My Searchlight carbide lamp is about as bright as the typical department store dyno light set from the 60s or 70s.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=421728http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=421729http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=421730
The side markers work very well, but reflector and magnifying lens "optics" make them somewhat obnoxious head on.

Room lights are often above our heads, and it's OK because we don't direct our gazes towards them. Headlights have much narrower beams, and we often find ourselves looking almost directly at them. When the light spills onto our eyes, it can be a problem.

People who run lights low on the fork aren't doing it to keep light out of others eyes. They are doing it because it increases contrast. It certainly does that but it just makes everything into an inky shadow which hides hazards.

Try it yourself. Or you could try the walking equivalent of holding a flashlight at knee level. It doesn't improve the light

Clearly we all see things differently....

I'm in the camp that is very sensitive to bright lights, especially coming from a black background.
Some have been low mounted lights aimed up.

Since many people on my flat trail want to ride fast, they have bright lights.
Some of them point them almost level, not down.
I think if they were approaching an identical rider with an identical light setup, then they would probably be unhappy at 0 to 30 yards of separation.
The point is that we cannot really see ourselves as oncoming riders do.

Some bike lights are so bright (or is it the aim?) that I cannot see the trail surface 30' ahead when they get close, even using my helmet visor to block their light.
So, the etiquette should be to aim you lights well, and be prepared to be momentarily blinded at times.

thanks,
- Rick

[MENTION=21724]cyccommute[/MENTION], your calling me a Richard means I wasn't clear enough, and for that I apologize.

Headlight beams, because of their shape, are more likely to hurt than overhead lights. Also, some are more sensitive to directed beams of light. It seems you are on the less sensitive end of the scale.

Lol.

Actually, you'll also notice that even with ceiling lights they're pretty big. They almost always put some sort of defuser over them, like this:
http://i5.walmartimages.com/dfw/dce0...3eb02a8.v1.jpg

It's not just there to look pretty - it's because staring at an bare incandescent light bulb is hard on the eyes. Look around at how lamps have lampshades as well, those also are not simply there for decoration. If you take the same amount of light and spread it over a large surface it's easier on the eyes than when it comes from a tiny pinprick of light. Also related is how you're not supposed to stare directly into the sun.

Lit it billboards probably your eyes with a lot more light than a bike light, but it's diffused over such a large surface area that it's not nearly as hard on them.

The first thing to do for the OP is get in front of your bike while someone else is riding for you. You need to see it yourself. Don't try to figure this out by reactions from others, it's a possible complete waste of time. I don't understand why everyone does not test their own lights by walking away and looking at the lights. It's the only way.

Forget about etiquette, work with facts from your observations of your light.

No, you were clear enough but weren't paying attention to the small side conversation. People how mount lights low on the forks aren't usually doing it to avoid glare for other users. They are doing it because as Saving Hawaii says "it'll silhouette all the rocks and potholes better than if the beam is originating from a position close to your eyes." I've tried it and it is a horrible way to light the road. He is right in that you "avoid shadows..." because you have to. You can't tell if a small pebble is just casting a shadow or if it hiding a bicycle swallowing hole.


So what's your solution? Make all lights so that they don't offend the most sensitive people? I'm not necessarily less sensitive but I've trained myself not to look at lights coming at me and avoid situations where my lights might possibly cause problems for pedestrians, i.e. don't use bike paths at night. That's my solution.

I have, by the way, been observing car lights lately. All of you on the "it needs a cut-off like cars" camp have some pretty magical thinking about car headlamps and, by extension, bicycle headlamps. First, I can't look at the lights of a car coming at me and tell you which ones have a "sharp cut-off" and which don't. From a certain distance (which isn't all that far away), the lights are round as I'd expect given the way that light propagates from a source. Additionally, since the world isn't smooth nor flat, the "sharp cut-off" means nothing when the car isn't on level ground. Slight rises in the pavement or hills elevates the lights so that the lower, uncut-off part of the beam is directed towards any observer in front of the car. The same would happen with bicycles that have a sharp cut-off.

Finally, and this is what really chaps my hide in these discussions, is that you assume those of us not using your "miracle" lights, can't see where our light is going. Light is pretty easy to observe in a dark environment. I know where my light is pointing and where it goes. Half of my light isn't illuminating the tops of trees as some have claimed nor is any large percentage of my light wasted. Yes, some people aim their lights poorly. But people with your miracle lights do the same. Eventually both light users learn how not to waste light and aim their lights properly.

Not all lights have diffusers or shades. Neither of these do

http://hi.atgimg.com/img/x/881/755593bn.jpg

http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Lume...$Enlarge-Copy$

The second one even says "Medium base bulbs up to 150 watts can be used in the Modern Socket..." A 150 watt incandescent bulb puts out 2600 lumens. The one in the picture is probably more along the lines of a 40 watt to 60 watt bulb but that's still putting out 450 to 800 lumens which is in the range of a Cree XM-L emitter.

I can find you lots of other examples as well.

Has anybody accused you of anything? Why so defensive?

Shining a light on the bike shops wall while shopping for them, and observations in the real world show there are many very poorly engineered, yet expensive road lights out there that simply can't be aimed to to cast light on the road a sufficient distance without part of the the focal pattern, usually a circle or oval, being too high. Lights with a cut off or shaped beam simply work better for a given output because they can be aimed higher, casting light on the road much further without blinding others with the main beam.

Like with anything else, extremes don't quantify the value of an idea. a light can be mounted low enough to create some contrast without creating huge voids of darkness.

I'm not saying you're physiologically less sensitive to light. I'm saying you're probably more skilled than the average bear. Talking about learning to divert your eyes or to aim your light is talking about skill, which takes time to acquire. This means different people have different levels of skill. Your skill is up there, and it might pay to acknowledge that. And it means that yes, technology is not the answer to all of the world's problems, a point we will agree on.

While not all do, the vast majority of them do. That you can buy a few that don't doesn't change that.

You can put a bare 40w bulb that's frosted in a lamp pretty easily. 60 watt bulbs are iffy, something they're a problem on the eyes, sometimes not.

That's the only lamp I've ever seen that claims to hang a 150w bulb bare like that.

If I walk into Home Depot and look at their lamp section, every lamp or nearly every lamp has a shade on it. Same thing with apt buildings, houses for sale, etc etc. 99% of lights have some sort of diffuser on them. That 1% don't doesn't change that.

The point is that there's a reason they do that, it's not just a fashion choice. It's because a bright tiny light source is harder on the eyes than a large more diffused one that puts out the same amount of light.

I believe that the reason we mount our dynamo powered lights on our forks is that they tend to come with fork mounts, so it's the path of least resistance. I haven't noticed the problems caused by being at that particular height. It does make some sense for a light to be mounted this way. First, power comes in through a cable, so the light is better bolted to the bike instead of attached with a quick-off-quick-on method. Second, it frees up the handlebar. I prefer to clutter my handlebar as little as possible. Real estate on handlebars can be scarce, especially with drop bars.

I have three bikes with dynamos (though I'm not happy with the setup on one of them). They all have fork-crown-mounted headlights, and I am happy with that aspect of them. One of the bikes has drop bars.

That one should be easy, the cars made since the mid-40s are all required by law to have controlled beam patterns -- required at the point of manufacture, and illegal to sell replacements that don't meet regulations. So it's only the pre-War cars and cars with illegal gray-market lighting kits that have uncontrolled beam patterns.

There are pages and pages of people claiming that lights other than the German lights are "blinding" people on the BikeForums. Even here in this thread, the assumption is that anyone not using something produced by Busch and Mueller is inconsiderate at best and probably a sociopath. That is not the case.

Shining a light on a wall tells you nothing about the light. I too have made real world observations as well as have calculated the area of the beam from the current batch of lights and have determined that they are not the problem that people make them out to be as long as they are used on a roadway. Bike paths are different but I don't ride bike paths on my commute except for a very short section and I go out of my way to avoid interactions with unlighted pedestrians. That said, I did observe a pedestrian today as I approached with my lights on. I rode as close to the edge away from the pedestrian as I could and even then my lights did not illuminate the pedestrian above chest level...and that is for a parabolic reflector LED light.

I also don't agree with your idea of being able to aim your beam higher because you have a cut-off on the beam. That defeats the purpose of your cut-off.

Now for some math. Let's say that you have a parabolic reflector LED light with a 35 degree lens that is aimed so that the center of the beam hits the ground 20 feet from the bicycle. That's a very floody light and similar to the Magicshine lights. The diameter of the circle of light at 20 feet is 10.8 feet. The light to either side of the bicycle is 5.4 feet and the area covered by the beam is 91.6 square feet (8.5 sq meter) assuming a round light...it's not but the math is easier. For a Magicshine light, the output isn't 1500 lumens as often claimed but more like 650 lumens. A bit of calculation gives a lux (lumens/square meter) of 76. That's on the order of living room lighting.

The lights I use have a tighter beam (more like 20 degrees) which provides more lumens/square meter but covers a much smaller area. Assuming a 20 degree reflector, the circle on my lights at 20 feet away is 7.2 feet and covers an area of 40 feet (4 square meters). My light isn't getting close to the pedestrian on a 15 foot wide path. On the road, I not anywhere near "blinding" an on-coming car.

Now my light may be perceived by someone coming at me as bright but that's much of the point. I want them to see my light.


I would say that some do and some don't. Fashion dictates what people use and want. I have little light pucks under my kitchen cabinets that are unfrosted, undefused halogens. To a man of average height, they are shaded. To someone smaller they aren't. Track lighting is almost always unfrosted. There are lots of industrial lights that are unfrosted. Just about any light that is used as a spotlight or flood light is undefused.

The controlled beam pattern of older cars isn't all that well controlled. If it were, automobile headlamps with sharp cut-offs wouldn't be such a big deal.

That's completely irrelevant and is just getting annoying.

What's under your kitchen sink has nothing to do with the simple point I was making that far before bike lighting, people recognized that a tiny source of light is harder and less pleasant on the eyes than the exact same amount of light but spread out over a larger surface. That you can find a few cases where a light is direct has nothing to do with anything. The question wasn't "what interior design ideas are used", it was if a smaller light source that puts out the same total amount of light as a larger one is harder on the eyes, which it is.

OP - I also ride on W&OD as part of my commute so here is my perspective. I can't speak for your particular light but most bike lights, including mine, when in close proximity such as the MUP W&OD, can be quite blinding even at the lowest setting. As a courtesy, I cover or partially cover my light for the incoming riders regardless if they cover theirs or not. But more importantly, W&OD is a MUP and there are many ninja runners/walkers on it. During momentary of blindness, it it not that difficult to hit someone. You can debate whether them should wear something to be better seen but that's the reality.

I personally find the dyno light mounted low not to be a problem, however, ironically those riders also tend to have light on their helmet. Some look away when approaching, while others do not.

There are simple courtesies cyclists can take to reduce headlight glare:
- Set your light on the low setting when approaching other riders.
- Angle the light beam downward so less light is spilling into the eyes of oncoming cyclists.
- Don't use the strobe setting!

Like cyccommute, I have tried mounting my headlight on the fork and didn't observe any advantages. I still do it on one of my bikes that has a wireless computer that goes haywire when my LED light is mounted on the handlebar.

Strobing lights are the worst offenders, IMHO. They should be outlawed on MUTs.

Contrary to what some people believe, you need a less powerful light when riding in very dark conditions, like many MUTs. That's because there is very little ambient light to compete with and your eyes dilate more. Ironically, a more powerful beam is needed when riding in traffic with many sources of competing light. Wet roads and rain make it even worse.

I simply do not believe that many, if any, bike lights are more powerful than the headlights of cars and trucks. As drivers, we have trained ourselves not to look directly at car headlights. For some reason, however, some people seem to have this urge or curiosity to look directly at bike headlights. I encounter this all the time riding in traffic, particularly at 4-way stops. Perhaps drivers are just curious about what the weird light is or what sort of nut would be riding a bike in the dark. Try looking directly at a car headlight and you will be blinded even more.

+1 to no blinking/strobing front lights (or any lights).

As others have said, lights mounted on the front fork do a better job of allowing us to see potholes and other debris. Aimed properly they are also usually less offensive to other riders. They also light up the reflective strip on your tire which is beneficial for others to see you and what direction you're going. This also keeps them out of the way of front racks like Steco's.

And just to pile on, I agree with others that the OP's is likely just aimed a bit high.

Stuart, I respect your knowledge, education, intelligence and skill. Still, you hyperbolize quite a bit in your last post.

That's it right there in a nutshell,

Its not my "idea" or that of anybody participating in this thread. It's the collective knowledge of engineers designing vehicle lighting that your personal opinions conflict with.
Their engineering results are glaringly obvious to even the most casual observer when comparing a flashlights beam to that of actual vehicular lighting.

The lights you use and give as an example may not have a true optimal cut off, but they are engineered lights with a shaped beam, not just a round or oval flashlight beam with substantial spillover.

For someone who will argue the value of a particular wheel size, or the the disadvantage of a couple hundred extra grams of a tires, or components weight on a strictly empirical basis, its a surprise that you throw all that logic out the window when it comes to lighting.

All I can say is my fork crown mounted Cyo Premium lets me see the road quite well and nobody ever complained about it being blinding. Don't know about other beam patterns, but this one works for me.

It might be presumptuous, but the type of mount included with a light may be an indication of the optimal position engineered into that particular light.

I moved my B&M CYO light that was mounted low under the Pourter rack on my Ross MTB after the sanyo dyno hub seized, to up high at bar level on my Robin Hood. Other than being dimmer running on the SA Dynohub, the only difference I notice is that its a little different. In some conditions the high mount has the advantage such as the up and down of the section of single track on my commute, in other conditions lower is better, such as on wet pavement in the rain.

The difference is slight, and I can't say either has any real overall advantage, to my eye its strictly personal prefrence.