Dangerous front lights

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
JohnW
Posts: 6667
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by JohnW »

Grumpy-Grandad wrote:
Earl Spool wrote:What is everyone's take on flashing front lights?


I only ride during daylight hours and have the following lights:
Front. Two, 1 flashing, the 2nd constant. Mounted on the handlebars, one on the left and one on the right.
Rear. Two, 1 flashing, the 2nd constant. Mounted one above the other about 6" apart.


First : I'm grumpier than you could possibly be. :lol: :lol:

Second - my lights ensemble : on the front,I have two Hope Vision 1 lights and a 'SERFAS e-LUME 1600', on flashing mode (this replaces a previous LUME 1500 from a couple of years ago - the flashing function on the 1600 seems to me to be a lot more than 100 Lumens brighter then the 1500) .

My philosophy is that the Hope vision 1s are, as far as I know, the brightest replaceable-battery lights available with 3 varying brightness settings, which can be adjusted when necessary, and the flashing light serves to identify me as a cyclist. I have all three in line on the handlebars - which are drops, and they sit close together (on the tops) so almost read as one.
I do my best, but it can still test a motorist's respect for human's life.

Just as an aside - the Hope Vision 1 lights are brilliant - they have a flashing function and three brightness settings, and I have them differently angled, one angle shines on the road surface and use on Greenways/cycle paths etc and the other light is more nearly horizontal giving a better spread on unlit lanes,cycle-paths etc and visible from a greater distance. I only have them on the brighter settings when in traffic,because I feel the need to compete with vehicle lights.

An HGV driver told me that I should have one pointing slightly upwards because, from his high-level, directional cycle lights are easily lost in surrounding lighting. I have five rear lights, on the basis that we need to have more than one, and one could stop working! I do point one of the rear lights upwards, having received the HGV driver's comment.

The SERFAS light is integral battery - the battery isn't replaceable en route. The Hope lights give 3-hours battery life on the brightest setting, which I've found to be necessary on long rides in darkness on unlit Yorkshire Dales lanes. Integral battery lights all seem to me to have short burn periods on high settings, and carrying some spare batteries is better (in my opinion) than having to carry spare lights. The SERFA will flash happily all night from a fully charged battery. Also, in real dire emergency, batteries can be bought from all-night filling stations and off-license shops........many Co-ops stay open to 10.00pm.

A great sadness for me is that HOPE no longer sell their Vision ! lights!
Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1903
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by Marcus Aurelius »

I often ride with 2 front lights on my bars. I set one to blink, and one to steady, it helps with any hard of thinking motons, I may encounter.
JohnW
Posts: 6667
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by JohnW »

Earl Spool wrote: 20 Dec 2020, 8:35pm I was driving along a dark lane this evening and needed to pull into the middle of the road in order to reverse into a driveway. There was a car quite a long way off and coming along slowly, so that was OK. I pulled across - and suddenly a cyclist materialised from nowhere, swerving to avoid me, gave me an earful and rode off. Turned out the two headlights I thought were a car were two lights on his handlebar, bright and set close together so they looked exactly like a car a long way away. (My passenger thought exactly the same). It seems to me that any combination of two front lights is likely to do that, given how many cars go around with one bright and one dim front light. But two the same, and with car-headlight brightness, are especially dangerous.
Has anyone else looked into the original poster's history on the forum.
'Earl Spool' hasn't posted any other posts, before or since.
Did he (or she) join the forum just to bellyache about someone who could have been a victim of Earl Spool's own behaviour?
There have been mentions about one-off posters recently, and reasons for doing it - I think (not sure) that one such reference came from one of the mods.

At least this thread has generated some positive discussion, and sharing of opinion among cyclists, about our lighting preferences and reasons for them.

It also generated Brucey's illustrated post about cycle lighting distribution. (Page 5, above - 12th January)
Haste ye back Brucey, we're all rooting for your recovery - my best wishes.

Also, at least, we should be grateful for how far cycle lighting has come since the 'Never-Ready' offerings of the 70s, which in turn were a very significant advance on 50s and 60s lighting.
markjohnobrien
Posts: 1037
Joined: 4 Oct 2007, 8:15pm

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by markjohnobrien »

God, I remember those Ever-Ready lights, “Never-Ready” more like: feeble light, atrocious contacts, expensive, and always fell off the bracket and smashed (as I remember, as I was little at the time).

Thank god for the advances in LED lighting (battery light and dynamo) and batteries.

We’ve never had it so good!
Raleigh Randonneur 708 (Magura hydraulic brakes); Blue Raleigh Randonneur 708 dynamo; Pearson Compass 631 tourer; Dawes One Down 631 dynamo winter bike;Raleigh Travelogue 708 tourer dynamo; Kona Sutra; Trek 920 disc Sram Force.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by drossall »

True, but lighting remains an arms race. A significant part of the benefits of better cycle lighting have been lost to ever-brighter car lights.

It's often forgotten that "bright" and "visible", like "high", are relative terms. Stars are visible provided that nothing nearby is more "visible". So are cyclists. It doesn't matter how visible a cyclist is if something nearby is more visible.

Of course, we're now getting to the point where cyclists are sometimes able to be more visible than whatever happens to be nearby. Cars have always done that. Neither situation is satisfactory but, until we start getting prosecutions for excessive lighting, aimed at levels that are now considered relatively normal, we won't get true safety for everyone. At least in my view. And yes, that would need new legislation aimed at limiting levels, instead of setting minima.
Icsunonove
Posts: 64
Joined: 15 Oct 2008, 12:59pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by Icsunonove »

drossall wrote: 13 Apr 2021, 11:00pm True, but lighting remains an arms race. A significant part of the benefits of better cycle lighting have been lost to ever-brighter car lights......
I keep posting on these sort of discussions the observation that once we're all lit up (day and night), including pedestrians, domestic and wild animals, trees, park benches, potholes?? etc, we'll effectively be back to where we started, just left with a degraded environment. And quite possibly more dangerous too as people take greater risks (higher speeds, less attention) since they 'know' that 'everything' is 'obviously' more visible.
I feel the old adage "only proceed at speed where you can stop in the space that you can SEE to be clear" effectively takes a hit every time we're encouraged to 'be more visible'.
Perhaps it's worth it to shave a % off journey times, but I remain to be convinced it will save lives. For me, it certainly increases the sense of hostility in our built environment.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by mattheus »

Agree with post above, and with Drossall.

With questions like these I try to ask:
"What if EVERYONE did this (or used these, or etc ...)?"
Well this is already happening with the car lighting brightness race.

With flashing lights: imagine if drivers start to think after-market flashing lights would improve their safety?
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Dangerous front lights

Post by drossall »

Icsunonove wrote: 14 Apr 2021, 11:22amI keep posting on these sort of discussions the observation that once we're all lit up (day and night), including pedestrians, domestic and wild animals, trees, park benches, potholes?? etc, we'll effectively be back to where we started, just left with a degraded environment.
I think it's actually worse than that. The ideal environment, as far as I can determine, is even lighting on a sunny day (with no low sun, reflections etc.) That's when it's easiest to assess the overall scene and hazards. Lighting up every hazard/other road user/stray cat with the brightest-tolerable light is the antithesis of even lighting. It seems to me to be heading in the wrong direction.

Of course, I'm not proposing even, artificial lighting on all our roads. Lighting individual vehicles is probably a necessary evil. But an evil, or at least a compromise, it is.
Post Reply