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.