Reflectors are not better than lights, period!! Most good rear lights have reflectors built in, but they are secondary at best. I see a guy riding at night with just reflectors, sad, real sad..If I didn't shine my helmet light on him, he was invisble in the night.

[QUOTE=K'Tesh;14736195
For this test, I stuck with my commercially available lights for under $50USD each (the PB 5LED Beamer and the Superflash both on steady). My camera's flash is burned out, so the images with the bike illuminated was either with ambient light or my NR MiNewt X2. I couldn't find someone to assist me, but I think the images are pretty clear, lights alone don't come anywhere near the visibility as lights with reflective films applied when a light is shown across it.

Some other points... Passive reflectivity from applied retro-reflective films don't get lost, and don't ever need to go through a clothes washer, they don't make you too warm, and don't weigh much.

As for car's reflectors, I'll agree with you, they're a joke. Those hard plastic prisms are very directional, and don't give as good as they get. I hope to test again in daylight and in with dark/wet conditions when I get a chance.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you were trying to show in those photo's, only the first photo showed the bike, the rest are either not showing anything at all and one is just showing the bike vaguely. I would not consider that as proof your bike is well reflectorized. In addition by you using your light to make the bike reflectors work is simply a process of getting the light you had at the right angle to make the reflectors work, in real life with car lights it may work...but most of the time it will be virtually ineffective until the car is right on top of you.

Your lighting system according to you is just a to be seen system...I agree those suck, but at closer range they would be more effective then reflectors. And better lighting would have a huge impact which you could do for less then $250. It sounds like you're trying to do this lighting on the cheap, I understand, but when you can you need to start adding to it. Note; I said add to it. In other words when you buy a light, be it a front or rear, you figure out some way to use the one that was already on the bike, either attach it to your helmet, on a stay or fork blade, etc. The more lighting the merrier. The Beamer could be used as flasher when you get the head light; the PBSF could be used on the helmet when you get a brighter tail light, that's what I mean by adding.

^^ I take that you haven't seen his dashboard? Dunno about now, but at one point his personal collection of front lights would rival any LBS...

Also note that he used the PB Beamer 5 on the front and the PBSF on the rear- both on steady- to demonstrate the effectiveness of that reflective flim that he has covered his bike with. Of the 5 different scenarios, each without and then the reflective effect for 10 total pics, only the second scenario of the rear from a 1/4 block away on a residential street is difficult for me to discern a difference.

I did this this test without the aid of another person. I can drive, but don't own a car. When I get the chance, I will repeat the test with a car under real world conditions (same lighting configuration). I suspect that my bike will be visible in darkened areas over two blocks away, and crossing at a light in a busy area, I'll be a lot more visible, even without directly being in the car's beam.

As no1mad points out, I have other systems, such as 2 NR Classic Plus systems, 5 NR Digital Evolutions, 2 NR MiNewt X2's, a NR MiNewt 200, my NR TriNewt (wireless), and the MiNewt 600 Cordless (among other lesser systems) that I could have brought to bear. I was using the PB Beamer 5 and the Superflash to demonstrate an "average joe" kind of lighting system. If I wanted to bring down aircraft by blinding them, I COULD (but I don't want to).

The purpose of the exercise was to show how pathetic the common lighting systems of today really are. The purpose of the reflective surfaces is to gain the attention of a motorist long before your lights ever can (especially from the side). No 500x300pixel image can truly capture the reality of how visible you are at night (but you can try... go to the linked images (the all are links to the flickr pages) and look at the original images in a darkened room). Those lights were easily lost in the chaos of the ambient light of the real world situations. However, the reflective surfaces were unmistakable, and when in motion they're even more effective. If your desire is to be safe, you do what you can to stack the deck in your favor. If you don't like reflectors, it's a free country, don't add them. I for one think that from all of the comments I've heard at stops the reflectors are doing a lot.

I'll add, if the motorist can see you from blocks off crossing in front of them before they make their turn, hopefully they will remember to look out for you when they're approaching you from behind.

When the weather turns wet, I'll pull out the camera again and I'll try to duplicate the images in those conditions.

PS rekmeyata, if you edit your post to add a "]" to end of the "[QUOTE=K'Tesh;14736195" part, you'll get the] instead of the [QUOTE=K'Tesh;14736195.... [/QUOTE].

I think you will find the results change radically depending on how well the car headlights prevent light from shining above the low beam angle.

With my headlights on low beam, if your reflector is ~2 foot off the ground, I cannot see the reflectors at all unless I'm about a quarter of a second away from crashing into you (assuming I'm observing the speed limit, which isn't true for other drivers). I know this because the normal road/signpost reflectors don't light up at all in my car, but they usually do when other cars are driving next to me.

If, however, I have high beam on, then the reflectors will be almost painfully bright. Way brighter than any LED's. And for what it's worth, if there are no oncoming traffic and no street lights, I always have high beam on.

But using reflective films have allowed me to make my entire bike a reflector, so I'm covered from the ground all the way up to the underside of the seat.

I concur. If a cyclist uses reflective tape and/or other reflective materials, it's a completely different discussion than if we're talking about "reflectors". I've taken The Rig (pictured) and leaned it in a dark area and driven my car towards it and by it on both high and low beams, and it is very visible. I didn't photograph it because I was just seeing for myself. It's quite a different picture than reflectors alone. I'm not saying that this is better than lights, I'm saying use both.

Perhaps you could photograph The Rig from the driver's seat? Say at various distances, and in various ambient light conditions?

Say, is The Rig a Trek 820 circa 2005? My first attempt at a reflective bike was one.

[QUOTE=K'Tesh;14739722]
As no1mad points out, I have other systems, such as 2 NR Classic Plus systems, 5 NR Digital Evolutions, 2 NR MiNewt X2's, a NR MiNewt 200, my NR TriNewt (wireless), and the MiNewt 600 Cordless (among other lesser systems) that I could have brought to bear. I was using the PB Beamer 5 and the Superflash to demonstrate an "average joe" kind of lighting system. If I wanted to bring down aircraft by blinding them, I COULD (but I don't want to).


PS rekmeyata, if you edit your post to add a "]" to end of the "If you have other lighting why not use them? I understand you don't want to bring down an aircraft, course if you do that your lights are aimed incorrectly! But it's like you went from one extreme to the other, I think it would be far safer to go to the extreme of too many lights rather then hardly none that don't show up like your current lighting. Then you ****er up your bike with all that reflector stuff instead because your worried about safety? That just doesn't make sense to me. Just sayin.

And instead of reflectors on the wheels why not those led things they stick on wheels these days? At least they would show up in any position not at just the right angle to a headlight.

By the way don't read into this as me trying to tell you do eliminate your reflector system. As I had said earlier I use both. I wear a reflective safety vest, ankle straps, my shoes have a built in reflective tabs, my seat bag, and my helmet; but I don't rely on those because I know their limitations, I rely on my active lighting system.

I went outside with my setup on a dark rainy night, which I normally try to avoid but doing that is the toughest test for lighting and reflectors, my wife got into one of our vehicles and turned on the headlights and drove about 3 blocks down the road and turned around and came at me while I pedaled toward her. She saw my lights immediately except for the 18 year old Vistalite Xenon amber flasher, she couldn't see the flasher until about a 1/2 block away. But the reflective vest didn't show up until she was about a car length from me. Keep in mind I'm on my side of the road and she's on her side so the aim was off for idea reflectivity. Then I stopped and she went 3 blocks down and turned around and came at my rear which put her headlights more of an idea inline for the reflectors to work at their best. Again she immediately saw my Mars 4 at 3 blocks out, she was about 2 1/2 blocks away when the she saw the Soma Road Flares, a block away when she noticed the older Cateye LD600, and about 1/4 of a block before the reflective vest and other stuff showed up.

I did that to see if I was visible enough apparently I am, but the point is the reflective gear is not all the effective. On a regular clear night the reflective stuff may have shown up a bit sooner. Like I also mentioned even with a high grade reflective vest like I wear or road workers wear they don't always show up well, I seen road workers shadows moving BEFORE their vest reflected back! That's why road workers are slowing going to active lighted vests because they know the limitations that reflectors have.

Y'all ain't getting what k'tesh is preaching...

Consider this: the lights used in this experiment could be called a typical set up of 'see me' lights. However, under certain conditions, that front light will be lost, the rear possibly will be noticed if properly aligned, but neither helps with side visibility. The film actually would be better under those conditions.

See if I can raise a counter argument to those who claim that reflective surfaces are only good when near the light source. The truth is, the reflective material needs a light source to work, but it doesn't necessarily need to be your light to notice it. For example, you are on a cross country road trip, travelling at night. Do you not notice the signage way before your headlight cut off touches it? You may not know what it is, but it has registered in your brain that there is something that bears closer attention to when you get closer. Or another example, say you are standing by a stop sign and a car approaches it. Does the sign not become visible to you as well?

That sounds like an excellent way to totally flood an inbox. No thanks.

I don't give a falke what's being preached, if safety isn't being preached then it ain't worth schit. Dig?

Aye, but active lighting and passive reflectors make for one helluva effective set up. You run whatever makes you feel safe. Rest assured that I will continue to run the strongest front and rear lights that I can afford, but I shall be investing in this film as well.

Rekmeyata,
no1mad is correct in everything he's tried to explain, from the "typical set-up" to the side visibility points. If you'd read my thread "better with lights", you'd see that I'm not buying into the blanket "better than lights" statement.

Reflectors and reflective films are tools. When combined with lights, they make the whole experience of riding a bike after dark safer. They won't replace lights, but in the absence of lights they are better than nothing at all. I've found that current headlights and taillights designs leave lots to be desired when it comes to side visibility, and probably will continue to do so as long as apes are operating bicycles and cars. Not until someone makes a self-adhesive, high intensity, self-illuminating film (that doesn't require batteries or a dynamo), reflective surfaces will have their place in making night time cycling safer for all (Yah, even the motorists).

Rest assured, I normally ride with a serious amount of light, and combined with my film applications I hope to be safely riding at night despite the dark for many years to come.

No1mad,
I can't wait to see what you've got going. Please take before, during, and after pics (day and night) and share them w/us.

I'd figure safety, particularly personal safety, was everyone's primary concern. Personally I've taken a different spproach than most by opting for WIDE light coverage front and back, and have found that literally painting the road red behind me by pointing the rear lights downwards actually gives motorists the most effective (visible) announcement that I'm there, without ruining their night vision.

Mounting the lights strategically can also light up part of the front and rear wheels with side spill, and I think that could be made even
ore effective with the addition of reflective tapes. IMO that just optimizes available light in a manner that more clearly identifies me as a cyclist to people not directly behind or in front of me - hence promotes safety.

Disagree, Sorry. Reflectors don't work as far as lights do and as you mentioned, they may help you be seen, but not see. And, if i will need to have LED lights as well, having reflectors also is not economical.

Why are reflectors not economical? I found them to be very cheap, though not real effective they do have some ability. I've found a cheap $8 safety vest to be more effective then those plastic reflectors found on bikes, or reflective tape people buy and put on stuff. I have used the tape on the helmet but I probably won't in the future because I've found them to be almost useless. Most cycling clothing and saddle bags today comes with reflective material sewn in, but the clothing is just piping and not very effective at all. I did find some jogging pants that have a wide reflective material sewn into each pant leg and it seems to work ok, but I only wear those on colder evenings. I also found a pretty bright reflective ankle bands that seem to work pretty good but again only if the oncoming light hits it at the right angle.

All I'm trying to say is that for $8 for a safety vest and $5 for leg bands is all a person really needs for reflective purposes and the cost is low. If a person wants to add more that's fine, but once you get past what I mentioned diverting additional funds to improve active lighting would be far wiser them blowing it on reflective stuff.

This is the safety vest I wear, nothing fancy but it is mesh design so on hot nights you don't even know your wearing it; see: https://www.homedepot.com/Tools-Hardw...1#.UFn9a7JlRcQ

I got the leg bands from my LBS but the closest I could get to it on the internet is this, except mine is yellow material that's very rugged like the one pictured here and it appears to use the same reflective material; see: https://compare.ebay.com/like/2803465...Types&var=sbar

reflectors are REQUIRED in my book but they are a last resort. because of the "way" in which reflectors work they tend to only really work when CLOSE to the car or when the car is about to HIT YOU. ie they are your last stand against impact but close to too late.

I would not use a bike without reflectors and I plan to add a lot more to my bike because as has been noted cheap and zero maintenance and no batteries.

but they are a last stand. not proactive. if you notice in that guys video how bright the reflectors are on those panniers. thats because the flash light is hitting them directly. To show how truly useless they are for indirect incidents when he is farther away and you can't even SEE the reflectors for all intents and purposes look what happens when the car passes him. Nothing. so if that guy swerved to the right the ONLY thing protecting you at that point are those flashing red lights.

that CENTRAL bottom one. I would like to know what light that is please that one is particularly impressive.

there are no battery excuses for lights in today's technology. RED LED's are VERY lower power consumption devices. so the only time they are a hindrance is if they use stupid coin cells. as long as they use AAA or even better AA your good for an entire season many times before you have to change batteries in those.

always use both.

I believe mechBgon answers that question in post #33. There's also a daytime picture of it at post #31 or so.

Wow! I think things have changed a little since you last checked on things!

no I am pretty current. LED especially regular emitters (as is typical with red led's) are just not very high power.

even a typical higher power led is around 1watt. your xenon maglight pulls 10-11watts. its just a pretty big difference in power requirements.

and its even worse than that. with the lower requirements comes a smaller voltage drop off so you can use even more of the available power in the batteries.

led's just flat out rock.

So you should be familiar with 10W LED headlights and 3W LED tail lights and 100W LED streetlights - or maybe I'm dealing with products warped to the past from the future?

sure. except just to be sure your aware there is no 10watt LED. thats is an "array" (look closely at the emitter)

I have 2 of the G class street light emitters. both died pretty quickly. I have several 10watt emitters outside lighting up our building. in fact I have to take one down today (not working) and investigate why its not working anymore :-)

THOSE emitters don't typically run on dry cells. they run on regular current or a rechargeable battery pack.

I'm back to my original observation - I think you need to get out more. And consider buying more reliable products.

so be it. nothing I can do about that.