Originally Posted by
Paul Barnard
Yes, it does matter. When meeting a bike on a path, there is about 3 feet of separation. That matters. The fact that you don't realize that a light on a bike essentially coming right at me affects my vision more than one some 20 feet away and on the opposite side of the road is frightening.
Don't be frightened. The misunderstanding isn't that horrific.
Every route's different. Even if a "path," MUP or whatever. The point is regarding visibility of somebody when overtaking (or approaching) speeds are sufficient that when combined with the reduced visibility it can create an ugly, even deadly, situation. The paths you're thinking of might well have 3ft of separation between two approaching cyclists going in opposite directions.
A proper light with proper lens that's
properly aimed isn't a threat, and it isn't a dire problem when approaching close to others. Isn't if the approaching person is in a vehicle, or on a bike. Though, to be sure, a person who's walking is quite likely to be low enough that a bit more of the oncoming light is likely to be more than merely distraction (attention-getting).
The issue is in ugly visibility situations. There simply aren't all that many choices for being seen, when such is the case. "Winging it" and hoping people will see us, when the lighting (shadows) is as I've described ... well, that's a good way to get run into or to run into others, depending. (Even worse, when a car's involved in the approach, given how dang fast they can move, plus how damnably inattentive drivers can be with their bloody cell phones/devices.)
I'm done here.
See it and understand. Disregard if preferred. But, sorry, other people's reasonable choices are just that. Excepting the outliers who blow their lighting choices, lens selections, aiming, appropriate bike lights are one of the few options for erasing such visibility problems.