More frikkin lasers (BLAZE bike light)

[Kim]

Because lights are now gadgets, and noone buys a gadget because it is bigger than the competition.

Ob Brunel:

[rogerzilla]

Why is nobody making lights with hoofing great diffusers?  Remember the Ever Ready Nightrider? Rubbish beam, but the rear lamp was a beast and someone round here retrofitted it with an LED.  A front lamp with similar magnitude would rock traffic.

 Lumi did their Glow Rings, a half-thought-out circular diffuser that was great in traffic but omnidirectional so really needed a bit of black tape or paint on the topside to avoid dazzling the rider.

The most psychotic rear light, pre-Dinotte, was the Energizer halogen one.  This was merely the 2.4W halogen front lamp with a red lens.  OK, the lens colour would have filtered out about 2/3 of the light, but it was still a cruel thing to point in someone's eyes.

[Cunobelin]

Why is nobody making lights with hoofing great diffusers?  Remember the Ever Ready Nightrider? Rubbish beam, but the rear lamp was a beast and someone round here retrofitted it with an LED. 

There was a bulb from Relectalite that retrofitted most rear lights at the time. They were also brighter than the original bulbs

I still have a couple and they work after 15 years.


.. and much to my amazement still listed at St John Street!

[TimO]

Why is nobody making lights with hoofing great diffusers?  Remember the Ever Ready Nightrider? Rubbish beam, but the rear lamp was a beast and someone round here retrofitted it with an LED. 

There was a bulb from Relectalite that retrofitted most rear lights at the time. They were also brighter than the original bulbs

I still have a couple and they work after 15 years.


.. and much to my amazement still listed at St John Street!

The trouble with an arrangement like that, is that the LEDs are designed to throw their lights off very near to axially along the LED, hence the round dome shape, which actually relates to the integrated lens.

Many bike lights using incandescents relied on that bulb throwing light off omnidirectionally, so had damned great big reflectors integrated into the design to catch and redirect that light.

Now those LED replacement bulbs will likely work with a Nightrider, and the diffuser on the back will probably work to a degree, but I'd imagine they'll still have a relatively small "hotspot" of light central to the diffuser rather than spread out over it.  Of course for many practical purposes, the two will be indistinguishable, since the car driver looking at it, will be far enough away, that his (or her) vision will be unable to differentiate between a small spot, and a more diffuse structure anyway.

[Biggsy]

Risk compensation.  (It's real).

A cyclist with the lazer will ride with less less care to compensate for the perceived extra visibility.  So at best it's no advantage, at worst you'll over-compensate to make you less safe.  The ultimate safety technique is to assume that no-one can see you.  That's not entirely practial, but it is wise to er towards that direction.

[willB]

Risk compensation.  (It's real).

A cyclist with the lazer will ride with less less care to compensate for the perceived extra visibility.  So at best it's no advantage, at worst you'll over-compensate to make you less safe.  The ultimate safety technique is to assume that no-one can see you.  That's not entirely practial, but it is wise to er towards that direction.

What absolute tosh. Abandon all safety gear because it makes the situation worse?

[PloddinPedro]

My experience of commuting by bike across London for five years is that the real problem is not that other road users don’t see cyclists - they see them perfectly well, but they see them with only their eyes, they don’t see them with their brains.

They’re looking only for things - basically motorised traffic - that can harm them; consequently they don’t take the appropriate avoiding action with regard to cyclists.

I lost count of the number of times pedestrians looked me straight in my eyes, paused, and then stepped off the kerb right in front of me (and in broad daylight). Invariably there was either no motorised traffic behind me or none close enough to warrant the pedestrian waiting. I read only last week (in Cycling Weekly was it?) of an accident involving someone moving into the path of an oncoming rider; it was “Sorry mate, I was looking for cars”!

All the “safety for cyclists”  infrastructure and paraphernalia in the world, short of totally segregating bikes from other traffic (which I’m not arguing for) won’t make a blind bit of difference until drivers are properly penalised for careless driving. That means either severe financial penalties or banging ‘em up for a few months. Not just trivial fines and a few points on the licence. A few instances of “Christ, did you hear about [Tom, Dick, Harry] - he hit a cyclist and he’s in clink, lost his job, can’t pay his mortgage and his wife’s’ on the street” and people will soon start paying attention. Basically, just like they do if someone’s hammered for getting caught causing injury whilst driving without insurance.

Ooooh, sorry ............. went off on a Daily Mail rant there !

[hubner]

This can't be a new idea though. It's more of a gimmick, similar to the one where the light lights up the rider instead of the road. Either they've employed a PR firm, or they're well connected, just spent loads of time on promotion, given the amount of media coverage they've got.

[matthew]

All the “safety for cyclists”  infrastructure and paraphernalia in the world, short of totally segregating bikes from other traffic (which I’m not arguing for) won’t make a blind bit of difference until drivers are properly penalised for careless driving. That means either severe financial penalties or banging ‘em up for a few months. Not just trivial fines and a few points on the licence. A few instances of “Christ, did you hear about [Tom, Dick, Harry] - he hit a cyclist and he’s in clink, lost his job, can’t pay his mortgage and his wife’s’ on the street” and people will soon start paying attention. Basically, just like they do if someone’s hammered for getting caught causing injury whilst driving without insurance.

Ooooh, sorry ............. went off on a Daily Mail rant there !

Doesn't need to include imprisonment but rather: We the Courts will care for your license for the next n months/years, and no you can not plead mitigation that your license is vital, you have shown that you are not responsible enough to have it so we'll keep it.

Oh and after that time the insurance companies will double you premiums and you have to take an extended test to get it back.

[TimO]

Risk compensation.  (It's real).

A cyclist with the lazer will ride with less less care to compensate for the perceived extra visibility.  So at best it's no advantage, at worst you'll over-compensate to make you less safe.  The ultimate safety technique is to assume that no-one can see you.  That's not entirely practial, but it is wise to er towards that direction.

What absolute tosh. Abandon all safety gear because it makes the situation worse?

No, not tosh, a real problem, however with both yours and Biggsy's case of reductio ad absurdum, taking it to it's extreme logical conclusion clearly isn't sensible.

The trouble is, there must be some reasonable compromise, but exactly at what point that is, is unclear.

[Biggsy]

What absolute tosh. Abandon all safety gear because it makes the situation worse?

Worse or no difference.  It's only worse if you think the light is more effective than really it is.

In town you can ride safely without any front light at all, but a light enables you (or makes you feel able) to go faster and stop less often past hazards.  So, a front light is for convenience; it's not necessary for safety.  A more powerful light enables you to do things that would be dangerous without it, so the risk balances out.  People take a certain amount of risk because it makes life more convenient and fun.  Only a small amount of our brains is controlled with conscious thought, so risk compensation happens regardless of whether you think it's tosh or not.

[helen_miles]

What absolute tosh. Abandon all safety gear because it makes the situation worse?

Worse or no difference.  It's only worse if you think the light is more effective than really it is.

In town you can ride safely without any front light at all, but a light enables you (or makes you feel able) to go faster and stop less often past hazards.  So, a front light is for convenience; it's not necessary for safety.  A more powerful light enables you to do things that would be dangerous without it, so the risk balances out.  People take a certain amount of risk because it makes life more convenient and fun.  Only a small amount of our brains is controlled with conscious thought, so risk compensation happens regardless of whether you think it's tosh or not.

haha quality trolling, you only posted that business about the risk compensation so you'd get the chance to explain it to someone. Mission accomplished.

[Biggsy]

No, I'd rather not have to write extra stuff to explain concepts.  I brought up risk compensation because it occurred to me when I saw the product.

Nice to know I'm a quality troll, not just any old troll.

[Toady]

So the ideal safety device is one that the rider thinks doesn't work - so that they assume that that no-one can see them - but does really so that other road users can see them.   I feel a patent coming on .... Toady's non-working lights (that sneakily switch on when you don't look at them but don't tell the cyclists).  Jackets with reflective strips on the back that are only reflective when you put the jacket on, but disappear when you take it off.

[helen_miles]

So the ideal safety device is one that the rider thinks doesn't work - so that they assume that that no-one can see them - but does really so that other road users can see them.   I feel a patent coming on .... Toady's non-working lights (that sneakily switch on when you don't look at them but don't tell the cyclists).  Jackets with reflective strips on the back that are only reflective when you put the jacket on, but disappear when you take it off.

Tesco value lights are the way forward, so unreliable that you're virtually invincible. But the very knowledge that you owned such an item would be enough to drag you straight under a taxi. Oh hang on though knowing that would keep you safe from harm. ~Or would it?