past criticisms of older dynamo lighting technology. Whenever I tell people about my odd obsession with dynamo lighting they almost always reference the bottle dynamo they had on their old clunker. It's even been parodied in The Simpsons.

I have a friend, a cycling nut who custom builds everything, who scoffs at the idea of putting a dynamo system on any of his bikes. It's just not for him. Fair enough.

With respect to off road riding, Supernova makes dyno powered lights for trail riding and sponsors downhill teams, so they must be doing something right.

There are several problems with dynos for all uses. First, part of the problem, is with the old incandescent systems. They flat out sucked. A whole lot of effort went into a little bit of light. They weren't worth the effort or expense. Output has certainly improved but so has output from battery systems.

Another problem is powering them. If you ride on roads and you keep pedaling, you have light. Stop pedaling and you need a battery backup or you are standing around in the dark at a time when you probably don't want to be standing around in the dark. For off-road use...and let's be honest, that's what has driven bicycle lighting technology...dynos are a nonstarter. On the downhill they would probably be adequate but on slow uphill climbs or in situations where you might get stopped by terrain or obstacles, you are either going to need that battery backup again or you won't have any light. If you are going to carry a battery backup system, why not just dispense with the dyno part. Plus it would be difficult to run a dyno system to a helmet mounted light...which is indispensable for off-road riding. And they are pretty handy for urban riding.

Another problem is utility. I have 7 bikes. I can envision using 6 of them for night rides. I have two 700C road bikes which could use the same wheel but I would need a headlight and taillight for each bike. Then I have four 26" wheel bikes. One has a disc hub but the others are rim brake. I'd need at least two more wheels and four more wire harnesses. That's starting to add up to serious chunk of change. On the other hand, I need 3 head lamps (two on the bike and one on my helmet), batteries and mounts along with some (relatively) cheap taillights which stay on the bike, helmet, rack bag and Camelbak. I can quickly and easily swap the lights from one bike to the next and go riding in less time than it would take to change the front wheel.

Being able to add more headlamps is also an advantage. I can run as many headlamps as I like as long as I have handlebar space for them. It would be difficult to add another headlamp unit to a dyno system, much less 2 or 3 more.

Yes, I have to charge batteries but after years of dealing with them, it's not that difficult to remember to take the battery off each and every night to charge. I also have more than 1 battery pack per light which are always charged (and I rotate through them).

you can always add a battery light to your dyno like I do with my taillights. Battery lights definitely dominate MTB uses. There are mtb dyno users though. The standlights on my lights are pretty good. Not super bright, but bright enough to stand around at a stop sign or traffic light for quite some time. My wife has asked me if the lights on my bike are supposed to be on a couple of times.

Fool proof night riding setup? I would think that would be two system lighting with seperate power source. One should be flood and one thrower. Same goes with the tail light.

The amount of minimum lumens shall depend on the condition and rider preference. One should take note that it should also be bright enough to use during a downpour of wet rain. I find wet pavement eats up lumens light nobody business and those puddle hides potholes. So the minimum setup should include running the system on medium most of the time than crank it up when require.

A third minimum setup is a small flashlight as spare. Great for flat repair in the dark. A helmet light can do the same but not all riders wear helmet. The flashlight should also have something set up for handlebar mount like Twofish in case the main handlebar light fail.

Yes, I have to charge batteries but after years of dealing with them, it's not that difficult to remember to take the battery off each and every night to charge. I also have more than 1 battery pack per light which are always charged (and I rotate through them).

I have an 8 cell pack on my MagicShine system. I only have to charge every 4 days or so. I use a 4 cell pack to last that last day, so I only have to charge on the weekend.

I do have to swap camera batteries every day though. I'm working on that.

Wow - I think we have the answers - some people think "dyno" - some people think "china-shine" LEDs on steroids and some people just don't care.

Having been "around the block" - and being an "early adopter" of bicycle lights - my first light was $5.95 6V dry cell in a metal box hooked to some brand of a sealed beam from Western Auto.... - woah but the kid down the street had a "Scwhinn branded" bottle generator? - All I can say is - we've come along way baby!

I'm not sure there is anyway to understand how or why a cyclist will place their interest or confidence in one light system over another. Clearly there is a demarcation between the type of rider who will accommodate a generator and light permanently mounted on a bike while others accept the need to care for batteries on a regular basis. (or re-supply)

However, my intent was to discuss how other cyclists would define what I "believe" to be any "all night" cyclist's necessities.

That being:


Two independent front lighting sources - powered and operated in a way in one of which is usable as an all purpose light.
Two independent rear lights - powered and operated in a way that one of the lights could possibly remain lighted all night.

The next big issue - coming up

Good discussion! :thumb:

As it has been said, time and time again. . Different kinds of riding, requires different kinds of lighting. Pure and simple. Unless you don't want lights. With me, all my machines, whether it be cars, motorcycles, whatever, has to be fast and sleek looking. That rules out battery packs, and no where even close to a dyno. However, others made find those solutions perfect for their needs. Somebody mentioned that "blinky" is annoying. Maybe so, but the same poster stated blinking gets his attention.

For myself, I have settled on using flashlight systems for my lighting. I like the way they look on and off my bike, and their performance amazing. I am learning too. With the flashlight system, you need be aware of the downfalls too.

I always have double torches up front, one goes bad, I got another..I carry extra QUALITY cells. ( a must). Also, I have a equally or almost equal helmet torch. The helmet light assists the two light up front as far as seeing and being seen. Also, on the helmet, I have a rear torch and on bike I have at least one strong rear light, with two lights on my person facing rearward.. Like somebody else has mentioned, dealing with traffic moving at 50mph+ on lanes with no shoulders, it is not time to be meek. You must have lights that will make you seen in that kind of surroundings..

So, it seems like everybody is doing the right thing, (ample lights front and rear), just that everybody's system may be different. Which is better? IMO, all of them are GOOD. ;)

I can't define it, but I know it when I see it!

However, my intent was to discuss how other cyclists would define what I "believe" to be any "all night" cyclist's necessities.

were we supposed to discuss, or just agree with you? I'm afraid this sentence isn't clear to me. In my view, there is a difference between what is necessary (and sufficient) and what is prudent under exceptional conditions. For some riding, I like to feel comfortable that I can recover from some failures, on my commuter I have no backups because I'm close to home.

Right now, the only battery light that I would consider using as my primary light is the Phillips. I don't really want to choose between blinding other road users and being able to see, so road optics are of primary importance to me. They concentrate the light where it is most useful to the rider, and don't waste a lot of light in directions that only serve to annoy others.

Reading the discussion about having two different power sources, has anyone developed a dynamo lighting system that simply charges a battery or capacitor that powers a light? A system like that seems like it would solve the problem identified by cyccommute (the light cuts out when the bike stops). It seems like it would be very simlar to hybrid cars with regenerative braking (except the charging is during the acceleration, not deceleration, phase).

For the record I'm a commuter that sticks to the roads, and my $120 bike light battery just burnt out after a year. Not that I'm totally against batteries, but I'm not so ecstatic about having to shell out $120 a year for a new battery (plus $200+ for the initial cost of the light at deep discount) when I might be able to pay $200-$250 for a light that will last indefinitely. Maybe I'm just cheap, but that's 12 extra 6-packs of fancy beer I could be drinking.

Reading the discussion about having two different power sources, has anyone developed a dynamo lighting system that simply charges a battery or capacitor that powers a light? A system like that seems like it would solve the problem identified by cyccommute (the light cuts out when the bike stops). It seems like it would be very simlar to hybrid cars with regenerative braking (except the charging is during the acceleration, not deceleration, phase).



They do this already. It is called a standlight. With LEDs they work very well, the light running on for several minutes after you stop. Both headlights and taillights are available with this option. Most of them use a super-capacitor.


To Richard Cranium, Those of us with very reliable dynos will say that your redundancies are generally unnecessary. Weight-weinies will complain that two lights with two battery sources are too heavy. Riders that want to light up the night will complain that two of their bright systems cost (and weigh) too much. It sounds less like you want opinions than you want us to discuss the merits of your system. Is this the "reputation on the forums" you speak of?

Edit: Since the demise of incandescents in portable applications, my need of redundancies has been reduced. If I'm going caving (spelunking), I'll bring an extra. In my case, I'm always packing a light, so I've got some built in redundancy with regards to my bicycle lighting.

Wow - I think we have the answers - some people think "dyno" - some people think "china-shine" LEDs on steroids and some people just don't care.

Having been "around the block" - and being an "early adopter" of bicycle lights - my first light was $5.95 6V dry cell in a metal box hooked to some brand of a sealed beam from Western Auto.... - woah but the kid down the street had a "Scwhinn branded" bottle generator? - All I can say is - we've come along way baby!

I'm not sure there is anyway to understand how or why a cyclist will place their interest or confidence in one light system over another. Clearly there is a demarcation between the type of rider who will accommodate a generator and light permanently mounted on a bike while others accept the need to care for batteries on a regular basis. (or re-supply)

However, my intent was to discuss how other cyclists would define what I "believe" to be any "all night" cyclist's necessities.

That being:


Two independent front lighting sources - powered and operated in a way in one of which is usable as an all purpose light.
Two independent rear lights - powered and operated in a way that one of the lights could possibly remain lighted all night.

The next big issue - coming up Lighting systems are probably very much like most other bicycling gear - decided by personal whims and individual needs and budget. The only cyclists I've personally seen with identical bikes or gear have been married to each other. And often even married couples have different priorities regarding equipment.

Just because most cars have two headlights doesn't make all automotive headlights interchangable either. Almost every car manufacturer has their own idea of what an 'ideal' lighting system should be like - and it seems to change every year too.

I like what I'm using, but its overkill for most of my friends because they don't drive often at night wheras I do. Generators are OK but put a cap on how many watts you can drive, and sometimes I want to drive 40 to 60 watts. Batteries that'll do that for over 6 hours weigh about 2 lbs, but on an electric bike you can just tap into the electrical system so everything is relative.

The fact that there are so many options available is probably a pretty good indication that cyclists opinions about lighting system requirements vary widely.

Have a dual Halogen Schmidt E6 light setup to shed 50 for the primary
60 for the secondary
they are run in series, so the secondaries switch is on or bypass,
primary is on and off.

PM etc..
have 2 primaries , 1 of the other.
Peter White has the data and beam shots he is the importer.

I'm a little surprised that most of the responses come from dyno-users.

But I can't get real responses because of my reputation on the forums.

I guess the auto industry had it all wrong about the "twin headlight" deal....... But even the toughest torch or dyno can fail - and even so - I've never thought a dyno-hub helped much for changing a flat in the dark - but hey -

I don't think the auto industry had it wrong. Auto standards, even when modernized, are burdened with history. Decades ago, auto headlights used lightbulbs which were probably (before my time) less than reliable. Then it moved to standard sealed beams, halogen bulbs, and halogen sealed beams, still less than stone-reliable or durable. Two lights were a necessity for the ability to drive after a single headlight or taillight failure. The driver was expected to get the car fixed promptly, but to be able to drive to a repair place.

Modern car headlights (HID or LED) are far more durable and reliable, so perhaps we're approaching the day when a single front light is adequate.

So the questions for a bike light are:

First, what are the functions and performance requirements for each function?
Can the functions be provided with a single front light? In other words, can a fixed light do everything, or is it necessary to have a helmet light as well?
Is the selected lighting technology reliable enough that you don't need redundancy?

For dyno-driven LEDs with quality cables and connectors and well-sealed electronics, probably redundancy isn't necessary, but if you think you also need a head-mount lamp for pointability, ... well, the fixed light can't provide that.

There are a lot of lighting functions and potential approaches to fulfilling them - for an entire bike, a single "best" system of lights that gives you all-year applicability, we have a pretty complicated engineering problem to solve.

Wow - I think we have the answers - some people think "dyno" - some people think "china-shine" LEDs on steroids and some people just don't care.

Having been "around the block" - and being an "early adopter" of bicycle lights - my first light was $5.95 6V dry cell in a metal box hooked to some brand of a sealed beam from Western Auto.... - woah but the kid down the street had a "Scwhinn branded" bottle generator? - All I can say is - we've come along way baby!

I'm not sure there is anyway to understand how or why a cyclist will place their interest or confidence in one light system over another. Clearly there is a demarcation between the type of rider who will accommodate a generator and light permanently mounted on a bike while others accept the need to care for batteries on a regular basis. (or re-supply)

However, my intent was to discuss how other cyclists would define what I "believe" to be any "all night" cyclist's necessities.

That being:


Two independent front lighting sources - powered and operated in a way in one of which is usable as an all purpose light.
Two independent rear lights - powered and operated in a way that one of the lights could possibly remain lighted all night.

The next big issue - coming up

I'd say, rather than define the system by its configuration, define it by the functions it will perform. What are the conditions in which you need illumination? What do you need to have illuminated? How bright? How far away? What must NOT be illuminated? What hazards can the lights cause, either by insufficient illumination of a part of the rider's field of view, or excessive illumination? What can we learn from regulations on bicycle and similar applications, such as automobile or motorcycle lighting standards?

But I'm a systems engineer and designer, so I would want to define the problem this way, and to define the problem before I define the system.

I really do think it's the only way to move in a straight line to an optimized solution.

Depends. Different strokes for different folks, etc., etc.

I live in the Chicago area and night riding goes along with daylight changes, so Night riding is a 2 month or so dedicated activity and opportunistic the rest of the year. I ride road all year long and every Tuesday and Thursday night with a group. In the Fall when daylight gets too short (mid-September) for after work rides, we switch to paved trail, mix of road and trail and dedicated trail on cyclocross bikes. By early October, it's usually getting cold enough at night that a 2 hour ride after work is all that is practical. Depending on how fast Winter is approaching, we'll keep this up until mid- to late-November.

I started out several years ago with flashlights (Fenix L2D), moved up to cheap dedicated light (NR Sol) then graduated to a good dedicated bar light (BD Strykr) and now I'm back to flashlights. I've become a collector of them and like cehoward, I'm always looking for the perfect new light. Their flexibility and diversity means I have several lights for any type of riding and have spares to loan out for any ride. For early Spring and late Summer, I take one flashlight along on road rides for those times when we stretch the ride window into dusk/dark. On a warm night with limited daylight, this can go into a 1/2 hour or so after dark. In the Fall, two flashlights on the bars (1 Flood, 1 Throw), maybe another on the helmet and a couple of spare cells works just fine. I generally have at least one but more often two blinkies for the rear.

With advances in batteries and leds, I have 7-8 18650 torches that are perfect for my style of riding. My favorite is a relatively new player: 26650 Shadow JM07. This format is perfect for me. Bright, compact size and long run time. New models and new batteries coming out all the time. And they fit just fine on the bar with a Lockblock.

After seeing another "best light for "x" dollars" posting - I have decided that at some point we could discuss what cyclists think of when talking about "all the lights" they need to be safe when out and about in any conditions.

I've posted "ultimate system" threads before - but this thread - I would just like to know what forum members think the "minimum light setup" for fool proof night riding should be.

It seems to me that no matter what devices you use - you need two for front lighting and two for tail lighting. And fine point to this "minimum" is four individual battery sources as well.

I know many would not agree, but just for kicks, shouldn't a good light system have a bar mounted as well as helmet mounted light? And shouldn't they use separate batteries?

And shouldn't you always have a "backup tail light", with a "backup" battery as well?

So if you happen to think this way, what kind of dollars are we talking for a "bike light" - now......?

You brilliant comments are requested.:innocent:

Even though I don't have it, I like Light and Motions Vis 360 (http://www.bikelights.com/vis360.html). It mounts to the helmet and has both a head and taillight that are controlled by one switch. It is USB rechargeable.

Next what I would like to see is something similar for the bike itself. Or maybe some way of turning the lights on with a single remote key fob.

Also maybe incorporating some sort of alarm system into the lighting system. I mean if we stop and think about it, either the head or taillight would be an ideal place to hide an alarm system.

Build it with rechargeable batteries, a charging port, key fob remote, 110 or better db siren, motion detector. Maybe an RFID tag reader.

Think about it, build an alarm with an RFID tag reader one could just about leave their bike unlocked, and anyone attempting to ride off without the RFID would set off the alarm. Or maybe some way to lock either the bottom bracket or rear hub so that it can't be ridden.

Of course along with the siren going off, that both the head and taillights should be programed to flash to attract attention.

SOrry, I know a little off topic, but if one stops and thinks about it, there is no reason for a lighting system to also serve as an alarm system as well.

I don't think the auto industry had it wrong. Auto standards, even when modernized, are burdened with history. Decades ago, auto headlights used lightbulbs which were probably (before my time) less than reliable. Then it moved to standard sealed beams, halogen bulbs, and halogen sealed beams, still less than stone-reliable or durable. Two lights were a necessity for the ability to drive after a single headlight or taillight failure. The driver was expected to get the car fixed promptly, but to be able to drive to a repair place.

Modern car headlights (HID or LED) are far more durable and reliable, so perhaps we're approaching the day when a single front light is adequate.

So the questions for a bike light are:

First, what are the functions and performance requirements for each function?
Can the functions be provided with a single front light? In other words, can a fixed light do everything, or is it necessary to have a helmet light as well?
Is the selected lighting technology reliable enough that you don't need redundancy?

For dyno-driven LEDs with quality cables and connectors and well-sealed electronics, probably redundancy isn't necessary, but if you think you also need a head-mount lamp for pointability, ... well, the fixed light can't provide that.

There are a lot of lighting functions and potential approaches to fulfilling them - for an entire bike, a single "best" system of lights that gives you all-year applicability, we have a pretty complicated engineering problem to solve.Skipping the engineering challenges altogether, there's another really big question, particularly for North Americans. It took about 50 years after automotive headlights were invented for them to be adopted by industry, and North America is typically 25 years behind Europe in adopting updated lighting standards. How long should cyclists have to settle for what the cycling industry wants to sell them?

Skipping the engineering challenges altogether, there's another really big question, particularly for North Americans. It took about 50 years after automotive headlights were invented for them to be adopted by industry, and North America is typically 25 years behind Europe in adopting updated lighting standards. How long should cyclists have to settle for what the cycling industry wants to sell them?

50 years? The first electric light bulb for automotive use was introduced in 1898 in the US...not even 50 years after the invention of the light bulb (1879 in the US) I didn't know that cars didn't have headlamps until 1948. All those round things on the front of cars from the 1908 Peerless to the 1948 Ford were just for show? Maybe they were just a place marker for when lights would be introduced. And those switches you pulled on the dash didn't turn on lights? And the illumination coming from the front of the cars was some kind of magic?

Peerless, an American company by the way, made the electric headlamp standard equipment in 1908. Ford put them on their Model T in 1915. Maybe the American's were 25 years behind Europe but that would mean that Europeans would have introduced the electric automotive light about 10 years before it was invented. Now that is forward thinking.

Well, ECE R20 was ratified in 1985 and is clearly a superior standard than SAE/DOT/FVMSS108. Not a single U.S.-made car has headlights that conforms to the higher standard. R20 defines better cutoff and allows for more light on the road by reducing glare above centreline. Also defines a wider pattern for clearer viewing of sidwalks and pedestrians. Only a triple-axis ellipsoloid reflector can produce such a lighting pattern. One of the major reasons the big-three blocked such standards, higher-cost and lower profit-margins. Then again, most U.S. consumers wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

Other standards such as AFS (automatic leveling) have been around for over 25-years as well. Pack a bunch of groceries and passengers into your car and the headlights are now aimed 2-3 degrees above horizontal. Gee, would be nice if the headlights were smart enough to correct themselves.

Instead, we have ricer gang-bangers with illegal HID upgrades in their filament reflectors who think that blinding everyone on the road is cool. Yeah, very forward thinking.


BTW - way back when, the U.S. was a leader in textiles, clothing and more recently consumer-electronics. Where are these leaders now? Heck, once upon a time, some far off middle-eastern country in the desert was at the top of civilization and could build great stone monuments that no one can replicate even today. Certainly don't see them claiming that fame to put themselves on top today eh?

I didn't know that cars didn't have headlamps until 1948

Sure, and all of the headlight "blackout" masks that people had to mount on their cars during WWII were just, you know, IN CASE the war lasted until the headlight became standard issue. (/snarky)

Sure, and all of the headlight "blackout" masks that people had to mount on their cars during WWII were just, you know, IN CASE the war lasted until the headlight became standard issue. (/snarky)

And all those classic night time car chase scenes from gangster movies of the 30s and 40s were done with carbide lamps. I want me a set of those!

Well thanks for the updates and corrections - clearly most of the posts of this thread are from the veteran night-riding/commuting community.

The origin of this thread came to mind as a result of another "what's the best head light for "x-dollars?" posting.

And of course my one-track mind wanted to create a stream of thought that realizes that using up your bicycle lighting budget on a high quality, yet singularly-used headlight leaves the cyclist in the same precarious condition of anyone using a single headlight, cheap or expensive, - that is - unusual, yet possible catastrophic failure of the the light OR it's power source.

So anyway, if this thread results in any "newbie" being schooled about the need for a backup light or a dual tail light setup when thinking "new bike light" - then my work here is finished.

If other cyclists are content and confident of their single-power-source lighting systems -so be it.

As we all know - in the post 911 world - the facts change as we encounter them. (sarcasm intended)

50 years? The first electric light bulb for automotive use was introduced in 1898 in the US...not even 50 years after the invention of the light bulb (1879 in the US) I didn't know that cars didn't have headlamps until 1948. All those round things on the front of cars from the 1908 Peerless to the 1948 Ford were just for show? Maybe they were just a place marker for when lights would be introduced. And those switches you pulled on the dash didn't turn on lights? And the illumination coming from the front of the cars was some kind of magic?

Peerless, an American company by the way, made the electric headlamp standard equipment in 1908. Ford put them on their Model T in 1915. Maybe the American's were 25 years behind Europe but that would mean that Europeans would have introduced the electric automotive light about 10 years before it was invented. Now that is forward thinking.
You're very good at reading only what you want to see and ignoring everything else. I'm guessing you must really like to listen to yourself talk - probably because so few other people are.
As per the Wikipedia, which you probably sourced for the rest of that info: "The standardised 7-inch (178 mm) round sealed beam (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_beam) headlamp was introduced in 1940, and was soon required for all vehicles sold in the United States (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)." Up to that point any electrical lights had been non-standard items produced by individual manufacturers and at times - were ...... optional. Gee - sounds a lot like the current situation in the bicycle industry.

Also as per that same article: "The first halogen (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp) headlamp for vehicle use was introduced in 1962 by a consortium of European bulb and headlamp makers. Halogen technology increases the efficacy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy) (light output for given power consumption) of an incandescent light bulb (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb) and eliminates blackening of the bulb glass with usage. These were prohibited in the U.S., where non-halogen sealed beam (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_beam) lamps were required until 1978."

Actually the entire article paints a very unflattering picture of the US automobile industry as being anything but a leader in lighting technology but you can continue to live in your own little dreamworld if you want to.

Well, there are a lot of single engine airplanes out there. A lot of pilots are content in their single power source planes. Seems to me that with a bike, worst case scenario is you have to walk it. Plenty of people walk around at night with no flashlight.

You're very good at reading only what you want to see and ignoring everything else. I'm guessing you must really like to listen to yourself talk - probably because so few other people are.
As per the Wikipedia, which you probably sourced for the rest of that info: "The standardised 7-inch (178 mm) round sealed beam (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_beam) headlamp was introduced in 1940, and was soon required for all vehicles sold in the United States (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States)." Up to that point any electrical lights had been non-standard items produced by individual manufacturers and at times - were optional.
Also as per that same article: "The first halogen (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halogen_lamp) headlamp for vehicle use was introduced in 1962 by a consortium of European bulb and headlamp makers. Halogen technology increases the efficacy (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy) (light output for given power consumption) of an incandescent light bulb (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb) and eliminates blackening of the bulb glass with usage. These were prohibited in the U.S., where non-halogen sealed beam (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_beam) lamps were required until 1978."

Actually the entire article paints a very unflattering picture of the US automobile industry as being anything but a leader in lighting technology but you can continue to live in your own little dreamworld if you want to.

If you want people to understand what you meant, you need to post what you meant and not claim you mean something else later. I always click on 'Reply with Quote' so that there's no ambiguity about what was in the original post. So that you can see your words again here's the important part of what you wrote (but you can scroll up to make sure I didn't quote you out of context):


It took about 50 years after automotive headlights were invented for them to be adopted by industry...

Nothing in there about standardization. Nothing in there about halogen. Nothing in there about any of the stuff you listed above (again with the quote so that I don't misquote you). I can't read your meaning into something you didn't say. It did not take 50 years for the US automotive industry to adopt lights for automobiles. It may have taken 42 years (still short of 50 years) to adopt a standard headlamp size...which may have been a bad thing because 'standards' can (sometimes) stand in the way of innovation . Lights weren't 'optional' except at the very beginning of their introduction and became standard equipment very shortly after their introduction. Ford made them standard equipment by 1917...far short of the 50 year period you stated. And I doubt, highly, that you can find an example of any other manufacturer that was offering a car without headlamps much later than that.

On the rest of your above post, you are deflecting the issue so that you don't look the fool. I never said anything about US standards vs European standards or about the US automotive industry being a leader. I only addressed your error on it taking 50 years for lights to be accepted by US automobile manufacturers.

In terms of bicycle lighting, you seem to feel that the US method is the way to go. You have lights that are made by a US company without the highly shaped beams, cut-offs and reduced intensity that the Europeans require. The European style lights are available and could easily be adapted to run on batteries...if that's the way you want to go...but you choose (and complain about) the ones that blind other road users (according to you). There's a word for people who say one thing and do the opposite. I wonder what it is?

The real issue with bicycle lighting systems is very similar to seat-belts and airbags - most consumers don't really see them as anything but an additional unnecessary addition with no real advantages.

For downhill cyclists, $160 Straitline pedals are something to lust after, and 55lbs isn't too much for a downhill bike to weigh. But for most commuters - a lighting system better cost less than $50 and weigh less than a pack of cigarettes.


For roadie addicts, Shimano' new Di2 systems have become the latest 'must-have' - to the point that its hard to keep up with demand. And thats in spite of a $2,000 price tag, a package that weighs 150g more than a cable system and mounts an ugly external battery to the down tube. But if a lighting system weighs more than 200g and costs more than $200 the same people start whining. And the battery better be integrated.


And many die hard touring cyclist have no issues lugging around 100lbs of light-weight equipment, but lighting is apparently extremely optional and major emphasis is put on high viz clothing than lights, and dynos are the top choice in spite of very limited power outputs.


Seatbelts, airbags, headlights, liability insurance, and mandatory inspections didn't used to be required items for automobiles either. Typically, most people left to make their own decisions, are just far too willing to take their chances with their own lives and everyone else's on the road. That doesn't seem to change when those same people get on a bicycle.

So perhaps the best definition of a bicycle lighting system might be 'a needlessly expensive optional accessory of limited value that at best sees only ocassional use'. A lot like a car radio but with absolutely no amusement value. :lol:

Well, ECE R20 was ratified in 1985 and is clearly a superior standard than SAE/DOT/FVMSS108. Not a single U.S.-made car has headlights that conforms to the higher standard. R20 defines better cutoff and allows for more light on the road by reducing glare above centreline. Also defines a wider pattern for clearer viewing of sidwalks and pedestrians. Only a triple-axis ellipsoloid reflector can produce such a lighting pattern. One of the major reasons the big-three blocked such standards, higher-cost and lower profit-margins. Then again, most U.S. consumers wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

Other standards such as AFS (automatic leveling) have been around for over 25-years as well. Pack a bunch of groceries and passengers into your car and the headlights are now aimed 2-3 degrees above horizontal. Gee, would be nice if the headlights were smart enough to correct themselves.

Instead, we have ricer gang-bangers with illegal HID upgrades in their filament reflectors who think that blinding everyone on the road is cool. Yeah, very forward thinking.

BTW - way back when, the U.S. was a leader in textiles, clothing and more recently consumer-electronics. Where are these leaders now? Heck, once upon a time, some far off middle-eastern country in the desert was at the top of civilization and could build great stone monuments that no one can replicate even today. Certainly don't see them claiming that fame to put themselves on top today eh?

Danno, haven't seen you on the site for a while!

Any US automaker or company that sells cars in the US must satisfy the full set of FMVSS standards to be able to sell their products. if they can satisfy R20 or other ECE standards at the same time, great. Nothing but the business case prevents a car sold in the US from having automatic levelers, and light distribution that is closer to the ECE standards. While ECE is thought to be better, it gives you less light above the cutoff. Is that ok? Well, if you can't see street name signs and peds waiting to cross the street or about to jump off the curb in front of you (I live in a college town), maybe not.

The issue of non-compliant higher-performance headlights has been present at least since the early '70s, when I put Euro-spec H4 headlights on my Fiat 128. It had great illumination, I adjusted the lights for a just-below horizontal cutoff, and I liked them. Careful upgrades are as possible as dangerous ones. The rice-bangers you mention are taking an additional risk: fire or distortion in the plastic headlights that are rated well for halogen bulbs but underrated for HID bulbs. The shape of the HID light source is different from that of a halogen, so the same optics won't work correctly. Either way, the optics have to be matched to the bulb for proper light distribution.

Leveling? I'm pretty sure when I worked on a spec for a leveling actuator, it was for a US-market car. I don't expect an after-market leveler, if one exists, to work real well. I'd rather see a hand-crank used with some kind of twisting Bowden cable arrangement.

But suspension settling isn't a problem bikes have. We do have the problem of wanting to see the road surface well while not blinding oncoming drivers while giving the oncomings enough light (above the cutoff) to see us from any "relevant" angle, and being able to see pedestrians at/near the curb, traffic and street identification signage in pitch black with rain falling. That's really not a different set of design metrics from a car. The details of performance specs will be different, but the performance goals are the same. And seeing a deer before it wanders out in front of your bike would be a good thing as our suburbs continue to encroach on their habitat.

The real issue with bicycle lighting systems is very similar to seat-belts and airbags - most consumers don't really see them as anything but an additional unnecessary addition with no real advantages.

For downhill cyclists, $160 Straitline pedals are something to lust after, and 55lbs isn't too much for a downhill bike to weigh. But for most commuters - a lighting system better cost less than $50 and weigh less than a pack of cigarettes.


For roadie addicts, Shimano' new Di2 systems have become the latest 'must-have' - to the point that its hard to keep up with demand. And thats in spite of a $2,000 price tag, a package that weighs 150g more than a cable system and mounts an ugly external battery to the down tube. But if a lighting system weighs more than 200g and costs more than $200 the same people start whining. And the battery better be integrated.


And many die hard touring cyclist have no issues lugging around 100lbs of light-weight equipment, but lighting is apparently extremely optional and major emphasis is put on high viz clothing than lights, and dynos are the top choice in spite of very limited power outputs.


Seatbelts, airbags, headlights, liability insurance, and mandatory inspections didn't used to be required items for automobiles either. Typically, most people left to make their own decisions, are just far too willing to take their chances with their own lives and everyone else's on the road. That doesn't seem to change when those same people get on a bicycle.

So perhaps the best definition of a bicycle lighting system might be 'a needlessly expensive optional accessory of limited value that at best sees only ocassional use'. A lot like a car radio but with absolutely no amusement value. :lol:

The problem with your logic is that lights aren't something that most people are going to have a need for. Most bicyclists don't ride after dark or even in that many low light conditions. Road riders who have their bike equipped with Di2 shifter systems aren't going to be riding around in the dark. Downhill riders may ride after dark but they are probably going to use lights if they do so. As a die hard touring cyclist, I don't tour in the dark and can think of few situations where I would. As a long time poster and reader on the touring forums, I doubt there are many tourists that would ride after dark. We tend to like to spend our nights sleeping.

Seatbelts and airbags have a purpose but if motorists only ever drove at 20 mph, they wouldn't need those items either. The best way of dealing with lights is to leave the choice to the individual cyclist who can tailor the lights to his (or her) needs rather then have someone define what they need. For example, a cyclist that rides in a rural area needs less light output than a cyclist that has to deal with the multiple light sources of an urban environment. An off-road cyclist needs more light and a light that functions without the wheel spinning on a dark trail than a cyclist riding a audax.

The problem with your logic is that lights aren't something that most people are going to have a need for. Most bicyclists don't ride after dark or even in that many low light conditions. Road riders who have their bike equipped with Di2 shifter systems aren't going to be riding around in the dark. Downhill riders may ride after dark but they are probably going to use lights if they do so. As a die hard touring cyclist, I don't tour in the dark and can think of few situations where I would. As a long time poster and reader on the touring forums, I doubt there are many tourists that would ride after dark. We tend to like to spend our nights sleeping.

Seatbelts and airbags have a purpose but if motorists only ever drove at 20 mph, they wouldn't need those items either. The best way of dealing with lights is to leave the choice to the individual cyclist who can tailor the lights to his (or her) needs rather then have someone define what they need. For example, a cyclist that rides in a rural area needs less light output than a cyclist that has to deal with the multiple light sources of an urban environment. An off-road cyclist needs more light and a light that functions without the wheel spinning on a dark trail than a cyclist riding a audax.
So you start off by saying "the problem with your logic....." and then proceed to substantiate everything I said. Thanks .... I guess.