The reason there is no 'illumination' requirement (as in being able to read a newspaper at 20ft) is that for cycling speeds there is no chance of overrunning your light, so even running balls out you can see where you are going
My experience is that I can outrun any production bicycle light system under real-world conditions. Not everyone rides in complete darkness, on level straight dry roads, with no interference from 2 or 3 lanes of oncoming traffic to disrupt their night vision, at speeds that never exceed 30mph. That's just for the record, though; even "be-seen" headlights are infinitely better than nothing.
Regarding the original topic:
Do you think using a light vs. reflector makes riding at night safer?
Yes, unquestionably. Although I recommend using both lights
and reflectors.
http://mechbgon.com/visibility/activevpassive.html
Do you think using a light vs. reflector is a personal choice?
No, I think people who ride on public roadways at night should be required to use active lighting, front & rear, in addition to reflectors. It's entirely reasonable to require that, for their safety and the safety of everyone else who's sharing the road with them. If they're so seriously impoverished that they can't spend $5-$10 for a rear light, there should be an assistance program to help them out instead of fining them for non-compliance.
The difference between light laws and helmet laws, in my view, is that a lack of a helmet only affects the cyclist, but the lack of lights affects others too. Making last-second avoidance maneuvers because the cyclist wasn't visible is dangerous for everyone in the immediate area, for example.