Originally Posted by
PaulRivers
From this page:
I don't know if the 300 is an eyesore or not, as I do not own one. Since I couldn't find a pic showing me it's relative size, I can't really make an educated guess about the point you bring up about a larger surface area. It could be true - certainly the 140L was a pinpoint of light. Maybe they did a much better job of fixing that in this version.
I own a 300R and I own two cars. The 300R is about as noticeable as a single car tail light on a practical basis. Not blinking, it is less.
I can only say that I definitely think bike rear lighting exists right now that is the same or brighter than a car tail light.
No. There is nothing to support this in terms of lumen production nor in terms of practical use if you put these things side by side on the road. Yes, lights can appear intense on certain axis but so do LED tail lights of cars for that matter. Our brightest bike lights are only reaching the low end (minimum) of lighting specs for car tail lights and they are only 20-50% the maximum.
And that there's definitely a point where rear lighting becomes severely obnoxious. Whether the 300 on steady reaches that I don't know. It's definitely going to be *far* more distracting if it was on flashing. (Though that's not to say that most people would run it on flashing at night).
We're not there and not even particularly close. Perhaps you are more sensitive to lighting than other people or something. The lights are not brighter than current lights on the roadway and there are lots and lots and lots of blinking lights with which motorists deal with each time they get in their car and drive at night. We don't have a problem here.
FWIW, a standard car incandescent flashing tail light is pretty obnoxious if you get close enough too.
J.