Would it matter if flashing lights draw motorists' eyes, and then their heads, and then their hands, and then their autos, in towards you?

It's interesting: for decades we rode with steady 0.6W incandescent bulb tail lights. A few riders argued that those were fine because, well, that's what what the technology limit allowed so by definition they were fine - and besides, they'd never been killed (yet) - but most of us knew six tenths of one watt incandescent bulbs were woefully inadequate for our safety. Quite suddenly in the history of cycling, advances in LED and battery technology allow today's cyclists to easily mount anything from CPSC reflectors to retina-searing, seizure-inducing "don't make a fool of yourself claiming you didn't see THIS" lights.

But what's optimum for safety?

I don't think that question has been answered yet.

Do we really believe that point sources are the best for safety, or are we just willing to trade safety away for tiny, lightweight lamps with inexpensive optics?

Do we really think that narrow cone illumination tail lamps are best, or are we just impressed at the numbers they generate in brightness tests?

Is brighter always better?

Flashing saves battery life and allows a smaller, dimmer light appear to be as 'noticeable' as a larger, steady light. Is there a down side, and if so, is it big enough to be meaningful? Is there an optimum 'flash'?

If rear facing amber turn signals and running lights are legal on motor vehicles, why can't we move to brighter, more visible amber bicycle tail lamps (and reflectors) whose light will travel further through fog, rain and snow? (There's some small evidence that impaired drivers aren't as attracted to amber.)