Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Commuting (http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/)
-   -   Too Bright (http://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/921063-too-bright.html)

spare_wheel 11-20-13 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16262148)
honestly, i think that most won't understand it until they use one.

it only highlights what's necessary, which is very nice when commuting in darkness, rather than everything, which i find completely useless as one's eyes don't adjust to the dark as well.

more is not better when it comes to most things, including bike lights.

bike lights are not only used to see the road. they are also used to be seen by less vulnerable road users. and for someone who wants to be seen, spill is a very good thing indeed.

acidfast7 11-20-13 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16262848)
bike lights are not only used to see the road. they are also used to be seen by less vulnerable road users. and for someone who wants to be seen, spill is a very good thing indeed.

weak reasoning here ... flashers are seen better than solids.

that's why police lights flash and aren't solid.

do you make this stuff up to justify a cheap ebay light purchase?

spare_wheel 11-20-13 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16262993)
weak reasoning here ... flashers are seen better than solids.
that's why police lights flash and aren't solid.
do you make this stuff up to justify a cheap ebay light purchase?

you do realize that flashers can have spill too. it's also amusing that you accuse me of making stuff up while issuing an unsupported proclamation as "fact".
for example, this study suggests that flashing lights are not more easily detected than static lights.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22269563
the search function on bike forums will also lead you to threads on this topic.

acidfast7 11-20-13 02:03 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16263089)
you do realize that flashers can have spill too. it's also amusing that you accuse me of making stuff up while issuing an unsupported proclamation as "fact".
for example, this study suggests that flashing lights are not more easily detected than static lights.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22269563
the search function on bike forums will also lead you to threads on this topic.

how about you read the primary literature ...

what does this figure tell you about flashing vs. static lights?

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=351723

acidfast7 11-20-13 02:16 PM

also FYI ... this is the body of the text:

There was also a significant main effect of bicycle light, F(2,21) = 15.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .60, such that the mean response distance was longer in the no-light condition (75.0 m) than in either the static (49.0 m) or flashing (52.1 m) light conditions. The static and flashing conditions did not differ significantly. The primary reason for the significant main effect of bicycle light was that the light, whether it was static or flashing, decreased response distances in the vest, ankle and knee condition relative to the no-light condition. This pattern may have resulted from the bicycle light (mounted on the handlebars) acting as a glare source that reduced the drivers’ ability to see the reflective markings on the ankles and knees. Accordingly, there was also a significant interaction between clothing and bicycle light, F(4,19) = 5.14, p = .006, partial η2 = .52, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Post hoc interaction contrasts showed that the difference between the vest condition and the vest, ankle and knee condition was greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions. The difference between the vest and black condition was also greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions.

:lol:

that's why the StVZO anti-angle conditions make sense

way to shoot your argument in the foot ... quit trolling pubmed OK

:lol: x ∞

cyccommute 11-20-13 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16263158)
how about you read the primary literature ...

what does this figure tell you about flashing vs. static lights?

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=351723

That it made no difference. Overlapping error bars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acidfast7 (Post 16263184)
also FYI ... this is the body of the text:

There was also a significant main effect of bicycle light, F(2,21) = 15.93, p < .001, partial η2 = .60, such that the mean response distance was longer in the no-light condition (75.0 m) than in either the static (49.0 m) or flashing (52.1 m) light conditions. The static and flashing did not differ significantly. The primary reason for the significant main effect of bicycle light was that the light, whether it was static or flashing, decreased response distances in the vest, ankle and knee condition relative to the no-light condition. This pattern may have resulted from the bicycle light (mounted on the handlebars) acting as a glare source that reduced the drivers’ ability to see the reflective markings on the ankles and knees. Accordingly, there was also a significant interaction between clothing and bicycle light, F(4,19) = 5.14, p = .006, partial η2 = .52, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Post hoc interaction contrasts showed that the difference between the vest condition and the vest, ankle and knee condition was greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions. The difference between the vest and black condition was also greater in the absence of lights than in either the static or flashing conditions.

Another, more reasonable conclusion is that an active light made the use of reflective clothing superfluous. That's the point of using a light. If a driver sees a bicyclist's lights before he sees his own light reflecting back off reflective material, the active lights have done their job. The reflective material is a fill-in, secondary system and shouldn't be your primary system. We have a name for people who depend 100% on reflective material for night time riding...Squished.

acidfast7 11-20-13 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 16263244)
That it made no difference. Overlapping error bars.



Another, more reasonable conclusion is that an active light made the use of reflective clothing superfluous. That's the point of using a light. If a driver sees a bicyclist's lights before he sees his own light reflecting back off reflective material, the active lights have done their job. The reflective material is a fill-in, secondary system and shouldn't be your primary system. We have a name for people who depend 100% on reflective material for night time riding...Squished.

based on this study i'm switching to reflective clothing and no lights ... i don't need them as by entire ride is well lit.

Telly 11-20-13 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fietsbob (Post 16262845)
Not sight unseen .. can you solder ? do you have a place to buy heat-shrink tubing
to cover wire connections?

Yes I can solder, although I'm going to go for the easy (lazy) solution and order an extension cable for the MS and place the battery pack in the rear pocket of the pannier, that way I can protect the battery pack from condensation/rain, and take it up to the office with me to top up the charge.

I also found an ideal connector which I will use when the original connectors fail (notice the "when" and not the "if"!).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-JNEG-2-P...-/370883396434

alan s 11-20-13 02:43 PM

I saw a guy the other day whose reflective jacket was way too bright. Nearly the entire back was reflective, and although I knew it was a bike because I was on a trail and overtaking, from a distance, it didn't call out "bike." Looked more like a highway traffic cone or barrier.

fietsbob 11-20-13 02:44 PM

those top tube 'bento bags' might be good enough, and not that far to run the wires.

Telly 11-20-13 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fietsbob (Post 16263298)
those top tube 'bento bags' might be good enough, and not that far to run the wires.

I know that having the wires run the length of the bike is a hassle, but it's so much more practical to have the battery with me at all times since the rear pannier pocket holds the battery and it's charger quite snugly, also leaving enough room for the Blackburn flea 2.0 and it's usb charging base.

When I reach my work, I unclip the pannier, the battery connector for the MS clone, and I have everything with me. Also true when I'm running errands, with the exception of the light itself which is securely bolted to the bike instead of that !#!$!@@ rubber band that came with it.

jputnam 11-21-13 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noglider (Post 16257668)
cyccommute, I agree that lux ratings don't mean anything without specifying distance. I'm going to bet that bike light makers are assuming some sort of standard distance such as ten meters, which means that the ratings might very well have meaning.

For StVZO, there's a detailed standard for measurement. Standard distance is 10 meters, but that's just the start. As with car headlights, there's a required distribution of light and a prohibition of excessive glare above the beam cutoff.

Lux meansurement is specified at TA 23:

http://translate.google.com/translat...ng.htm&act=url

If a light is to be StVZO approved, it has to be tested and receive a ~K approval number.

Leisesturm 11-21-13 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telly (Post 16263286)
I also found an ideal connector which I will use when the original connectors fail ]

Don't hold your breath, I've been waiting four years for mine to fail...I don't baby them either. FWIW.

H

Telly 11-21-13 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leisesturm (Post 16265023)
Don't hold your breath, I've been waiting four years for mine to fail...I don't baby them either. FWIW.H

That's great news, but don't forget that my light, albeit a good quality one from the looks of it, is never-the-less a clone.

I've wen't ahead and ordered a few connectors, just to have some on stock, and will check out the quality when they arrive.

hybridbkrdr 11-21-13 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hangtownmatt (Post 16222798)
I have a NiteRider 600. Been using it for a couple years. I commute year round, 5 days a week, and always in the dark very early in the morning. I run this light on the lowest setting (250 lumens) 95% of the time. Lights like this are like high horsepower engines. You rarely need the power, but when you do, it's nice to have.

Matt

That's nice to hear since I bought a 25 Lux Lumotec Lyt. :)

Telly 11-22-13 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noglider (Post 16262646)
Looks good. For version 2.0, I recommend a way to adjust the vertical angle. You'll want to point it up when traffic is light and down when it's heavy. I do that with my headlights.

I don't really need to change the position of the light, but I did think of a rather nifty way of micro-adjusting the light by using a combination of concave washers from a v-brake pad which should give me a couple of degrees of pitch and yaw and some Loctite for keeping everything nice and tight.

I'll try it out during the weekend and see how it works.

jputnam 11-23-13 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyccommute (Post 16262220)
Your eyes don't "adjust to the dark" if you are using any kind of light other than a low intensity red light. Even the light above will completely saturate the rod cells in your eyes and render you night blind.

There are different levels of "adjusting to the dark." The eye can successfully view a somewhat limited dynamic range -- for a given intensity of distance lighting, having a more intense light in the foreground can reduce visibility distance, as well as reducing contrast.

It's not uncommon to for a person to come inside on a bright summer day and have it take several minutes to be able to see well in lighting that is still bright enough that you're using full-color vision. This is not "night vision" using the rods, just adjusting from more intense lighting that has lowered the sensitivity of the cones.

NHTSA has actually sponsored some excellent research on the impact of lighting and glare on driving, it's one of their most active areas for consumer complaints and a recognized contributor to many accidents.

spare_wheel 11-24-13 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jputnam (Post 16271966)
NHTSA has actually sponsored some excellent research on the impact of lighting and glare on driving, it's one of their most active areas for consumer complaints and a recognized contributor to many accidents.

recognized contributor is another of those wishy washy terms that can mean just about anything. in my experience there is basically no enforcement of 3rd party vehicle lighting in the usa. as a cyclist who rides in traffic 95% of the time i am routinely blinded by idjits with absurdly bright halogen/led lights on a high truck-body vehicle (suv/light truck). imo, this is a far more pressing safety issue than a few cyclists with chinese magicshine clones.

Ridefreemc 11-24-13 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenomad (Post 16223144)
I cover my light as courtesy for oncoming cyclists. It avoids that moment of possible blindness as you pass so close on the MUP. So far nobody returns the favor with their bright lights but I understand they may not get it. I still do it to make their commute a little nicer.

I come across two or three guys on occasion that have such bright lights (on the MUP) that I can see them coming for miles. I typically say "too bright" as we pass and get a "sorry." However, I see them again and same thing. They must not know that I cannot see the trail when they come by.

I run on my lowest - and no flashing. I don't understand the need for flashing on the MUP anyway (like the guy today in the middle of the day).

jputnam 11-24-13 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 16274697)
recognized contributor is another of those wishy washy terms that can mean just about anything. in my experience there is basically no enforcement of 3rd party vehicle lighting in the usa. as a cyclist who rides in traffic 95% of the time i am routinely blinded by idjits with absurdly bright halogen/led lights on a high truck-body vehicle (suv/light truck). imo, this is a far more pressing safety issue than a few cyclists with chinese magicshine clones.

Lighting enforcement varies a lot by state and local police. Some states have regular inspections of all licensed cars, others do essentially nothing. My local PD does some lighting enforcement, I've seen them go after lights that were mounted too high on lifted trucks, and illegal HID retrofits on cars that came with halogen. The strongest enforcement is at the manufacturer/distributor level, companies have lost millions of dollars of inventory and paid plenty in fines when Federal enforcement finds illegal modifications for sale. But with the internet, especially direct sales from overseas sellers, that's losing some of its teeth.

Local enforcement can become more of a priority if more local citizens complain.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 AM.