cyccommute 

You are still not understanding. Our irises react to light quickly. Rod cells react quickly as well but they take a considerable amount of time to relax...on the order of 20 minutes after exposure to white light. They don't saturate as quickly with red light which is why red lights are used when night vision needs to be preserved.

You are lucky then. The vast majority of MUPs around the country are just that...multi-user paths.

PaulRivers

I have a few "rolls eyes" comments to say to that, but in respect to the other people who posted straightforward posts I'm going to avoid doing that and just skip to what look like the facts so far:
1. A typical single halogen car headlight appears to put out about 700 lumens on low beam. Cars have 2 headlights, so 1400 lumens total.
2. The #2 best selling cheap bike light from amazon ($40) puts out around 700 lumens.
3. It's more difficult to have a "to bright" light on the road than it is on the bike trail for a variety of reasons. 700 lumens in a wide beam is really hard on oncoming riders on a trail, not nearly that bad on the road though.
4. The brightest and most expensive bike lights already put out as many or slightly more lumens than your average car's high beams do. A 3,500 lumen wide beam mountain biking bike light is likely to be hazardous even on the road.

My feeling is that when bike lights hit the point of becoming half as bright as car headlights, that's the point where it's time to start thinking about treating them like car headlights. I'm personally frustrated not that they exist, but that so few shaped headlights exist and are widely available in the US. I've read that shaped beams with a cutoff are the only thing that's legal in germany on the road - I don't think there's a need to go that far for something like a 700 lumen light, but I do think that those should be available to those people who would like to use them.

And that's personally where my frustration is and I hate it when people make claims about how it's "not even close to a problem etc etc" because I'd like an easy to recommend high output power shaped beam that would be friendlier on the bike trail but also put out the lumens needed for road riding all in one light.

Specialized finally released the Specialized Flux expert, which is the first US light I've seen that does anything like this. It has a fairly good cutoff, and actually has a high/low beam mode just like a car that switches between a low beam with a cutoff and a high beam that lights up faces, treetops, etc. Would love to see more available.

I don't think a lot output front light "has" to have a cutoff, but I do think there is some point where it starts to become a problem. If your bike headlights is putting out the same light that the standard car headlights are on high beam, they should start to be treated like car headlights are.

Chris516

I have the NiteRider MiNewt 600. I keep it parallel to the ground. I set it, depending on how dark it is.

JohnJ80

I don't know what else to tell you about lights except by citing the largest light shootout of bike lights ever and one that is repeated annually. We don't know anything about the reliability of that light (and can't - an anecdotal report on a sample size of 1 means nothing). So it's sort of an unknowable. But so what - you can find on sale a light that is 700 lumens for $40! great! Buy two! That still doesn't mean that there is much happening the way of increasing prevalence of lights and that single light sure is not lighting up (get the pun?) the bicycle light world. There still is not a large number of riders with bright lights and we still have the problem of too many poorly lit cyclists. That, far and away, is the bigger problem. I'd like to see cyclists riding around with two of those 700 lumen lights.

But, be that as it may. I'm sure you're going to be personally frustrated for a very, very long time.

As has been pointed out ad nauseous, there is no incidence of bright lights causing any sort of problems with drivers or other cyclists on the road. If and when ( a very, very big if) then you'll get your day in court. I do find it interesting that a cyclist - who has the same status on a road as other vehicles - by your reasoning is only entitled to a qtr of the light output that a motor vehicle is before it becomes a problem. The logic of that escapes me.

Furthermore, I don't see any point of making some set of regulations for bike lights based on a problem that might occur. We're much better off waiting until (and if) there is empirical evidence that it's a problem. Even if, as you say, it's a serious problem it's going to take a very, very long time before there are enough lights that bright on bicycles to interfere with that many cars. Maybe it becomes a problem in a bike trail where the bikes are much closer than vehicles, but I doubt it. Annoyance and safety are two different things. And again, in our legislative system, you are very unlikely to get any joy on changing anything unless there is empirical evidence of the problem. So far, that isn't happening either.

So until there is clear empirical evidence that it is a serious problem to more than just you or a few others and only to a wide swath of the population will you get the regulation you crave. There is a strong case to be made that since no one is standing up going nuts over this, that there is no one protesting at the capital trying to push "Paul's Law", that by definition, it is not a problem.

You're probably a lot more likely to have your beam shaping come about by manufacturers trying to differentiate themselves on light features because they've run the gamut on all the other feature sets and we're (for all intents and purposes) at the end of the lumen war. They've run out of features. They can dim, they can go to Turbo mode, they can flash, they can have wireless handlebar buttons, they have many mounting options. The only thing left if futzing with the beam. Probably the only vote you're going to get is the vote you get to make with your wallet. Hopefully, that calms your frustration.

Finally, the whole issue was kind if illustrated to me today while driving. I had the opportunity to drive through an area where the cars were separated only by a jersey barrier - so my headlight was probably only a few feet from the headlight of the opposing traffic. More than one car there had either a poorly aimed headlight and even one had their brights on. No body crashed, nothing happened and it wasn't even that irritating. That, again, drove home to me that we are not looking at a problem here. Certainly a car with it's bright on less than 10' from my car would have been a serious safety hazard in your world. I can tell you that it was not, nothing happened and it wasn't even more than a mild annoyance (if that). I can tell you that the approaching traffic to me was from uphill (lane was slightly higher on the other side) and I was subjected to the max beam intensity. We all made it through safely (because it wasn't an issue! Phew!

J.

PaulRivers

Yeah, yeah, it's the same repetition of the same "forum lawyering" where you present personal opinion as "fact" as before.

It's pretty obvious - when your bike lights start putting out the same amount of light as car lights, and you're biking on the same road as car lights, it makes sense to apply the safety advantages that car lights have to bike lights.

The light I pointed to is the #2 selling bike light on amazon - your personal opinion about reliability and how much it's sold does not change that. You claim that "there is no incidence of bright lights causing any sort of problems with drivers or other cyclists on the road" is absurd and again obviously you're claiming as fact what you would like to be the case. Anyone who bikes where there are bikes has at some point has "any sort of problem" with someone with a bright light, even if that person was just annoying as heck. I know I have. Their light was probably brighter than 700 lumens. You just straight up lied about what I was saying - I didn't say bikes shouldn't have the same light output as cars, I said they should have the same lighting designs that cars have when they put the same amount of light on the road. I don't think there's a reason to wait for "empirical" evidence that bike lights as bright as car lights have exactly the same effect on the road as do car lights, that's pretty obvious. And you know, kids have played with loaded guns before and haven't shot anyone. That it happened one time isn't "proof" that it's "just not a problem" to leave a loaded *** on the kitchen all the time when you have kids. Obviously it was deemed enough of a problem for cars that they made laws and regulations for them, and cars and bikes on the same road with the same light output have the same effect. Bikes do not have a magical properties that make the light coming from them different than the light coming from cars.

I only posted in this thread if I remember light because of the absurd claims that bike lights were "nowhere near" the light output of car headlights. I didn't make dramatic claims about people dying and horrible things happening with cheap amazon front lights, just that it made sense that as bike lights put out as much light as car headlights that bike headlights should be able to use the same features and more advanced designs for light output, both for safety and because in my experience it's better for seeing the road for riding as well.

You can respond, but I'm not going to be replying further to more "forum lawyering" as you put it unless someone else has more actual facts, info, or ideas that haven't been shared yet that are interesting, and not just another repetition of presenting your personal opinions as facts. Some of the things I wrote above are my personal opinions, but I generally try to describe them as such and not present them as "facts".

I don't see anything more actually useful info to get out of this style of back and forth here.

kickstart

Its an undeniable fact excessive lighting can be disruptive or dangerous, unless one chooses to not recognize that fact for personal reasons.

cyccommute 

Perhaps on the "Interwebs". Out in the real world? It depends.

cyccommute 

I would like to point out that having a "poorly designed" light is far better than having no light at all. And having a "poorly designed" light that stands out against the background of urban lights is far better than having a "be seen" light. The Magicshine type lights are incredibly cheap (some less than $20) and are far better than a $45 Planet Bike Blaze in light output. To those of you who are complaining about the intensity would you rather have someone riding with that kind of light or no light? The alternative offered...Edlux or Phillips Safelight or Niterider...are all far more expensive than the Magicshine type lights. That puts them out of reach for many.

So would those of you who are insisting that lights be made "safer" (as dubious as that claim is) like to see more ninjas?

noglider 

Oh, interesting!

Yes, very lucky. I'm glad you understand now that my conditions and choices are not what you expected. I am pretty lucky, except that the portion of my path north of the George Washington Bridge is more neglected than the rest of it, and it also happens to be the more challenging portion. Oh well, such is life.

2manybikes

I agree, most states have MUPs.

My state only has bike paths. They were here before all the neighboring states had MUPs. It was modeled after the road with bikes taking the place of the car. The pedestrians are supposed to walk on the left facing bike traffic. If it's crowded the pedestrians should go to the left off the path. Bikes have the right of way, but there is a dual responsibility for the bike and the pedestrian to give the other room. The rules are listed on the bike maps, paper, and on line. - ( BIKE RI )

One thing that happened is the cyclists though with them having the right of way, they should blast through and make everyone get out of the way. It was so bad the that rule is now removed from the maps. There are signs on posts and on the ground near main street intersections, showing bikes on the right and peds on the left facing traffic.

All the neighboring states now have MUPs. Most do not understand either the bike path, or the MUP, rules at all. Many are all over the place. Nothing matters very much. Not even the signs. The bottom line is that there a dual responsibility, to give room to the other user. There are all kind of cycling rules on the map. Nothing helps very much. No one knows the rules, even the cyclists, especially the ones from other states.

One day our paths will connect to the other state MUPs. That will be even more of a mess. The more I find out about this the more I realize most people don't have a clue.

Drivers from the next state have different rules than we do for rotary entering and exiting. That makes a similar problem. It's just life.

wphamilton

Dark adaptation is pretty fascinating when you look into it, not nearly so simple as it seems at first grasp. He's right that rods take 30 minutes to fully adapt, up to 45 minutes according to some. Apparently the timing (of a rod after-image fading) is an exponential function with a half-life of around 4-5 minutes, corresponding with the timing of rhodopsin replenishment - a pigment in charge of night vision. Interesting also that how fast night vision regenerates depends on how bright the light was: brighter "blinding" light makes it take longer.

There is also a neural component in dark adaptation, where the output from the rods are organized and bundled for enhanced vision (up to 10 times sensitivity), and this occurs immediately.

But it's also sort of a red herring. I think that the conditions we're talking about are more generally in the mesopic range where both rods and cones are active, rather than purely scotopic which employs only rods and this is why cyccommute was able to see the white lines in a couple of minutes. Cones adapt much more quickly, and it has to be pretty dark for their cut-off. You can go deeper into this stuff than I have, but I believe that the "dazzling" that we report is primarily the bleaching out of the cones, and the after-images from both cones and rods fading with their corresponding rates.

noglider 

No, and I believe we have more than two choices. Why do I have to choose from both of those bad options? Why is it too much to ask that manufacturers make good lights that don't do bad things?

Kaminokaze

always point them down a little bit not to blind the car so they don't run you over

cyccommute 

Give an example of an affordable light then. I consider the Planet Bike Blaze to be "affordable" even if it is a really crappy light. $160 on a light system like you use isn't "affordable", especially when you consider that it is a single light for a single bike. It may have some things going for it but most people would see it as expensive.

noglider 

Stuart, I'm lamenting the lack of affordable good lights with shaped beams. When I wish for things that don't exist, I don't have to choose between two bad options that do exist (overly bright, unshaped beam lights) and ninja cyclists. I'm saying I wish manufacturers that sell to the North American market made such lights.

kickstart

If I didn't occasionally encounter problems in the real world I wouldn't have a anything to take issue with. Its not a black and white, sky is falling issue, any light can be problematic if used carelessly, but there are some truely bad lights on the market used by people who have no consideration for others.

Specialized has come out with a true bicycle headlight, so perhaps there is some hope that more folks here in the US will see the light.

BTW, there are many manufacturers making true bicycle headlights, they just don't bother with our more is better, cheep is better, nobody else matters market.

cyccommute 

Your explanation is good but I take some issue with the "red herring". A cyclist using lights has already washed out his rod cells. The cyclist is, essentially, night blind. Turn off the lights and the cyclists will have trouble navigating at most any rate of speed. My point wasn't that the cyclist has the problems but the unlighted pedestrian on an MUP will have problems. Bike paths in my neck of the woods as well as many others I've used in lots of areas aren't usually lighted at all. Here they tend to follow creek drainages and are wilder spaces. There is some urban lighting but a pedestrian can be walking on a very dark trail for long distances. Their eyes are fully adapted and exposure to light from a bicycle...even light that is shaped...ruins that night vision.

cyccommute 

If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.

I'd love to see every person out there now riding ninja or being a pink ninja (almost a ninja but the color is a little off) riding with a $20 Cree light from Amazon. It's not the best light but it's pretty good and way better than many lights I see being used.

And, yet, you seem to be the one making everything into black and white. Some people are discourteous and some are just uninformed. Few of them are out to cause you (or the rest of the world) problems. I have ridden at night for 35 years now. In a bit over 3000 nighttime rides, I have yet to run across a bicyclists who was maliciously using lights. I've had plenty of run ins with automobile drivers but no bicyclists. Maybe bicyclists in your area are jerks but I really doubt that.

And, yes, Specialized has made a light that is shaped. It suffers from the same problem as the Phillips or Edelux or other shaped beam lights...it's $175 to $275. For most people, it's hard to justify that kind of expenditure for a light. It's hard for me to justify that kind of cost especially considering that I would never be caught riding with only a single light intentionally. I've been caught riding a single light but I assure you, it wasn't intentional.

noglider 

There you go. You see, wishing is allowed and maybe even useful. I also wish people used lights. Adequate ones, too. I see some insanely dim headlights. Perhaps some of them have mostly drained batteries.

I'm allowed to wish for more than one thing at once. So I wish for those lights to enter our market AND that people ride with lights. It is not a choice between only two things.

kickstart

I can't speak for your personal perceptions and experiences, but they don't reflect mine, or those of the average person. I have seen in real life and here on BF, some who use lights in an intentionally aggressive manner, while clearly stating that they don't care, won't comprise their desires, or be willing to modify their behaviour to suit reasonable lighting.

As I mentioned before, there are many excellent lights for less than $100, and a good selection of decent lights under $50 available in European markets. Premium quality lights are expensive, and represent what the current market here is limited to, but that can change with awareness and availability.

JohnJ80

There are simply not a lot of accidents related to light brightness in cars despite, and in consideration of, the almost extreme prevalence of misaimed car lights and drivers who drive with their brights on in the presence of opposing traffic. I think it's safe to say that there are easily next to none from bike lights on roads causing cars or other bikes as opposing traffic to crash.

Fatalities of cyclists at night due to being poorly visible is, I'm sure, a major cause of cyclist fatalities suggested by the fact that something like 60% of the accidents between cars and bikes where the overtaking car driver failed to detect the cyclist were in low light or night time conditions. In other words, failing to be seen is a much bigger problem for cyclists than too bright a light. If the bright light enhances the visibility, then it likely enhances safety.

In an MPR article on a survey in Minneapolis, 58% of cyclists followed rode without lights. While not exhaustive by any means, I'd say that roughly matches my experience in the Cities - about half are unlighted. In this summary article referencing NHTSA data cyclist fatalities data 30% of the deaths came between 4pm and 8pm (periods of low lighting). So the bigger problem that needs to be solved is of bike cyclist visibility. When we get to the point where high percentages of cyclists are riding with bright lights and are more visible, then let's worry about it. Meanwhile let's worry about the problems we have first. For now, we need to be encouraging cyclists to all buy up those 700+ lumen lights as fast as possible, become as visible as possible.

J.

kickstart

The need to make ones self visible in prevailing conditions, and excessively disruptive lighting are two entirely different issues, and one needn't do the latter to achieve the former other than to assuage insecurities.

noglider 

Argumentative, aren't we? Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? I think there are more than the two choices than right with no lights or blind oncoming people. I guess I have a big imagination or something.

JohnJ80

Either that or we're both wrong and no none else cares.

J.

unterhausen

xkcd.com/386/
there's a reason why I have that number memorized. My advice is that if a person here wants their argument to be accepted by the most number of people, posting it over and over again in a pointless contention with another person is not the way to make that happen.