High Power Light Systems On The Road

[Zoidburg]

I admit that I do like a mega death ray light on my push rod but I in the last week I have come across what I can only describe as nerks with too much money and not enough common sense.

The first was a guy on a MTB the other night. I'm not sure what light system it was but it was certainly something pricey and mega bright like a lupine, he was running this on the road at full blast as he met me coming the other way at a junction. It was giving out about as much directional light as a marine flare and to be honest it was just dangerous, it was blinding me and distracting motorists around me.

Last night again I was met coming down an unlit lane by a guy running another high power LED system with a double shot head unit, full blast, on flash mode this time. Now if I am not mistaken most of these units have a several power settings so why not read the instructions and learn how to use them?

I'm not saying we don't need good lights but a £500+ light system that can illuminate passing aircraft does not strike me as something we should be shining in drivers eyes...

[Noodley]

Surely more to do with beam angle than power?

[Zoidburg]

LED systems - not very directional.

Putting bit of an angle on it is not going to stop a lupine on full blast from blinding oncoming drivers - or cyclists.

[andygates]

This winter rant again?  It must be clocks-go-back season.  Ah yes, there's the low-sun rant.  All's right with the world.

Road users have a responsibility to not dazzle other road users.  Folks who don't are rude and naughty and must be spanked firmly. 

Nothing to do with the power.  I've been blinded and run off the road by Wonder lights.

[mrcharly-YHT]

LED systems - not very directional.

Putting bit of an angle on it is not going to stop a lupine on full blast from blinding oncoming drivers - or cyclists.

I have an LED system. It is directional, and I can even change the focus - changing it from a flood to a narrow central beam with some spill to a wide cone.

*badly designed* leds might not be directional.

[mattc]

Because our roads are neither crown-green smooth, or straight, it is inevitable that on most journeys your eyeball will end up on the main axis of someone's headlight (hopefully for a very short time, but that still buggers your night vision). Happens with cars, it will happen with bikes.

Therefore too much power IS a bad thing. For cars _and_ bike lights.

[And if they're set to flash as well ... ]

[GrahamG]

The odd MTB rider will sometimes forget to switch power settings etc. on their way home from the trails but otherwise it's just numpties that can't install a light properly. It's just as bad with cheap battery flashers - people think that because they don't light up the street they need to be pointing at drivers eyes to be visible.

[Zoidburg]

Right now I have an old vistalite system coupled with a 3W cree, I know how bright they are and I run a blinky LED of "normal power" as well for the times when frikin lasers is not called for.

[Wendy]

This winter rant again?  It must be clocks-go-back season.  Ah yes, there's the low-sun rant.  All's right with the world.

Road users have a responsibility to not dazzle other road users.  Folks who don't are rude and naughty and must be spanked firmly. 

Nothing to do with the power.  I've been blinded and run off the road by Wonder lights.

Well spank me baby, please!

A MaxxD on flash is the lowest power setting, and it's still pretty evil.  I do at least have a remote button, so if I've been on the dark country lanes I can easily take it off Max power to either low or flashing on the road.  Full power on the road gets flashed by perhaps 1 in 30 to 1 in 50 cars, whilst flashing mode gets 1 in 100 or 1 in 200, at a rough guestimate.

[Greenbank]

I'm not saying we don't need good lights but a £500+ light system that can illuminate passing aircraft does not strike me as something we should be shining in drivers eyes...

Or, more strangely, the people with mega-death-ray REAR lights angled badly that dazzle like lasers. People overtaking from behind pass much closer than oncoming vehicles.

[Wendy]

Or, more strangely, the people with mega-death-ray REAR lights angled badly that dazzle like lasers. People overtaking from behind pass much closer than oncoming vehicles.

Either this bit isn't true, or my Exposure RedEye isn't a death ray rear light.  It's not as bright as a dinotte, true enough.  I've been told it looks like an extra bright brake light, and the result of using it is that most cars now hold back at perhaps 25m when going through a pinchpoint, when they used to stick at 5m.  Also, cars tend to give more space when overtaking.

[Greenbank]

Or, more strangely, the people with mega-death-ray REAR lights angled badly that dazzle like lasers. People overtaking from behind pass much closer than oncoming vehicles.

Either this bit isn't true,

I meant that cars coming the other way are already on the other side of the road, pretty much as far away as possible as they can be. Not that cars pass people with bright rear lights closer than people with dim rear lights.

If you dazzle an oncoming motorist they'll have to drift over into your lane in order to hit you. If you dazzle a motorist approaching from behind then they may not move over enough not to hit you.

[Wendy]

Yes, that's certainly more logical than most people saying how dangerous it is to dazzle an oncoming driver.  I'm still not convinced, as my own, and I think most peoples' reaction, is to allow extra space when something is dazzling, just because it's harder to judge how close you are.

Not that I'm aiming to dazzle anyone, but I certainly want some of their attention.

[Andrew Br]

If I'm being dazzled by lights coming towards me (whether I'm driving, walking or riding), I concentrate on not looking at those light(s) but towards the kerb where my own are pointing. Tilting the head slightly also seems to help.
It doesn't work in every situation, but it's very effective.

My own lights of course, never dazzle anyone 
Unless they look directly at them 

[Cunobelin]

This is a design problem....

Car lights have a pattern that has a dim top half, which does not happen on bike lights.

[LEE]

This is a design problem....

Car lights have a pattern that has a dim top half, which does not happen on bike lights.

B&M LED lights do.  They have a very well-defined beam pattern with a crisp horizontal cut-off (to meet German regs on bike lights I think).

The advance of LED technology means that we'll have tougher regs/fines here soon.

There's not much skill in producing a bright light but there is some skill in producing an effective lens/reflector that puts the light where it's needed.

[Wendy]

This is a design problem....

Car lights have a pattern that has a dim top half, which does not happen on bike lights.

Yes, only a very few bike lights have a proper pattern.  Pity really, but it'll happen sooner or later given the increasing power of the new tech.

[GruB]

I have my Lumicycle set at an angle so I can see but also not too high so as to dazzle, I hope.
If I have it too high I do get flashed.
Now and then the Joystick causes oncoming cars to halt ( if we are in a narrow lane with high banks mainly ) and to be honest, the buggers should stop basically anyway.
Coming home tonight the idiot in the silver estate Merc left their lights on high beam. I was just reaching up to the Joystick on my helmet to turn it on to main power to direct it at them as they passed when a car came up behind me so they dipped the beam.
Not even a Lumicycle Halide could light the way in the face of their high beam.  Inconsiderate buggers.

[Wendy]

Good lights are just so excellent at getting cars to stop on singletrack lane, aren't they?

[teethgrinder]

Good lights are just so excellent at getting cars to stop on singletrack lane, aren't they?

And not pull out in front of you at roundabouts, junctions and so on.
And not drive at you on the wrong side of the road when they pass parked cars.
And getting them to dip their main beam when driving towards you.
And generally being treated as another road user. Probably because they think it's a car, not a bicycle.

Even a car with dipped lights reduces my vision. Full beam is worse than any cycle light that I've ever come across.
Best to wear a hat with a peak so that you can use the peak to sheild your eyes from oncoming lights. Have a good light pointing at the road and you can see very well. But having a dazzler can save your adrenal glands some effort.




Good lights are also very good on the shared use cycleways of Milton Keynes at night. Approaching a pedestrian from behind with a good light illuminating the pathway means that they know that you are coming, but don't get startled. A silent bell type of thing.

[mattc]

And generally being treated as another road user. Probably because they think it's a car, not a bicycle.

More likely a motorbike. (Which gets you more consideration than a bicycle, for what reason I don't know)

Even a car with dipped lights reduces my vision.

Exactly - which is why I'm against "dazzlers". They're another Im-alright-jack tactic, we're stooping to Moton level.

[Cunobelin]

And generally being treated as another road user. Probably because they think it's a car, not a bicycle.

More likely a motorbike. (Which gets you more consideration than a bicycle, for what reason I don't know)

Even a car with dipped lights reduces my vision.

Exactly - which is why I'm against "dazzlers". They're another Im-alright-jack tactic, we're stooping to Moton level.

I have a very bright front light, but didn't stop one of Portsmouth's finest taxis pulling out at almost point blank range.

Me - Didn't you see me
Taxi - I thought you were a  Motorbike.
Me - So you think I am a heavier and faster vehicle
Taxi - They have better brakes and could have stopped more easily


Which really sums it up - it is not the lighting it is the reaction to it. Personally I simply want to be able to absolutely prove that "not seeing me" is not a plausible excuse.

[Titan]

I have death ray and no regrets at all if a few are dazzled. My only aim is to make sure the buggers see me and avoid me.  Not interested in being nice to other cyclists either - not like they are my friends or anything they just happen to be on bikes.

[mattc]

I have death ray and no regrets at all if a few are dazzled. My only aim is to make sure the buggers see me and avoid me.  Not interested in being nice to other cyclists either - not like they are my friends or anything they just happen to be on bikes.

Two possible responses:
A) Welcome to the forum, I hope you won't mind if the cyclists here are nice to you.

B) Beeing seen isn't enough:

I have a very bright front light, but didn't stop one of Portsmouth's finest taxis pulling out at almost point blank range.

Me - Didn't you see me
Taxi - I thought you were a  Motorbike.
Me - So you think I am a heavier and faster vehicle
Taxi - They have better brakes and could have stopped more easily

Which really sums it up - it is not the lighting it is the reaction to it. Personally I simply want to be able to absolutely prove that "not seeing me" is not a plausible excuse.

Edit: bonus 3rd response:
C) I very nearly had a head-on with 2 MTBers on a railway line - their lights were so bright I thought they were a car 500m away. I saw their lights, but I couldn't see them at all.

[Greenbank]

I have death ray and no regrets at all if a few are dazzled. My only aim is to make sure the buggers see me and avoid me.  

The problem with this kind of selfish¹ attitude is that it works until everyone else starts doing the same, then you spend more time getting annoying at being dazzled by everyone else.

My problem with dazzling people is that whilst they're dazzled, by definition, they can't see you properly. They may choose to overtake you without being able to see an oncoming car, they then have a choice of a head-on with another motor vehicle, or pulling back into you, and more often than not they'll take the latter option as it results in much less risk of dying than a head on collision with a large mass of metal will.

Obviously it requires someone to try something stupid but, as in most cases, you're unlikely to be taken out by someone who drives within the rules/spirit of the highway code. You're far more likely to be taken out by the person that attempts something stupid (i.e. overtaking when they aren't sure the road ahead is clear).

I choose not to do something that may adversely affect my safety in the future, you obviously do and that is your want. I just think it's a dangerous ploy as you're relying on stupid people not to do the wrong thing.

1. Not a personal attack, but you can't really argue with this.