A driver has warned of the dangers of powerful cycle lights after filming how he was blinded by one bright light.
Dashcam footage from the motorist shows the incident off Lockwood Road and up Swann Lane in Huddersfield.
The driver said the rider was on the pavement.
He told the Huddersfield Examiner: “Not only is that illegal [but] you will then see how I was blinded by his high-intensity front white lamp flashing away like a searchlight.
“The lamp was directed upwards and if that had been a car at an MoT test it would have failed.”
Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt said: “It’s not a blanket offence to ride on the footpath. If it’s safe to do so and then cyclist feels safer then they can.
“Cycle lamps have come on a long way since the Ever Ready days of big batteries. On the one hand we would welcome that this cyclist is making himself visible but they have to consider the effect on others.
“His light shouldn’t be shining up at the stars. It should illuminate the road. It’s probably further exacerbated by the person being on the footpath because they will be four or five inches above the road.
“However we should all share the road space and think about actions and impacts on other people.”
According to Cycling UK:
Motor vehicles have to be ‘type approved’ for use on public roads, and as part of that approval their lighting must conform with ECE regulations. These ensure that dipped headlamps don’t dazzle other road users by putting a top limit on the intensity of light emitted in an offside above-horizontal direction. For technical reasons different types of lamp have different limits**, but the most another road user should see from any ECE approved headlamp, when dipped, is 625 candela.
A few lamps on the UK market are made to conform with German traffic regulations, which limit the intensity of light emitted by a cycle headlamp, above the horizontal, to 200 candela. And an international (ISO) standard for cycle lamps is currently in preparation, which is likely to be adopted by CEN and will consequently replace the present confusion of different national standards for bike lamps in Europe. This ISO closely follows German regulations, including the dazzle limit of 200cd.
If you’re in the market for a new set of cycle lights as winter draws in, check out our buyer’s guide to over 55 models here.
62 thoughts on “Driver shares video of ‘blinding’ cycle light”
Nowhere near as bright as a
Nowhere near as bright as a Xenon or latest LED headlights. Non-story for me…
It’s not how bright it is, it
It’s not how bright it is, it’s how it’s adjusted. Shoving 15 millions of lighthouses into drivers eyes is neither cleaver, safe for the rider, nor friend winning. That’s why, for example, the Exposure lights have a down-angled bracket. Witness the the number of people who fiddle with them to make them point up and blind people.
BarryBianchi wrote:
I think you’ll find it has much more to do with the lamp design than the angle at which it is used. A properly designed bicycle light will have a shaped beam that directs its output where it’s needed, like the Philips Saferide 80, the Supernova Airstream 2, B+M Ixon Space, Ravemen PR1200, Lupine SL A, etc. The vast majority of cycle lights sold in the UK and recommended on this very website are little more than fancy torches that dazzle everyone no matter where they’re pointed.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
All jolly fine too, unless you happen to be riding both on and off road in the same trip, or on a winding road where drivers expect to see high beams, or past driveways whose owners only notice high beams. Gloriously expensive German lights, but no ability at all to switch between low and high beam.
As for the moaning motorist – hey, at least you bloody well noticed the cyclist – it’s probably the first one you have!
Absolutely this. It is not
Absolutely this. It is not mainly about brightness or adjustment, although both of those can be factors. It is about beam pattern which is about lamp design.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-juden/bobby-dazzlers
I use a Specialized Flux Elite for this very reason.
The video really doesn’t demonstrate at all well how many cyclists’ front lights dazzle oncoming road users, including other cyclists. When I’m cycling on my commute, I’m most often dazzled by oncoming cyclists, and there are a lot more cars.
The German StVZO regulations are actually quite sensible, although I think the limit on upward shining light is slightly low.
There just aren’t enough well designed lights on the market with a decent beam pattern. There are plenty saying that their lights have a road specific beam (looking at you, Exposure) which is nothing more than having a wider hot-spot, with no control of light going above the horizon. Specialized don’t even make their Flux Elite/Flux Expert lights any more. 🙁 I don’t think the Philips is still available either. The Ravemen, while being better than many, doesn’t look as good as the B&M Ixon series or the Specialized Flux Elite from the Road.cc review beam pattern image. The cut off isn’t sharp enough or close enough to the brightest part of the beam.
It’s annoying when you want to buy an effective road front light that isn’t downright anti-social (not to mention dangerous) you have to go to such lengths to find something, and when you do it’s often powered by AA batteries and/or has a poor clamp design (which is critical as the light must stay properly aligned)
I’ve considered starting my own company making decent bike lights, but besides the many barriers to entry, it seems too many cyclists don’t care two hoots about dazzling other road users so the market is probably too small! 🙁
I find road.cc’s total failure to address this issue in light reviews rather disappointing. At least they are including beam shots in reviews but most of the decent lights haven’t been reviewed using this system.
DaveE128 wrote:
Seems to me that’s a job for the state and the legal authorities, rather than leaving it to ‘the market’ and consumer choices. Surely they should be both publicising the relevant information, and setting legal standards for what can be sold, and used?
Doesn’t appear as if they even think about the issue. But then, the state appears to not care very much about any aspect of road safety, not in any systematic way. The law on cyclists actually having lights is almost never enforced, so I can’t see them checking beam patterns.
Nor are the laws on emissions – all those illegally removed filters* – or insurance or even licencing, or speed limits, enforced for motorists, come to that. Seems like nobody cares about any of it, so what’s the point of fussing about cycle lights? The tiny number of poeple who want to ‘do it right’ might go out of their way to find a more expensive ‘correct’ light, most still seem happy to have no light at all, and everyone else will just get a cheap one that seems OK to them.
* https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/diesel-particulate-filter-removal-air-pollution-department-for-transport
DaveE128 wrote:
And when you do design this superb light, please soareca thought for those of us who don’t ride on city streets and perfect bike paths, but also have to ride properly windy, dark single track roads, or ride both on and seriously off road on the same trip; and build something easily switchable between cutoff beam and not? Because currently the German lights completely ignore this issue ( maybe the restrictive regulations compel this?)
oldstrath wrote:
I ride on almost nothing but windy single track roads. I’m off out tonight, 60 miles on almost exclusively unlit country lanes. The Philips, Ravemen and especially the Lupine SL A are so good that no high beam is required.
oldstrath wrote:
Not really sure what you mean by this, you mean you want a light that doesn’t have a cut off beam but switch the beam to having a cut off beam, if so, why?
I have a Sigma PAVA and frankly it’s about as good a light as you’ll get for unlit roads combined with simplicity, the quickest fixing/removing bracket on the market, ease of changing brightness (there’s only two modes) and longevity of beam not to mention beam pattern.
4AA gives 15 hours on full beam and this is enough for 30+mph runs, the lower setting is circa 30hrs and still good for 20mph with no street lighting.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
It’s not that hard to understand what I want – every car has two of them. I don’t really think it’s that hard to see why it might be useful – most of the time onroad a cutoff beam is fine, but there are some occasions onroad, and many off road, when a “beam lighting up the sky” is useful. Apparently hoping for the two things in one light is impossible. Shame really, so I’ll stick to the compromise of mounting two lights.
oldstrath wrote:
I don’t see the difficulty either, not sure why there aren’t any low/high-beam cycling lights yet. I want one, anyway.
oldstrath wrote:
I’d agree that “one light to rule them all” would be nice, but I also don’t see a need for a high beam on a bicycle light unless you are riding in thick forest with lots of overhanging branches and lots of dips in the trail. I find there is still enough light reflected off the road surface on my philips saferide to easily see branches on trees in plenty of time to avoid them in spite of the beam cut off. If you are riding serious mountain bike trails, then you have a point, or even if you simply like seeing more of what is ahead of you, then yes high beam is nice to have, but it isn’t essential.
nbrus wrote:
I’d agree that “one light to rule them all” would be nice, but I also don’t see a need for a high beam on a bicycle light unless you are riding in thick forest with lots of overhanging branches and lots of dips in the trail. I find there is still enough light reflected off the road surface on my philips saferide to easily see branches on trees in plenty of time to avoid them in spite of the beam cut off. If you are riding serious mountain bike trails, then you have a point, or even if you simply like seeing more of what is ahead of you, then yes high beam is nice to have, but it isn’t essential.— oldstrath
So, not essential unless it’s essential. Got it.
I know there is always the risk of ‘misuse’ (just like car lamps), but threads like this tend to have a few people saying ‘I commute on roads as well as completely unlit paths’. You don’t have to be downhilling at midnight to need ‘fullbeam’; an unlit trail with overhanging trees at 6pm, this time of year, will do it. The requirement is there.
oldstrath wrote:
The Specialized Flux Expert has this feature, and a bar mounted remote to operate it. An important feature is that the main and dipped beams are properly aligned. Unfortunately it was rather expensive (nothing about the design or construction really necessitated this!) and hardly anyone bought it.
More than half of my commute is on unlit country roads or unlit unsurfaced cycle routes. The Flux Elite and I don’t find a full beam necessary for speeds up to 40km/h. Putting all the light on the road in the right pattern providing even illumination is far, far better than a torch beam for the same brightness.
Wow, a sensible comment from
Wow, a sensible comment from a councillor on cycling for once, kudos that man!
…and Yeah, now’s the time
…and Yeah, now’s the time for selfish, inconsiderate cyclists to blind other cyclists on the cycle path in the name of their own safety…cheers mate.
Quote:
“I’m a cyclist too”… no, you’re not, you’re driving a fucking car.
Ush wrote:
Sometimes I’m driving a car. That makes me not a cyclist does it?
BarryBianchi wrote:
That’s right. It’s actually a bit tricky, but here’s a good rule of thumb: when you are driving a car you are not a cyclist, you’re a car driver.
Ush wrote:
Sometimes I’m driving a car. That makes me not a cyclist does it?
— BarryBianchi That’s right. It’s actually a bit tricky, but here’s a good rule of thumb: when you are driving a car you are not a cyclist, you’re a car driver.— Ush
Don’t be such a smartarse – you know what both of them meant.
fukawitribe wrote:
I know what they meant. But I wonder if they do.
Ush wrote:
Great – so you realise “I’m a cyclist too” could also mean “I’m at times a cyclist in addition to currently being a motorist” for example ? Of course, it’s a moot point as he never said that…
fukawitribe wrote:
Well it’s not very clear to me.
I agree that when driving a car you’re a driver.
But you might be a driver who is very conscious of what it’s like on the other ‘side’.
But that usually depends on just which mode one is primarily reliant on. The problem is that there are those who at heart see the world through a windscreen, but think that the fact they like mountain biking, have strong views about Lance Armstrong, or ride round the park once a month, means something.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Sometimes I’m driving a car. That makes me not a cyclist does it?
— fukawitribe That’s right. It’s actually a bit tricky, but here’s a good rule of thumb: when you are driving a car you are not a cyclist, you’re a car driver.— Ush
Don’t be such a smartarse – you know what both of them meant.
— BarryBianchi Well it’s not very clear to me. I agree that when driving a car you’re a driver. But you might be a driver who is very conscious of what it’s like on the other ‘side’. But that usually depends on just which mode one is primarily reliant on. The problem is that there are those who at heart see the world through a windscreen, but think that the fact they like mountain biking, have strong views about Lance Armstrong, or ride round the park once a month, means something.— Ush
I completely agree with your last point, but there’s a of couple things related to this particular incident that grated. Firstly, un-neccessary pedantry – meh, internet keyboard warrior pedant shocker, irritating but no big deal. Secondly, he never used that phrase or anything similar. What was mentioned in the Examiner piece was that “Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK, urged all road users to be mindful of safety concerns as the darker months draw in.” Which seems entirely reasonable to me and pretty far from the picture that someone was trying to paint… but again, I get what you’re saying about #imacyclisttoo in general.
fukawitribe wrote:
Well it’s not very clear to me. I agree that when driving a car you’re a driver. But you might be a driver who is very conscious of what it’s like on the other ‘side’. But that usually depends on just which mode one is primarily reliant on. The problem is that there are those who at heart see the world through a windscreen, but think that the fact they like mountain biking, have strong views about Lance Armstrong, or ride round the park once a month, means something.— BarryBianchi
I completely agree with your last point, but there’s a of couple things related to this particular incident that grated. Firstly, un-neccessary pedantry – meh, internet keyboard warrior pedant shocker, irritating but no big deal. Secondly, he never used that phrase or anything similar. What was mentioned in the Examiner piece was that “Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK, urged all road users to be mindful of safety concerns as the darker months draw in.” Which seems entirely reasonable to me and pretty far from the picture that someone was trying to paint… but again, I get what you’re saying about #imacyclisttoo in general.— Ush
Honestly I don’t have any particular opinion about the specific incident or Martyn Bolt (other than what I said before about problematic cycle lights being just another example of lack of policing/regulations/information around roads and the confusion that results),
My only point was on the tangential issue of ‘who is a cyclist’.
I don’t drive, but I notice that I’m the world’s most cautious car-passenger-door-opener. Because if you are habitually and regularly on the vulnerable side of something you necessarily become more aware of it. That’s the only sense in which being a ‘cyclist’ means anything when not actually on a bike.
Ush wrote:
Sometimes I’m driving a car. That makes me not a cyclist does it?
— BarryBianchi That’s right. It’s actually a bit tricky, but here’s a good rule of thumb: when you are driving a car you are not a cyclist, you’re a car driver.— Ush
Oh dear. That’s me fucked then. Despite my years of training and experience and professional qualifications and statutory regulation etc etc, I’m only a pilot when I’m actually flying the aircraft. And to think I’ve lied on my passport, mortgage applicaiton etc etc all these years. Thanks for putting us straight on all that.
And as for the next “vegitarian” who comes out with THAT epic bullcrap whilst not actively eating a meal, stand by the lying tosser.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Don’t worry. You can replace “pilot” with “cyclist” on your passport. Or just put “motorist” on it.
Ush wrote:
Hmmm. Not sure why Martyn Bolt feels the need to provide ammunition to ill-informed anti-cycling types (see the the comments in the newspaper post), but when the Way of the Roses coast-to-coast cycle route opened in 2010 Councillor Bolt rode all 170 miles of it in one day. I reckon we can call him a cyclist based on that along with some other stuff.
(Edit: having re-read the article it’s not clear if Cllr Bolt is the motorist in question. I don’t think he is, actually. Hey, ho.)
Woldsman wrote:
Fair point. Perhaps I am unfair in admitting that the finger-wagging Cllr Bolt is driving around polluting the air, pumping out greenhouse gases and getting in the way of cyclists. I’ll bet not though… I bet he wears a plastic hat, hi-viz and runs daytime blinkies.
Ush wrote:
Hmmm. Not sure why Martyn Bolt feels the need to provide ammunition to ill-informed anti-cycling types (see the the comments in the newspaper post), but when the Way of the Roses coast-to-coast cycle route opened in 2010 Councillor Bolt rode all 170 miles of it in one day. I reckon we can call him a cyclist based on that along with some other stuff.
(Edit: having re-read the article it’s not clear if Cllr Bolt is the motorist in question. I don’t think he is, actually. Hey, ho.)
— Ush Fair point. Perhaps I am unfair in admitting that the finger-wagging Cllr Bolt is driving around polluting the air, pumping out greenhouse gases and getting in the way of cyclists. I’ll bet not though… I bet he wears a plastic hat, hi-viz and runs daytime blinkies.
I can find nothing on the internet about Cllr Bolt and driving, don’t know what car he might own or if he even has a licence. I can however find lots of information about him cycling and it is clear that he is definately not the driver in question in the article. So what is your problem with him? Or is your issue more to do with you misunderstanding the situation?
Ush wrote:
That fella in the Skoda adverts, wonder if he ever rode a bike?
alansmurphy wrote:
Only when he had driven to a nice quiet road without cars on it.
Ush wrote:
The article doesn’t state that Martyn Bolt was the driver, only that he commented.
To be fair, it does look pretty bright and having been similarly blinded by someone similarly equipped on a cycle path, I know how the driver feels.
Biggest problem is drivers using spotlamps as well as normal headlights; illegal but still very common. They should only work when on main beam, but most work independently.
I dont understand these
I dont understand these aresholes that think that riding along with something akin to a camera flash is in any way assisting safety, you cant even place the bike, the flash could be coming from anywhere and it will distract most drivers.
And those other twats with a million lumens on their helmet that turn round to look at you…..
I have a low intensity front pulse lamp, rather than a hard flash, and a more powerful single beam, aimed down and left.
Dont kid yourself that more light is better, in the rain especially, its actually worse, it just lights up the droplets on windscreens and visors.
This isn’t exclusive to cycles of course, the lamp overkill at a many roadworks doesnt help either.
Flying Scot wrote:
yeah but it comes from the whole SMIDSY thing doesnt it, everytime someone hears an instance where a motorist claims not to have seen a cyclist in the dark, their response is to up the lumens so motorists cant possibly claim not to see you if you are chucking out more light than a lighthouse and it just begins this never ending competition to go for brighter and brighter lights.
Bloody hell,a driver actually
Bloody hell,a driver actually saw a cyclist.
It’s just a poorly angled
It’s just a poorly angled light that shouldn’t be flashing.
Modern cars adjust their lights to not blind other drivers, but the old cars would blind people if you had a heavy load in the boot, or if they weren’t working correctly.
Out in the sticks, a bright light is a necessity though. I’m not going to swap my super bright light for a battery powered candle. I often see people cycling with lights that are far too dim.
Sometimes 1000 lumens is needed, but 20 lumens is like pi**ing into the wind.
So blinded was he, that he
So blinded was he, that he continued on his way with no problems.
Funny how one cyclist with a bright light is newsworthy but when you’re down a country lane and drivers can’t be arsed to turn off their full-beams because….you’re not a car……it wouldn’t be worth a feature.
This is one of my main annoyances now it’s dark all the time, drivers don’t see you as worth a flick of a lever and just blind you with 10x the light any bike light will be putting out.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Yep, this story is no different to a pedestrian using a torch, don’t see a real problem. How many people do these pavement cyclists kill or injure with their lights?
So “blinded” was the driver that they went to an optometrist and relinquished their licence?!
I’ve had a couple of drivers deliberately drive at me on full beam on my side of the road, because they’ve probably taken dislike to my 300 lumens on a quiet local back-road. Shame I didn’t feel I had enough safety margin to flick them onto 1500 lumens.
The number of motorised vehicles with malfunctioning lights now though, worrying! Still, at least they’ll fail their MOT… Oh, loads of them still on the road regardless.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
If they had an old car they are likely idiots who don’t realise they are driving around on full beam.
If they have a new car the car adjusts the headlights automatically so clearly it is not recognising your bike lights as a vehicle.
I would switch your light to 1500 lumens as their car may recognise you as a vehicle, or at least get those idiots to stop using full beam.
You clearly know nothing about how MOTs are generallly done.
The garage normally does an MOT which your car may fail. They then service the car and then redo the MOT the car passes.
Headlights and other bits like signals can fail regardless of when the MOT is done. It is your job as a driver to ensure your vehicle is roadworthy regardless of when the MOT is.
Bluebug wrote:
As it goes, I know quite a lot about MoT testing. I think you just missed my sarcasm… Some people like to state that bikes should have to pass an MoT, etc. as it would stop these sort of issues.
Drivers are supposed to check their lights before every journey. Clearly many of thm do not take their responsibilities seriously.
The drivers were deliberately switching to full-beam and then coming at me on my side of the road while they negotiated a parked vehicle on their side of the road.
Bluebug wrote:
….woosh!
Bluebug wrote:
This. Shine it IN THEIR FACE. Then their car will recognise it. Just like the cyclist in the video. Ideally get hold of one of the silly laser helmets and find a way to boost the power of the laser on it.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
ahh, but it does clearly say (twice) that it “could have resulted in a nasty accident.” So you dismiss the prophecies of the Huddersfield Daily Examiner at your peril – this cyclist is the wickedest man in Netherton, according to his mother, and regularly cries out, “let the mayhem commence!” every time he switches on his bicycle lights – So I suggest you pay more heed to the fantasies of chaos lurking in the apparently sleepy town’s visions of apocalyptic doom, lest you find yourself riding alone one dark winter’s night and singled out for daily examination!
Only a fool would be so quick
Only a fool would be so quick to stick up for a pavement cyclist.
Video is unavailable.. but
Video is unavailable.. but from the screenshot, the cyclist’s light looks only marginally brighter than the red LED brakelights of the vehicle next to it. I fail to see the issue. Strobes are abnoxious at night.. but very useful during daylight. So.. don’t use them at night. Problem solved.
velo-nh wrote:
Also you can in no way judge the brightness of any source from how the image is exposed on a cheap dashcam. As soon as the source gets too bright for how the image is exposing it clips – pure white rather than any detail. It could be a few times brighter than the middle exposure point or hundreds. You can see the same effect in the shop windows (although they glow orange as the camera is daylight white balanced) but I bet the bike light is considerable brighter than they are.
I’ve never yet seen bike
I’ve never yet seen bike lights which were any brighter than car lights. Just saying…
brooksby wrote:
I have. Just saying… Largely irrelevant if either are adjusted properly and have reasonable beam pattern.
fukawitribe wrote:
I’ve never yet seen bike lights which were any brighter than car lights. Just saying…
— fukawitribe I have. Just saying… Largely irrelevant if either are adjusted properly and have reasonable beam pattern.— brooksby
It happened to me – I admit – that after a ride in a forest I sometimes used to forget to turn the lamp’s angle towards a tarmac (2x Cree LED).
The drivers signaled me with their full beams not to dazzle them.
For those not from Yorkshire.
As Brian Robinson’s son in law, and a stalwart of the cycling scene, along with the Dave Raynor Fund and CTC, it’s fair to say Martyn Bolt is a cyclist.
The minor issues I’ve
The minor issues I’ve encountered with bike lights pale massively into insignificance to that presented by motorists and their vehicles.
Somehow these overtly bright lights are lawful under EU rules yet have made driving so much more dangerous particularly in rain but equally so during the day. There are lots of reasons backed up by no decrease in incidents that DRLs are a failure and do not make you stand out in a sea oof lughts. This is is partly why hi-vis en masse for people on bikes and day time lights for cyvlists ultimately makes bugger all diff.
God knows how I and many others managed not to crash into anything/one at night when I had an Austin Allegro, oh that’s right, I didn’t drive it like a cunt and was looking out for oothers/driving at a speed i could stop well within the distance i could see to be clear.
Car lights now just encourage you to go faster at night and blinding most while doing so. I rarely ever have the need for full beam, I just adjust my speed accordingly.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Its basically an arms race. Having driven an Allegro and a load of late 70s/early 80s cars I don’t recall being able to see less than I can now. Everyone was in the same boat, there was less traffic, and less dazzle. Around town it was common for people to drive on sidelights only – coupled with streetlighting and low speed limits this is more than enough.
Biggest issue (as a driver) for me is oncoming dips being as bright as full beams, and being dazzled in my mirrors by 4x4s/vans with high mounted headlights. Even dipping my rear view mirror isn’t enough.
And don’t get me started on drivers not dipping because you’re a cyclist, its bloody lethal (and an offence).
It’s obvious from the reading
It’s obvious from the reading of it that the driver has complained and in response, Cllr Martyn Bolt has come back with an excellent and very neutral response.
One of those classic NIMBY stories isn’t it. If I was the driver I might have though “ooh, bit of a bright light, I’ll look away for a second”.
Clearly this driver thought “ooh, bit of a bright light, I’ll save the footage, download it, send it to the Huddersfield Examiner along with a letter explaining how much I have suffered.”
It’s far worse sitting in a queue of traffic with everyone sitting on their brake pedal. Glares of bright red LEDS everywhere. A passing cyclist is pretty low down the list of annoyances there.
None event. It looks to me
None event. It looks to me that the driver needs to clean his windshield. Greasy windshield will exacerbate glare. See the streaks coming diagonally from the lights of the stopped cars in front?..
Plus, the human eye can adjust fairly quickly for different lighting conditions, cameras can’t.
If you see dazzling car
If you see dazzling car headlamps even when dipped, it is likely the owner has fitted LED headlamp bulbs as these don’t work correctly with reflectors designed for filament bulbs. There are lots of these on sale on Amazon and ebay and they can be extremely dazzling, even during the day. I don’t think they are legal without proper headlamp housing, but what’s to stop the owner from swapping them out before an MOT and then refitting them afterwards.
A super bright bicycle light is far more dazzling than car headlamps on full beam in my experience. Just look at the bright bicycle headlamp picture in this article and notice that it isn’t even dark yet … there are no stars in the sky and clouds are still visible.
nbrus wrote:
astoundingly the sky and clouds are visible despite the articificial supernova that passes for the bicycle light, is it possible that you only believe that it isn’t dark yet due to the light’s effulgence?
beezus fufoon wrote:
astoundingly the sky and clouds are visible despite the articificial supernova that passes for the bicycle light, is it possible that you only believe that it isn’t dark yet due to the light’s effulgence?
— nbrusI’ll try making things simpler for you … if a light looks that bright when it isn’t fully dark yet, then its going to look a lot brighter and be a lot more dazzling once it is dark. There, hope that was simple enough.
nbrus wrote:
yes, but surely exactly the same can be said for a 1200 lumen full beam car headlamp?
Personally, I find that any light being shone in my eyes will momentarily dazzle me for about half a second, it’s just not something I’d choose to write home about.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Car headlamps have a more focussed beam than bike lights so they don’t dazzle as much, even on high beam. They also aren’t as bright as some mountain bike lights and the blue-white colour of LEDs is more dazzling than the neutral orange-yellow of filament bulbs. LED car headlamps are a different matter as those are quite dazzling though thankfully they are also quite rare.
The cyclist should have the
The cyclist should have the light pointed down a bit more.
Also at his age he shouldn’t be on the pavement. I bet if he saw hoodies on the pavement he would be grumbling into his morning copy of the Daily Hate 🙂
I cycle weekly on road and cycle paths to work and have noticed some bikes coming the other wya with bright lights angled horizontal and/or up.
It has made me think about mine, as it is dazingly.
Tilt it down a bit, turn it
Tilt it down a bit, turn it onto ‘sensible mode’ rather than ‘comedy mobile disco mode’, and whatever light you use, you’ve got a complete non-story.