Lights

^ this, this and this again.

I'm riding with knogs ATM as my old ones got nicked along with the bike. I am not happy about this, hence asking about lights.

Its also the reason that I wear the HiViz. I'm not keen on the cycling builder look, but people can at least see it. If I can't be seen, how can other road users even start to give me the room that I want/need?

^^ Oh yes this!

Can't wait to get my Magicshine rear light back so I'm not relying on the blinky rear which makes me as nervous as hell in the rain we've had this week.

Velocio, nearly every post of mine in this thread promotes better lighting. I have constantly criticised Knogs and championed more powerful front and rear lighting. I've also criticised the misbegotten reliance on Hi-Vis jackets as a main tool for visibility. Luckily, I have had the backing of highly experienced cyclists on here in my views.

I don't believe that cyclists should actively endanger car drivers by blinding them. I do believe though in doing one's best to be seen, and illuminate their way, while still trying to minimise glare to drivers. But to me, the key is being seen, as much as possible.

Yeah, I know... but I was reacting to your bolding of the quoted text of Emyr's which said that blinky only lights were annoying and you essentially said you didn't care.

My point was simply that we should care. Because Emyr simply phrased it badly, annoying is really a synonym for "difficult to make a quick safe decision" in this context.

Blinky lights require many data points (a lot of blinks) to make up the same information that a constant light does. And for a driver who is moving at 30mph, they could be with you in a matter of seconds and in that time also have to assess risks from peds, other cars and vehicles, etc.

What I'm saying is that cyclists don't help themselves.

As cyclists our position, speed and direction will be assessed in only 50 milliseconds.

If we do anything at all that makes that take longer. If we don't put ourselves in the hypothetical position of a driver when we consider our visibility... then we increase risk.

It's all fine and dandy being visible. But visibility alone is not the problem, it's visible in a way that helps a driver to quickly and accurately determine our position, speed and direction... ideally also our intent (signalling if needed).

We should seek, in terms of visibility, to annoy drivers less. As in, we should actively seek to help drivers. If we don't listen to, care for the opinions of, or act on what we hear from drivers... then it's us that is the problem.

That's what I was responding to, this bit:

[quote=Emyr;2604983]That annoys the hell out of me. I'd rather people ran the stronger light on constant with the other on flashing so the pulsing stands out but isn't so extreme. Less annoying as a driver and also means you can see where you're going easier.

As this is foremost a cycling forum, my personal sympathies lie with fellow cyclists, and I really am less bothered by the predicament of those riding cosily around in 2 tons of steel. [/QUOTE]

All we have to do to get it right is think of the driver... think of what we need to do to help them make fast decisions that keep us safe.

Hence that list, it's not a magic bullet solution (buy this light and you're done), you have to provide a constant stream of information to all other road users so that they make the best decisions to help keep you safe.

Don't take my reply as an attack on you, realise that I'm saying it's important for us to empathise with frustrated drivers who cannot make good decisions if we aren't giving them good, easy to work with data.

I thought you had to have at least one light on constant, or is that not right at all? I have been going a bit overboard of late and have 3 front lights (1 constant/2 flashing), 2 back lights (1 constant/1 flashing) and a light on my rucksack... Though I got home last night, soaked to the skin, to find my rear light had come off. Not happy. I shall have a look at the suggestions mentioned further up...

Boris Bikes have blinkies. Front and back.

I blink therefore I am.

I thought you had to have at least one light on constant, or is that not right at all?

Things changed a while back, but aren't always as simple as they might be...

Direct.gov.uk has a good page on the HighWay Code for cyclists, which gives where the light rules come from, but I found the page from CTC to be much more informative.

Thanks to the 2005 RVLR amendment on 23rd October of that year it finally became legal to have a flashing light on a pedal cycle, provided it flashes between 60 and 240 times per minute (1 – 4Hz). Even better: it became possible for a flashing light to be approved, meaning no other light would be needed in that position. And since BS6102/3 does not cater for flashing, approval is granted simply on the basis of brightness (as specified above). But because DfT very much prefer things to be evaluated against a proper technical standard wherever possible: any flashing lamp that is also capable of emitting a steady light is approved only if it conforms with BS6102/3 when switched to steady mode. Since most flashing lights do also have a steady mode, they're legal but not approved, so you'll probably need another lamp that is.

TL:DR? Flashing lights are OK, but may not be fully legal due to a technicallity, which means few lights really are.

For my money and as a driver who also cycles, flashing lights win every time. They are different and so stand out and get spotted much much quicker and easier than a static light.
I have recently seen a few bikes running twin lights with just one flashing and this is a good idea as mentioned above for the riders benefit (seeing and being seen) but if you cycle in well lit areas and run just one light only, set it to flash!

Flashing lights are a constant stream of data - 0s and 1s

Maintaining the data analogy - flashing lights send more information / data points than constant lights (0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1... as opposed to 1...), so by your own logic, flashing lights are better.

Can't begin to explain how bad the logic is here.

Cant go wrong with my hope vision. Quality bit of kit !

Its not rocket science.

Decent constant front light to see by + back up
Decent constant rear light to be seen + back up
Side visability through reflective stuff, and preferably from spill from lighting.

Maybe in a light place like london, blinking lights work. But up here in the extreme darkness of winter, and currently wih almost no street lighting. A cyclist which disapears constantly, and is invisible 60% of the time. Is fecking difficult to see*. I nearly hit one yesterday......while cycling!

Blink function is for back-up lights.

(*strobe style blinking is'nt so bad)

Just my opinion.

Flashing lights are a constant stream of data - 0s and 1s

The data needed is intensity, angular X and angular Y, so the brain can translate that into X, Z and dX, dZ, where Y is up/down, X is left-right, Z is far-near, all observer relative.

By having periods with the light off, you're losing sample points.

Keeping this specific to blinking versus non-blinking, assuming that we are talking about London cycling, where being able to light your way is not relevant, a blinking light (assuming at a street legal blink rate, an street legal intensity and size) is going to be more visible, and more noticeable, than a constant light (of equivalent intensity over a given surface area at discreet points in time).

If you want a backup light (which may well be overkill for your average London commute), having that light blinking will be more visible too.

Neither will help a car judge the distance to the cyclist, if all they can see is the light.

Hence my disclaimer.

Also my rear does the followning

• strobe - off for a week - strobe - off for a week - strobe.....
  or
  
• weaker outer ring - off - powerful focused inner LED - off - weaker difuse outer ring.....
  
  

Neither of which strike me as useful, outside of seducing female commuters with spontanous disco shows....and even that is less effective than I'd like. May have to go back to the High-Viz Peacock feathers.

Flashing lights are a constant stream of data - 0s and 1s

Flashing lights may be a constant stream of data, but they are a constant stream of inconsistant data, varying between active and inactive. In cases where constant processing is required, a consistant stream of active data is much better than one who's state varies.

so, going back to our data:
010101010101010101010101 - flashing light
111111111111111111111111 - solid light

That can only ever represent a single stationary light, flashing over time, as soon as the light starts to move, you're dealing with at least 3 times that amount of data for each point (postion in 3 dimensions). Even if we just add the streams of data together, we'd get something like:

040404040404040404040404 - flashing light
444444444444444444444444 - solid light

This shows us that the solid light is giving 96 data points, whereas the flashing light only gives 48. Thats 50% less data, mostly relating to the position of the light. The error value in calulations about speed and position is made smaller by having more data, so a constant light gives that.

Therefore a constant light gives a driver more data about your position on the road, and your speed, than a flashing one.

I'm not saying that a flashing light doesn't help to draw the drivers attention to you, thats a whole different ball game, that involves biology and stuff, more that once they have noticed you, a solid light is likely to be better for them not hitting you, therefore the suggestion that we should have a blinky and a solid light would seem a sound proposition. Maybe someone should make a light that has a solid light in the middle, with disco lighting surrounding it in a random pattern?

Now, who would care to point out where my maths/physics/other stuff mashup is wrong?

Dunno what the fuck you lot are talking about but flashing is better. People associate flashing with cyclists. They associate cyclists with dangerous idiots. Dangerous idiots are to be avoided. Ergo, flashing is better.

flashes

Things changed a while back, but aren't always as simple as they might be...

Direct.gov.uk has a good page on the HighWay Code for cyclists, which gives where the light rules come from, but I found the page from CTC to be much more informative.

TL:DR? Flashing lights are OK, but may not be fully legal due to a technicallity, which means few lights really are.

Ah thank you - think I will stick to playing it safe and having one of each!

^ This.

I'm also getting a pair of these soon:
http://www.ledal.com/

Skip to 1min:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEY40-Pio2A

Skimmed through this page, but Hippy is right.

Strong constant light and a pair of wee blinkers somewhere else (I wear mine on my bag) and you're covered. I find two blinking lights out of sync really aggravates me, on or off the bike.

Sorry, I disagree. I'm with Tiswas, and others on this. In cycling experience and expertise, hippy is 1,000 miles ahead of me. But as far as commuting is concerned, I know a thing or two also.

These are my musings on the matter.

A 1 watt front light is the bare minimum that should be used a be-seen light. It can't be used as a light that illuminates one's path, as it is far too weak for that. 1 watt lights have an output of normally around 70 lumens.
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.211-8780.aspx
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=55127

http://www.winstanleysbikes.co.uk/product/46291/NiteRider_Mako_1_Watt_LED_Front_Light

Next up the evolutionary ladder is the 3 watt front light. These have an output up to somewhere around 200 lumens. This is a very bright light for commuting. It is still best as a see-me light, but at least this light can also illuminate your way, but since most of these lights are quite directional, when pointing them downwards, they obviously lose their effectiveness as a be-seen light.
http://www.saltdogcycling.com/bike-lights/one23-mega-bright-3w-front-bike-light/
http://www.highonbikes.com/rsp-asteri-3-watt-1-led-front-bike-light-rechargeable-laa910.html
http://shop.grahamgoode.com/led-lenser-m7-front-bike-light-torch--cycle-holder-220-lumens-836ft-strobe-sos-morse-64802-p.asp

There's then another step up to the mid-powerful lights, and some torches, of the 250-300 lumens range. All are very powerful, and cast a lot of light. But again, very directional in the main, but can definitely be used for road illumination and at a very good speed, but not for fast night riding off-road.
http://www.discountcyclesdirect.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=11647
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=70072

http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/sp/road-track-bike/Lights-and-Lighting-Systems-Hope-Vision-1-LED-Universal-Front-Light/HOPELIGH100

Another incremental step up is the 450-600 lumens brigade. This is interesting, as the light is sufficient for all needs, whether snow, fog, heavy rain, or pitch dark. But it appears that cramming this much power into so small a unit is not without difficulty. The Light&Motion Urban 500 in particular does either lower the output or cutout when overheating. Some others have also shown similar issues. Its worth investigating before parting with one's readies.
http://www.allterraincycles.co.uk/product/125624.html
http://www.swinnertoncycles.co.uk/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=EH8560415A
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=70831

Anything more powerful than these are normally battery-plus-wire-pus-unit jobbies. I'm not a fan of wires, and the selfcontained units are the best options for cummuting, due to their ease of removal at the end of a journey. But the battery pack lights offer lighting that not just can match a car light, but far, far, far exceed it. Essential for night rides in forests, but also for longer rides on a low level, so maximising runtime - the Dunwich Dynamo comes to mind.
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=75282

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=70458

Last and not least, there's the commuting-specific lights. These are newer and very powerful lights, but they are all designed to cast a light that only points downwards, and do not dazzle car-drivers. I was going to stick this in anyway, but it seems more apt due to recent comments above. There are 3 lights at the moment that fit this particular criteria:
http://www.cyclesense.co.uk/m60b189s308p12233/BUSCH_and_MULLER_Ixon_IQ_Rechargeable_/RS_GB
http://www.mcconveycycles.com/store/product/15378/cateye-econom-force-rechargeable-hl-el540-front-light/
http://www.tredz.co.uk/.Trelock-LS-950-LED-Rechargeable-Front-Light_44423.htm
Review and compare these last 3 here

^I thought Hippy and Tiswas were in agreement on flashing which is also my preference as a motorist who cycles.

In the interest of boredom I searched Google Images for flashing cyclists and was completely dissappointed...

You probably had safe search on. Rule 34, there's porn of everything.

You guys seriously need to have more sex.

900 Chinalumens.

140 Fenixlumens.

About 30m to the trees.

Got my RSP Astrum in the post this morning on GA2Gs recommendation. Fuck me it's bright (probably why you can only mount it at an angle). The bracket and casing feel flimsy though which I kind of expected. We'll see how long it lasts which I hope is longer than the bracket on my Cateye did.

A bit of a sad thing to do but I emailed Hope a couple of weeks ago asking if they're planning on producing a self contained rear light. They're not. The search for the perfect rear light continues...