Originally Posted by
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.
Sure. But how is this,
in any case, a bad thing? Isn't that the entire point?
I don't see him stating or implying that less visible is safer.
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.
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.
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.