I don't know why tail lights are lagging headlights but I presume because many bike headlights use repurposed flashlight tech. Most bike tail lights follow that thinner, flatter form factor which may prevent the use of the brighter LED flashlight technology. As far as using multiple <$50 tail lights during the day I don't see the point. If I bought three Radbot 1000's I'd still have three lights that can't be seen in midday sunshine. It's not a cumulative effect.

Several theories of mine:

-Red 'pops' more than white in the human brain- why else does a red sports car look faster even while parked than other paint schemes or the old saying that red cars attract the the attention of LEOs more?
-You need more light to see by than to be seen, so most of the R&D has gone up front.
-How many times have people on these boards complained about really bright lights, even rear ones? Roadies don't want to be blasted by a Hotshot while drafting their buddies in the peloton and the mtb crowd wants to be noticed from the rear but not to blind or be blinded. Luckily, red lights do less damage to night vision than white...

Some food for thought: First response teams and fire fighters in the USA have come up with some interesting information thats making them move to amber lights.

You have never seen a Design Shine tail light in person. I know that without any doubt because no one that has seen one would post what you just did. My friend Verter was poopooing the need for a tail light that bright at the end of a ride one day. He was all about using a bright colored jersey. The following saturday he was killed by an 85 year old driver that said he didn't see him. Verter was on a 10 foot wide shoulder on loop 360 in Austin TX at 2:30 in the afternoon. This is a very popular bike route. About 200 yards from an intersection, the driver of the car took the shoulder to slow down for an upcoming right turn. Verter was about 3 feet from the guard rail when the driver struck him with his right front fender. Verter's body was catapulted up and over the car, caving in the windshield. He hit the pavement to the left and behind the car where he bled out. He left a wife, three kids, hundreds of friends and a solid career behind. If he had been using my tail light, he would have been seen. You can argue that if you want but until you actually see that tail light in person, you have no point of reference.

Why do bikes need more powerful tail lights than motorcycles? Really? Motorcycles have bigger engines and ride with the traffic at the same speed. I'd rather know why motorcycles are required to have their headlights on during the day but bikes aren't.

The Design Shine tail light is amazing. In these threads, I never mention them because their production is so limited as to make them unobtanium. I have one that I waited 8 months for and I've waited 6 months so far for 5 more that I have ordered. Why 5 more. That is all I can get and I would be devastated if those 5 people were hit on their bikes. So many people I ride with still ride without tail lights or use those utterly worthless aaa battery driven types such as the pbsf. Too many times I have approached another rider from behind and from far away I see them and think that here is yet another rider without a tail light. As I get closer I see their little pbsf flashing away. Oh they have one. That's all for now. This subject makes me so angry since Verter was killed.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...60bikelane.jpg
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p...0bikelane2.jpg

Order a Dinnotte Tail Light and you can have it on your bike in about 4 days.

http://store.dinottelighting.com/din...-mount-p5.aspx

RayfromTexas' remarks are - Tragic but true - we only live once and don't get a second chance. I recently was in Montreal and considered renting a bike at a bike station. They have head and tail lights, but you can't rent a helmet. No deal!

I live in an area frequented by local riders and those who come from nearby areas to ride the hills. Most do not have rear tail lights. More times than I care to see during the middle of the day I will be driving along and see riders who are not visible because of long stretches of shade. Some are wearing bright jerseys some not, but once they go into the shade on a bright day they are hardly visible. A tail light would make a difference in making this visible.

A couple of days ago during the middle of a bright sunny day I was driving and a hundred yards ahead of me I saw a blinking red light and nothing else ... it was a cyclist in a shady area and all that could be seen was his light. It can be the middle of the day and you can become almost invisible in certain areas of a roadway. I don't ride roads without a Radbot and I would be happy with something more bright.

Absolutely. Glare from direct sunlight hitting a dirty, pitted, or hazy windshield makes it very difficult to see cyclists or pedestrians in shadows along the road.

A couple things I'd like to mention as a motorcycle driver with about 1,000,000 kms behind me:
(1) The lights on a motorcycle as it leaves the showroom meet all legal requirements. That doesn't necessarily mean all riders consider them adequate. After market running lights and reflective tapes to increase visibility are some of the most popular acessories.

(2) A motorcycle is physically smaller than a car, is legally required to have only one headlight and one tail light and therefore is more difficult to see. As a consequence its legally permissable to run a headlight modulation unit to increase conspicuousness, and for the saddlebag crowd to plaster the backside with extra lighting systems and reflective tape.

So since a bicycle is even smaller than a motorcycle, and typically drives slower than ALL motorized traffic, why would it be so hard to imagine that being visible would be a concern to many cyclists? Those are the EXACT reasons I personally feel cyclists need BRIGHTER MORE CONSPICUOUS lighting than motor-vehicles - including motorcycles.

Yeah, I hear your opinion a lot regarding cars, motorcycles, bicycles and a lot of other consumer goods
"Why waste your money on expensive tires?"
"Why spend all that money on lighting?"
"Why don't you just buy whats on sale?"
"Why go in for a check-up? You're not sick!"

And the answer to that is spelt out quite simply:
"Because I'm worth it".
I didn't need some company to start some multi-million dollar ad campaign to make my mind up for me - I decided that on my own a long time ago. In most cases its personal safety or the quality of life that many people cheat themselves out of and for some reason believe its 'economizing'.

Amber is better than red, but the laws currently do not allow amber on the rear of anything not alone bicycles. So we're stuck with red. And yes red flashing does seem to attract some drunks but only at night daytime it doesn't seem to matter, which is one of the reasons I leave my main light on steady however the others flash. The main reason I do that though is not for drunks it's to give motorist a sense of depth perception that flashing lights do not enable, but flashing lights do attract attention, so I use both, but please don't ask me to prove if one light is steady and others are flashing works better than all flashing or all steady because I have no idea. All I know is that German studies showed that motorists had trouble ascertaining distance from flashing red lights vs steady ones and thus steady is safer, but USA studies showed that flashing was safer, so I thought hey I'll just do both!

First off I'm very sorry your friend was killed, I too have had several friends die over the years while riding bikes so I hear and understand your pain.

But you cannot prove your friend would not have been killed if he had a brighter tail light. That 85 year old driver probably would had killed him if he had been using 10 Design Shine tail lights because that 85 year old probably should not had been license to drive due to vision acuity issues he or she obviously had. Even if the driver had been 25 years old and texting all the lights and safety vests in the world would not have prevented the collision. So to say that by using the Design Shine lights would prevent all rear end collisions with cyclists is nonsense and or wishful thinking. If thinking that using a tail light would have prevented the accident then why are there numerous rear end collisions with motorists? If the tail light works then they shouldn't not be rearending people right? wrong! because it boils down to the person in the rear not paying attention or is incapacitated in some way or another and shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Please accept my sincere apology for writing what I did in the above paragraph, I'm in no way trying to make you angry or hate me for the fun of it, just trying to point out the obvious facts. Like I said before, I've had several friends die from being hit from behind and in none of those cases did I feel or did the cops feel that having brighter lights would have prevented their deaths. These deaths were caused by one problem...driver error, and all the lights in the world won't prevent that. The sad thing is the older you get the more friends you will probably know who are going to die while riding a bike, I'm 59 years old and have been riding all my life and I know of at least a dozen friends who have died in car vs bike accidents and some of those died on their bikes because they themselves were not paying attention! so it's not always a motorist's fault.

I really hope this doesn't turn into a hate fest against me for what I said, if you hate me for saying what I said and wish to scream and yell at me go ahead if it will make you feel better, but I won't respond because I don't want to throw gasoline on your fire and make it worse.

So if you own a Honda Civic or a Toyota Pirus did you put on a set $1,500 Yokohama Advan A046 tires found only on cars that do more then 200 mph, after all they are the best tire? See the absurdness of your thinking? So why spend $200 plus for a light that exceeds normal tail lights found on vehicles? If brighter tail lights would prevent rear end collisions don't you think that cars and motorcycles would have done that years ago? The insurance industry would have demanded it if they could prove brighter tail lights would eliminate those type of accidents. It was the insurance industry that demanded the third brake light, so don't go into any discussion about the insurance companies don't have the power to mandate such things because they can and have done so.

But having said that if you want to put those Yokohama tires on your Civic don't let me stop you, they won't do you any good but you have the right to use them, just as you have the right to use the brightest red tail light in the world for your bike. You know what they say: if it makes you feel good then do it! but they won't do anything better for you.

I beg to respectfully disagree with your opinion and your vid! I am allowed to do that, am I? ;) :beer:

With that said, I don't what $2 lights are being used in that vid, so I am going to show you a pic of a $2.50 rear light, a $17.50 front light, and a $25 rear light.

In addition, the $2.50 lights last pretty good considering their cost. But, the fact of the matter is with $15 I can get more than 5 of them. That is why I run about 5 different kinds of rear lights. And I am not breaking the bank, and I am as safe as I can be. What is good for one, may not work for others.

One of your opinions is UNIVERSAL, and that is to have GOOD LIGHTS front and rear at all times. I do agree with that!! ;)

A big close up pic here http://www.cehoward.net/ke5-647.jpg

The $25 rear light in on the back of the bike. The $2.50 rear light is on the back of my helmet on the ground, the $17.50 front light, is of course, on the front of the bike. ;)

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=280970

+1 :thumb:

Funny you should mention that. My last two cars, a Honda and a Mazda, both had about $1,000 woth of Toyo Proxes T1 tires on them during the summer. Those are specialty summer tires eith a soft compound and outstanding rain performance. Waste of money? Depends how you think. The most underpowered car on the market can still put more force on the tires during heavy braking that a big block Corvette can under full acceleration. So I got them for improved braking performance and better ride quality during less than ideal driving conditions. Funny thing was - I had ASB systems on the cars and they would kick in regularly with the stock tires. Once the oversized Toyos were on - never heard from the ASB system again. The tires wouldn't spin under acceleration or let go under heavy braking.

So actually I don't think my thinking is all that absurd. There are laws regulating the maximum output of lights on motor-vehicles. That doesn't mean things can't be improved. As per the Wikipedia regarding motor vehicle lighting systems: "The purpose of this system is to provide illumination for the driver to operate the vehicle safely after dark, to increase the conspicuity of the vehicle, and to display information about the vehicle's presence, position, size, direction of travel, and driver's intentions regarding direction and speed of travel."

Should I mention that centrally mounted brake lights are a RECENT addition to the back of motor vehicles? Yeah - insurance companies probably had something to say about that. The real problem with motorcycles and bicycles is a lack of realestate to actually attach anything to. So whats your solution? Should I just sit here and accept that being roadkill is just another part of the bicycle experience?

I actually exchanged a few emails with the gentleman that makes those lights - they're in such low production that they might as well not exist. So I'm using something just as expensive, more traffic friendly, and a lot more available. So $200 bucks is a lot to spend on lights? Let me think: A decent pair of skiis is a $1,000; a middle of the road CF road bike is about $2,500; a pair of Straitline pedals for down hilling can run $175 (not to mention a downhill bike that can run $7,000); annual insurance on a car in Ontario typically costs more than the car payments; and you think $200 on a light is a lot of money? Priced decent camera lenses lately?

Everyone spends money - health and safety related purchases I have no problems with myself - its kept me alive and happy this far.

There seems to be some "all or nothing" thinking here. I'm not trying to pick on you alone, because there have been other examples on this thread and in many A&S threads on different subjects (taking the lane or not comes to mind). I doubt that bright tail lights in daylight will prevent either 0% of the accidents or 100%. It's most likely to be somewhere in between, but I don't think we have the data to really say what the number is (25%, 50%, 75%?). The reason I think it helps in some real way is that often just a few seconds is the difference between life and death. Seeing a cyclist at 30 feet won't be enough time to avoid a collision, but 100 feet just might be. A tail light could make that difference. You're correct that in some cases, no amount of light will clue the driver soon enough, but there are also plenty of cases where it will help.

We have to make individual judgements about what we want to spend or do to achieve that next increment of safety, even if we have only a vague idea of what that increment is. I'm convinced that having a brighter tail light could decrease my chances of getting rear-ended during daylight riding. I'm not willing to spend $200 for a top of the line light right now, but it looks like there are some affordable choices that are much better than what I have now. If someone else has that $200 to spend and feels strongly that is will help, I say go for it.

The answer to the question is.. it depends. High Noon in the desert on a cloudless day? At least 100 lumens, so the Dinottes, MS tail light, Design Shine, and probably lithium powered flashlight with a red emitter. Anything else most likely won't be of any use under those conditions. That being said, if it's cloudy or I'm riding in areas of shadow caused by trees, buildings, and overpasses, I run my Cherrybomb on blink.

I agree I wouldn't rent a bike without a helmet either, but, there was a huge debate here on this forum about helmets, and a bunch of people here ride without helmets, and would think nothing of renting that bike and not getting a helmet with it.

Not sure what your gripe is against what I said because you said everything that I said! There is no proof from the tragic accident example that lighting could of saved his life. And I also said that if someone wants to spend $200 for a rear light that's their thing, if it makes them feel good then do it, but don't be telling people that it will eliminate all accidents from the rear because it won't and cars hitting other cars from behind are proof of that. I'm sure there was some sort of issue with the 85 year old that should have kept her from driving but she somehow managed to keep her license, I see old people all the time driving around that shouldn't be driving at all. Please don't read into the old person thing more than what I said, I didn't say nor do I think that all old people shouldn't be driving, there are plenty of old people that drive just fine, but the reality is there are some that shouldn't be and still do.

IMO, they should offer helmets to rent, but a possible alternative might be to swing by a Walmart or K-Mart etc. and pick up a CPSC approved helmet for ~$15.

Getting off topic regarding tail lights in daylight, but ^^ or even packing your own from home would work. That being said, this was in reference to a 'bike station' in Montreal... so is that like a storefront with indoor storage of the rentals or is it an outdoor, vending machine like bike rack? An indoor place could treat helmets like bowling alleys treat shoes (as in clean them as needed, disinfect spray before/after every use), but who would want to wear a helmet that is hanging off a peg exposed to the elements and who knows what by the previous user?

Well, no. The tone of some of your posts in this thread has been "it's not worth doing because it doesn't prevent all accidents" (The quote isn't your actual words, but that's how I would summarize them). I just went back and read all your posts, and you've been pretty dismissive of running lights at all during the day, except when it's gloomy. My point is that it may be worth doing it because it is likely to prevent some accidents.

I'm also curious if Verter was opposed to using a mirror too? I wonder if that could have potentially allowed him to avoid getting hit. Substitute "bright rear light" for "mirror" and you get the same sort of dismissal from many cyclists. No amount of cycling equipment makes you 100% safe but when it's my &$$ is on the line I figure the more the merrier. But as much as I want a bright rear light the $200 price point of the Dinotte lights does give me some pause.

rekmeyata- You haven't seen a Design Shine light in action. Lacking this knowledge and experience and strongly expressing your opinion about it's effectiveness is arrogant. That isn't me hating you, that's just the definition of that word.

Dunbar- I use a mirror but it will never save me because if someone veers into me at speed I will not have the ability to move out of their way. I use it to know when to get all the way over while travelling on empty roads and to see where my companions are.

I don't know the particulars of this accident but if your friend could see this car coming up behind him on the shoulder (in a mirror) he may have had a chance to bail. Although with that guardrail there isn't really anywhere to go. If he was hit from the side, well than that's just bad luck. From the photos that looks like a pretty dangerous spot for a cyclist to ride with the shoulder becoming a defacto turn lane. I feel much safer being off in the bike lane or on the shoulder where cars have no reason to be.