It's probably been beaten into the ground, but I'll add, if running daytime lights weren't important, then emergency and utility vehicles wouldn't bother, and they absolutely run their lights during the day.

I run a Light And Motion Vis 180 on the bike coupled with a Serfas Thunderbolt on the back of my helmet. You can certainly see those in daylight.

The real question is "why do we need anything"? Answer, we don't. We simply buy things that we want or think we need. I don't need internet, cable, DVD player, bikes, bike gear..etc..for me to live. I buy things I think I need and feel serve a purpose in enhancing or protecting my life ( or life-style ). Think of video monitoring as a type of insurance. You don't need insurance to ride a bike but that doesn't mean that it might not ever be of use if you had it. No one wants to think about getting hit while riding on a bike on the road because if they did it would take all the joy out of it. On the other hand we've all heard stories of people that have gotten hit. Having a lite-weight micro video camera on your bike won't prevent you from getting hit by a motorized vehicle. It might however be an important part of your law suit if you live to tell the tale.

The local governments of almost every jurisdiction pass laws telling us we must have auto insurance to drive our vehicles on the roads. This is done for our own financial protection. If we get in an accident we have some recourse to either seek reimbursement or to recompense others for their expenses. Now if you ride a bike on the road you are kind of on your own unless you are lucky enough to have witnesses if someone hits you while riding a bike on the road. Yes, having a video device on your bike might be one of those things that might not ever be needed. Like any form of insurance I probably wouldn't need it most of the time. However if I lived in a more urban setting and commuted by bike every day....eehhhh...In that situation it might actually make a hell of a lot more sense.

^^^^ I'm not disagreeing with you, different folks have different strokes. I personally think it's a waste of money. I have medical and life insurance so if anything happens I'm covered just as I am with car insurance. And most people who would hit and run someone do so because they don't have insurance, and they have no money, so if you sue you get nothing because they have nothing. The most you would "gain" out of it is the person goes to jail for 1 to 3 years, big deal.

My road bike was a waste of money, except that I enjoy it. Same with my camera - I enjoy playing with it. Probably 95% of the things I own are completely superfluous to my doing my job and living my life. It's my money, so it's only a "waste" if I spend it on something that I neither need nor enjoy.

So for some people, a camera WOULD be a waste of money, for others, no, even if they never use the video for any purpose other than just to fart around with.

LOL! Well at least you're honest about it all!!! I'm in the process of wasting some money myself, I'll go for years being a tightwad then suddenly I spend money like water for a few days. So I spending money on a new bike, geez I have a bunch of bikes, but I don't have a ti bike so I'm going to spend money for something I really don't need. Humans are weird.

You sound exactly like me. I'll not spend anything for months on end then spend several thousand dollars in a week. Seems like once I talk myself into spending a hundred or two bucks on something silly, the rest seem easier.

I too can agree with all of this. I have a table just littered with miscellaneous bike stuff or stuff related to cycling. A lot of that stuff likely never really got used as much as I expected. Absolutely amazing how much money gets thrown down the tubes when you have a passion or dedicated hobby.

I'll probably end up buying one of those cheap mini vid-cams on ebay. If it turns out not to be of use while cycling, no big issue. It only cost $36. I can afford to spend money on a cheap toy, even if it turns out that I only use it for farting around with ( as IJM already said ). At least I can console myself in the fact that I'm not buying cartons of cigarettes. Now "THAT" would be throwing money away.

That's very true, I even go as far to think the same thing about buying fireworks for the 4th of July, I can't rationalize blowing up money! Heck might as well just put a pile a money on the ground and light and watch it burn for fun.

This is overkill for the bike trail, but what works for me in heavy downtown traffic.

Twin 3W red LEDs originally 15 degree spots but modified with red spreader lenses. Extremely visible across a wide angle of view but without the glare issues normally associated with floody lights. Difficult to portray this 'as seen' simply because the light intensity over-saturates the camera sensor and burns out the LCDs making the red appear as white.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=311397

But the light on the ground behind the bike should be some indication - its 4:00PM in the afternoon, overcast, and light enough that the streetlights haven't come on yet. The ground is wet so is more reflective.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=311396

From one streetlamp away the intensity is still enough to over-saturate the camera LCDs

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=311393

From two streetlamps away the intensity is still enough to over-saturate the camera LCDs

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=311390

And at night the beam cutoff constrains the light vertically but paints the entire lane for 25 or so feet with enough intensity to wake up even an inattentive motorist and probably enough light to drive by if necessary. Definitely something that works best for everybody when pointed at the ground.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=311394

Very nice, what lights are you using for this photo shot?

These are available from a number of sources but the easiest to reference might be this one: http://visionxsuperstore.com/redsols...eledlight.aspx

These are automotive /marine/ industrial lights so are slightly heavier than whats normally marketed as 'bicycle lights'. But it'll take more than an extra 100g to keep ME awake at night!

Aside from a lifetime warranty and claims of meeting the highest ratings for waterfroofing and vibration resistance - they've also resisted my best efforts to destroy them over the past year or so.

The voltage rating (9V to 45V) won't be everyone's cup of tea, and neither will the lack of a flashing mode or different intensity settings, or the requirement for an external battery. But personally I haven't found anything I want to trade them in against at any price. Its kinda nice to be able to run something all day without having to recharge, or wonder if its bright enough to get noticed.

However, neither the spreader lens nor the protective lenses are stock so don't suggest anyone order those expecting to end up with the results you see in the photos. I'd post all the gory details but most people here are looking for something that costs a lot less money anyway.

It's wrong to assume a brighter light is better. Some taillights are so bright that one glance at them temporarily blinds you. In that case you hafta just mentally allow for where the cyclist is without actually looking at them. It's much safer if drivers and other cyclists can look at you whilst they are near you.

Studies have shown the best way to be seen is with reflective stuff that moves (like when it's attached to your knee or foot) and bright clothing.

Has anyone ever seen the Busch & Muller Toplight battery powered one in action?

No, what studies have shown is that older people notice a reflector that is moving vs a static reflector, with younger drivers it didn't matter. That noticing a reflector thing is not related to lights, lights have consistently be shown to show up better then reflectors and that's why road workers are slowly going to safety vests with LED's on them.

I'd think that just like headlights - tail-lights beed to be aimed and directed properly. If its 'wrong' to assume that a brighter light is better does that mean its 'right' to assume a dimmer light is better?

I think you must have read a different study. Which one did you read?
Lights show up better than reflectors if it was just a case of on/off with dark surroundings, but if there are lights everywhere I believe the point is that the cyclic motion is more readily identified and avoided, whereas the bright light could be just another advertising sign. Similarly, by putting LEDs on road workers, you achieve the moving objective. However, if we just parked a bicycle near the road workers and mounted a blinding light upon it, the road workers would be at greater risk.

A dimmer light that is moving up and down in a cyclic fashion is better than a bright stationary light.

The older versus younger thing brings up a thought. Historically people have said that old people should have to take tests because they may not be capable of driving anymore. These days I'm actually more scared of younger drivers texting or screwing with apps on their phones than I am of older drivers. The most recent few cyclist fatalities around where I live have all been linked to people screwing with their phones.

:) If you believe that - YOU ride with it! I have quite a collection of flashing Knog and Serfas lights that have been worn on my legs and been mounted all over the bike. Their visibility at a distance falls off rapidly - especially in traffic. Personally I think only thing they're good for is use on a lit bike path. In traffic, I'll ride with something I KNOW gets noticed.

EDIT: Whats most important is CONTRAST. Sure, on a totally dark environment a moving light will attract attention. Problem is, in a sea of bright lights, a dim light gets lost regardless of if its moving or not. For thousands of years navigation at night was based on using the brightest stars as references because they would be most evident even in conditions of poor visibility. Thats exactly where I want to be and currently my rear lights are continuously lit and stronger than automotive brake lights.

I'm not arguing against using reflective equipment so don't read into that. I use reflective gear, but I don't count on reflectors, I count more on my lights, and lights have been proven to be more effective then reflectors. Please see this: http://www.mechbgon.com/visibility/activevpassive.html

At night I wear a reflective Home Depot brand neon green safety vest, reflective leg bands, shoes have a built in reflective tag in the rear, saddle bag has a reflective strip, and the helmet has a reflective strip. So I have plenty of reflective stuff on, but I count on my lights for drivers to see me not my reflectors, and if you read the site I gave you'll understand why. But it's common sense, I'm sure you came up behind at least one car in your lifetime at night that the rear tail lights were out, and you could barely see the car till you were on top of it, the car's reflectors failed miserably and those are DOT reflectors that are suppose to be superior to what we use on our bikes!

As a person who has spend over thirty years "on the road" doing a job that requires me to be driving on the road I don't think I've ever encountered a cyclist that had ANY light ( front or back ) that was too bright. "Not bright enough"...perhaps hundreds of times.

Since most cyclist are riding the shoulder or to the side of the road any approaching motorized vehicle will likely not encounter the full intensity of a rear light on a bike. Even if they did it would only be for the time it takes to over-take the cyclist and pass them. That time is usually very short when riding down an open road. If in an urban environment with heavy stop and go traffic then yes, a different approach to rear lighting needs to be addressed so as not to blind people at the traffic lights ( or in slower moving traffic ).

Personally I've been behind some of the newer cars that have "very bright" rear lights. When sitting directly behind them at a traffic light YES, it can be very annoying because you cannot look at their lights because they are SO bright. Rarely ( if ever ) would you have to sit directly behind a cyclist at a traffic light that just so happened to have an overwhelmingly bright rear light. ( not that it can't happen ).

Summing up my argument , The brightest lights I usually ever encounter sitting on the side of the road are used by police vehicles. Some of those are more annoyingly brighter than others but you get the idea. I look at it this way, if the police feel they need "that much light" to insure "their safety" while doing a traffic stop on the side of the road, who am I to say they are wrong. Personally I don't think they need all that light but most of the time the light they use is absolutely blinding. Sometimes I have to hold my hand up to block the light if the traffic is slow moving. Regardless, no rear bike light that I'm aware of is going to approximate the blinding intensity of a police vehicle on the side of the road. ( * Note: I've not yet seen a DiNotte "Daytime" only light. Perhaps one of those at night might be too bright but that remains to be seen. )

Now with all this said "No one is going to tell me my rear lamps on my bike are too bright. I might not wear a badge but I consider my life to be just as important as the next persons. Like most people posting up here I feel I have a very visible rear footprint. Cygolite Hotshot on the rear of my helmet, Geinea 1 rear on the seatpost. Reflective bike clothing with reflective spots on gloves and shoes. I've been told a couple times now that I stand out like a sore thumb but "*NO ONE" has told me my lights are too bright. ( * to date, every comment I've received while on the road has been positive )

Again the point is missed. It's not about the brightness it's about the size of the light that matters the most. A large tail light with less wattage output will appear brighter and more noticeable then a small but high wattage output light.

I do wonder though about something else, why do the police agency's bike patrol units use a lot of the Lightman Xenon Strobe lights for their tail lights and their emergency lights instead of LED's? They are quite a bit larger in size too then any LED's lights, and they have 180 degree visibility. Anyone ever seen one of those in action? if so, how does it compare to the LED's most of us use? I know Xenon strobes burn batteries pretty fast, I still have a an Vistalite Xenon that still works!

I own 2; a 4D Senso, and a 4D senso Plus [It adds the Dynamo power input in place of Off on the switch.]

What do you want to Know?

With all due respect, I have to disagree. Total lumen output ( brightness ) of the lamp is very important to how well the lamp is viewed. Second to this is the angle of dispersion (beam pattern) followed by flash ( or non flash ) ( Flashing draws attention ). Physical size of the lamp has little to do with how well it is viewed. Case in point; I bought a cheap Chinese rear light (with lasers ) over the winter. The lamp has five standard red LED's ( Pointing to the rear ) in a rather large lamp body. While the output from these LED's are not bad, when compared to my *Moon Shield (*one third of the size ), in a side by side test the Shield with it's single Cree LED blows the Cheap Chinese lamp away ( and that on it's lowest setting ).

On the other hand you can create a very viewable target using multiple lower power LED's and by spacing them out far enough to outline the total target. I've seen this principal illustrated before and it works as long as the LED's being used still have decent output and you can see all at one time. Regardless total lumen output will always be a factor in the "Viewable/less viewable" equation, no matter how many LED's are used. This is particularly more true when being viewed at distance.

The 16 leds on this large tail light were Not Bright.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h.../4thDSR006.jpg