JohnJ80

Thanks Cat,

The description says it has a QR system. In fact, it looks like the mount is identical to the one for the 300R which is a QR, very durable and easy to use.

J.

PaulRivers

Police lights *are* pretty much designed to be blinding. You're supposed to pull over to the side of the road and stop when you see them - that's the point.

And people rear end cop cars with their lights on, amublances hit other amublances at intersections, etc. brighter! Brighter! BRIGHTER! Hasn't made them magically safe either.

10 Wheels

The new DiNotte Quad RED is a fully integrated taillight in a small package that houses both the taillight and the battery. it uses a quick release system allowing the taillight to quickly come on and off the bike. It can also bolt on permanently.

JohnJ80

That's foolish. It is clearly not the point to blind people with emergency lights. If it were true, anytime a police car turned on their lights in traffic, there would be instant and frequent collisions. If a police car pulled up behind you and turned on it's lights, you'd be blinded and then crash.

Why people run into emergency vehicles not because they are blinded. Why they collide *sometimes* at intersections is because they aren't seen and are not visible enough.

j.

PaulRivers

And I say it's foolish to pretend that police lights aren't meant to be obnoxious, eye catching, and so annoying they make you want to pull over because they're so distracting. I've been pulled over, that's what the point is - it's not quite blinding, it's just so distracting you can't pay attention to anything else.

They don't let you use police-level lights on your regular car.

Your last sentence is exactly my point - one puts this obnoxious, annoying, can't-look-at-anything-else light on your bike - and you *still* aren't 100% safe.

I think most of the time, cars either see you or they don't. Being as annoying as emergency vehicle lights on your bike doesn't seem to me to greatly increase your safety, but it does greatly increase your annoyance level.

JohnJ80

Sounds to me like you have a problem. I have no issue resisting the urge to pull over when I don't have to. And I am not even close to being blinded by emergency lights. And that's because the lights are about the same, or less, brightness than car tail lights. You can look up the SAE spec for yourself.

of course. and when we get to the point where bike lights look like a police car, then we can worry about that. So far I have't had anyone confuse me on my bike with a police car. Seriously, you can't be worried about this, are you?

Who said you are? The experience I have in thousands of miles of using lights like this says that I am definitely safer with them than without them. That's the point. No one ever said a light makes one 100% safe. That's a fabrication.

So being less visible is better?

It's not binary. Seriously, come on.

I don't have emergency lights on my bike. i have one light that is bright and not even half as bright as the minimum spec for emergency lighting. I also do not have many lights that are bright that flash over a 360 arc as proscribed by the specs that cover emergence lights. No one is going to confuse me with a police cruiser. So I can't be as annoying as an emergency vehicle's lights except in someone's imagination.

If someone perceives that as annoying - nothing I can do about that. FWIW, I find it "annoying" to be run off the road by drivers who don't see me or misjudge the distance from their car to me. I do know that I have had a number of people tell me "nice lights" including police officers. From that I conclude they are not annoying but useful and appreciated. What is annoying to a lot of motorists is not being able to see cyclists until they feel that they don't have time to react.

There is not an issue here.

J.

noglider 

@JohnJ80, I agree with @PaulRivers is saying, and perhaps it's because I understand it. I don't think he's saying he wouldn't absent-mindedly fail to pull over when a patrol car behind him is flashing his lights. It's not that he has no choice about pulling over, but he does have very little choice in noticing the lights.

I don't see him stating or implying that less visible is safer. There's no argument that more light makes us safer, but only up to a point. There is a point of diminishing returns, and that might be at about the same point when lights annoy others. If those two points are the same (or just close) then it makes sense to maintain our light output at that level or lower. Annoyance alone is not an asset, not that you claimed that it is, but it's a point worth saying anyway, so that we don't dismiss the negative value of annoyance.

PaulRivers

Exactly.

trekmogul 

I have the 400R and i run it on the bike trail @0430am every day and i have many a cars slow down on crossing roads to see what that is coming..I know your suppose to only use it in day time but i only ride trail with it. I was told i can be seen for over 6 miles down the trail..

JohnJ80

Sure. But how is this, in any case, a bad thing? Isn't that the entire point?

The implication was that I was maintaining more visible would make me 100% safe. I didn't say that, my point was that more visible increases my safety. We seem to agree on that point.

I don't think we have reached the point of diminishing returns on tail light bike lighting. We're not even in the same ballpark as car warning lights.

What does "annoy" mean? Some drivers get annoyed if a car is slower than they are or in the left lane. Or they get annoyed when a motorcycle with a loud exhaust passes. I think, the vast majority of drivers are very much ok with a highly visible cyclist. I've never had someone yell at me for being too visible (except for a drunk - but consider the source). My experience is that people seem to appreciate it or don't care.

Even then, if someone is annoyed, I'm not sure that matters. My safety is more important than that and if it does make me more visible - and I maintain that it very much does, then I'll accept that. I can't control what annoys people, it is irrational to try and determine what is "annoying" to everyone driving a car. I do care that I am noticed, I can control that, and it matters.

I do, however, think that if/when we get to the point where a light provides no more benefit in visibility, then I'd agree that there is no point in getting more lumens out the back. But we aren't there yet - car brake lights are in the range of 500 lumens or so and cars have at least two. We aren't even half way to the output of one tail light. If it's not annoying for a car then it should be fine for a bike at lower lumens and only one light to boot. There is a lot that flashes in current traffic as well as warning flashers and other lights so to have at least two lights at 500 lumens (also with lenses and reflectors) then I think this is not a problem either. Given that cycles are vehicles too, it would seem to me we are entitled to as much light as at least one car tail light puts out. That would be more than twice what these lights in question will do.

And what I can offer and would recommend to anyone worried about this - go get or borrow a high bright bike tail light and see for yourself what the behavior change is in drivers and how it is to your benefit.

J.

ItsJustMe

I get that behavior with 60 lumens. I think perhaps you just have crazier drivers in your area. In my area they aren't actively trying to kill me. In fact the biggest problem that I have is that they're way too polite and refuse to pass even when there's room.

Athens80

I just went out to compare the Dinotte 300R to car incandescent tail lighting in a very quick and simple test.

• On low steady the 300R at close range appeared roughly similar to a single car tail light.
• On high steady the 300R at close range appeared roughly similar to a single car brake light.

You guys can improve on the exactness of those findings. But my quick conclusion is that the 300R on steady at night is not dangerously bright for other normal road users. Whether on high, low, or in between, the 300R's steady light is roughly as bothersome to the eyes as are car tail lights and brake lights.

noglider 

@Athens80 and @JohnJ80, you make good points. We may not be at the point of diminishing returns for tail lights.

I still stand by my point about annoyance. You do have control over that. If you do something that you know will annoy something, then you are annoying. If it's not necessary to do it, then you're better off not doing it. Yes, some people get annoyed at benign things. That's their problem. I'll take your word for it that a 300lm (or whatever) tail light is acceptable. But the concept itself of gratuitous annoyance does make sense. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

runner pat

A car tail/brake light has the 300-500 lumens spread over a large area. A bike light of the same power is concentrated in a small source and will be far brighter. (Lux) I have two Hotshots on my handcycle and at 100 yards at night, the light signature completely hides the bike itself.
I have a large reflective vest over the seatback, reflective "straws" on the spokes and tape on the flag mast. All of that is hidden by the glare.

10 Wheels

Car and Dinotte

Control: Toyota 2002 BSF on Trunk Left Side:
Dinotte on Trunk Right Side

Bicycle Light Test - YouTube

JohnJ80

Actually, we don't have control over what annoys people - the variance is enormous - and that's why we have laws. Laws tell you what you are entitled to be annoyed about.

Since we are still well within the limits that have been established for other lights that are much more prevalent on the road, we don't have a problem and likely never will. If I'm wrong, then at some point when enough people are "annoyed", regulations will be adopted. I'd submit that won't happen as long as we are just a minority fraction of the light emitted (flashing or otherwise) from other vehicles and signage on the road. I'd also suggest that it's going to be very hard to insist that bicycles can have less light and visibility than other vehicles on the road. It's not a comparative thing - bikes are not entitled to less just because they are bikes.

On the other hand, if the flashing and brightness significantly exceeded that of other vehicles and signage then we might be having a discussion about a real problem. Until then, I don't think we need to invent an issue.

J.

noglider 

I agree, @JohnJ80, except that laws cannot be the only guide. They are a last resort. First, we have to reason and use our consciences. Something that is reasonably considerate to me might be inconsiderate to you, and we need laws to settle that. Asking ourselves what is reasonable is the first step, and it is far from useless.

But we're talking theory at this point. I appreciate that you have pointed out that bike tail lights are nowhere near as bright as car tail lights, so bring on the bright lights.

JohnJ80

Agree. This issue will get settled when/if there are enough lights out in use and it becomes a problem.

J.

01 CAt Man Do

For once there's been so much said in the last 18 posts that I don't have much to add. I think John covered about almost everything that I would of said.

I think the "diminishing returns" argument while valid is situational. For most people I think the "new" standard 60 lumen rear blinkies do an excellent job for getting one seen and still provide for decent run times. While I have a brighter rear light I'm come to the conclusion that ( in my particular case ) I really don't need the super output of the brighter light for most rides. Two 60 lumen blinkies ( one helmet mounted, one seat post mounted ) works for me. I'll probably still use the brighter light for those rides out in Sticksville but for the time being I'm fine with the lesser output. Now if I rode regularly on multi-lane highways ( with heavy traffic ) with little to no shoulder I'd likely opt for the biggest guns I could buy. The reasoning for that is simple: the more *distractions there are on the road ( *cars changing lanes at high speeds, big road signs, heavy traffic...) the more need there is to "stand out" and be noticed.

Glad the new DiNotte lamp has a QR. I didn't see it in the pictures so that is why I said what I said. Thanks for the correction. While I didn't say it before I'll say it now; I'd love to have one of the new DiNotte quad's. Too much money for me though and since I already have a rear light over 100 lumen I can't justify the expenditure. Now if I had a couple beers in me and the price was more like $125 I'd be tempted.

Benbo1008

Here's a quick side-by-side of the new Quad Red with an older 140R (Quad Red is on the left). My 2 cents: The Quad Red is about the same brightness head-on, but it has a better off-angle brightness. I bought it because of the internal battery, the external battery for my 140R always seemed a hassle to attach, one time it even rotated around and down and jammed in my rear wheel causing it to lock up and blow the tire. That was a pucker moment!

If you already have a 140R or other Dinotte light and your happy with it then you don't really need the new Quad Red. If you're looking for a new tail light, the Quad Red can't be beat.

Finally, sorry for the poor video. Use it only for the A/B comparison, it doesn't do justice to how bright these lights really are.

Ben

comparo 1 - YouTube

comparo 2 - YouTube

mrbubbles

The brightness of these lights is not an issue. I ran 100 lumen taillights for years and never had a problem. My dynamo lights are almost as bright on steady.

The only two posters on this thread arguing against this are users who favor weak-ass output dynamo lights. Gee.

JohnJ80

Thanks for the video. Very helpful!

J.

01 CAt Man Do

Paul while I disagree with you to some extent I don't think you are entirely wrong. Police lights ARE freggingly bright. That said they need to be freggingly bright. I don't think I need to explain why. The intent is not to be "obnoxious" but to draw attention, day or night. While there are some very bright rear bike lights I don't think I've ever seen any that come close to the output of the more modern police roof light bars.

Your statement about being 100% safe I find very odd coming from a cyclist. As for myself, being a person who drives at night for a living I've seen many a cyclist at night riding in various conditions ( urban vs. rural ). While I've seen a bright rear light on a bike a time or two I've never seen anything that would of produced from me an "OMG what an annoyingly bright light!" response. Matter of fact, usually the response I've given to the typical rear lights on a bike I see is something like, "What a weak-ass light that is"! or, "Hey buddy, you want to put some new batteries in that thing and then aim it right". So odd is it to see a good bright rear light on a bike that when I do see one I almost want to wind the window down and give the guy a "thumbs up" and then pat him/her on the back and say, "Job well done".

As for being 100% safe... Nobody is 100% safe. Doesn't matter if you're a cyclist or a motorist. The police used to use a single bubble light on top of their cars ( back in the 60's ) Apparently that was deemed "inadequate" by the powers that be, hence the newer brighter light bars. Apparently the newer, brighter lights are working for the police. If brighter lights are better for them I see no reason not to believe brighter lights ( up to a point ) are not better for cyclists.

While riding my bike at night I want to as safe as possible. To make that possible I use an assortment of lights ( front and rear ) as well as reflectors/reflective material to help make myself visible to others. Not much more I can do along those lines to increase my safety. At this point with two rear lights and two front lights along with some cheap wheel lights, I've pretty much maxed out the "Being visible" issue. Anything else I do with lights is likely only going to produce diminished returns. That doesn't mean though that I might not want a "better quality" lamp to replace ones that I already have. The issue now for me is not, MORE LIGHT but, BETTER LAMPS....smaller footprint....lighter weight....longer run time with an acceptable output...etc.

All that said, the DiNotte quad rear looks to be acceptably bright with the added ability of having more side illumination. Bright, small, long running lamp of high quality. Yep, one of those could easily replace one of my current lamps without a doubt ( if I had the money ).

PaulRivers

The point of this video is exactly that the Dinotte is brighter and more attention getting than any other light, especially the car tail lights - did anyone actually watch the video?

Just look at a screenshot:


What's the brightest light there? The Dinotte light - clearly.

And onto that that the car tail light do not blink in a rapid "pay attention to me" pattern. The car tail lights are a slow blink - the dinotte light is a bright strobe light level of "I'm here pay attention to me" blink. It's brighter, and it's more more aggressive blink pattern.

Bike tail lights are already brighter than car tail lights.

PaulRivers

I agree with you before the last sentence, but that's what I'm saying - if your rear lights are the same level of light output and flashing that police lights are, you're far bright and more obnoxious than regular cars on the road are allowed to be.

I agree that I don't see a lot more to-weak rear lights on the road than I do to-bright rear lights. I don't think that's justification to promote that we need more to-bright rear lights.

I do see a fair number of to-bright front lights on the road though. Not a huge number, but I see a couple on a regular basis. But - at least with front lights they're not pointed backwards into the face of the person behind you.

It is illegal for regular cars to have police-style or level lights on them. It is evidentally believed that if everyone had bright flashing light on their cars, that this would be unsafe and bad for everyone on the road.

You are arguing that bikes should be able to have more lighting than cars are allowed to have. You're arguing that because you're on a bike, you should have the same level of visibility that vehicles trying to save people's lives, or who have the right to shoot at you should have.

You have someone claim that bike lights are "nowhere near" car lights in brightness, then immediately claim that emergency vehicles have brighter lights so it should be fine for bikes to have the same level of lights. Those both obviously cannot be true. Take a look at my screenshot from my previous post - a dinotte rear light is pretty obviously brighter than a car tail light, and it also has a more distracting flashing pattern.

I guess no - I do not believe that bikes should have to same level of light output and attention getting that's needed for emergency vehicles pursuing pursuing shooting suspects, or rushing a shooting victim to the hospital where seconds count in whether they live or die.

I agree with most of your post, except for the mention of "smaller footprint".

The smaller the light source, the brighter and more distracting it is to the eye with the same lumen output. A light can be more visible and put out more light without being an eyesore if it does so over a bigger surface area. A tiny bright light is worse on the eyes than a larger bright light of the same output.

I definitely don't think anything I wrote disagrees with what you're saying about wanting lights that are higher quality, or...most of what the rest of what you wrote.