Driver shares video of 'blinding' cycle light

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

Don't be such a smartarse - you know what both of them meant.

fukawitribe wrote:

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

Don't be such a smartarse - you know what both of them meant.

I know what they meant. But I wonder if they do.

Ush wrote:

 I know what they meant. But I wonder if they do.

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:

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

Don't be such a smartarse - you know what both of them meant.

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:

fukawitribe wrote:

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

Don't be such a smartarse - you know what both of them meant.

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.

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:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Ush wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

Don't be such a smartarse - you know what both of them meant.

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.

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.

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:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ush wrote:

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

Sometimes I'm driving a car.  That makes me not a cyclist does it?

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.

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:

Oh dear.  That's me fucked then.  Despite my years of training and experience and professional qualificatoins 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.

Don't worry.  You can replace "pilot" with "cyclist" on your passport.  Or just put "motorist" on it.  

Ush wrote:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

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:

Ush wrote:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

 

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.)

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:

Woldsman wrote:

Ush wrote:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

 

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.)

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:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

That fella in the Skoda adverts, wonder if he ever rode a bike?

alansmurphy wrote:

Ush wrote:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

 

That fella in the Skoda adverts, wonder if he ever rode a bike?

 

Only when he had driven to a nice quiet road without cars on it.

Ush wrote:

Quote:

Mirfield councillor Martyn Bolt, himself a keen cyclist and a trustee of the charity Cycling UK

"I'm a cyclist too"... no, you're not, you're driving a fucking car. 

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.

BarryBianchi wrote:

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.

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:

BarryBianchi wrote:

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.

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.

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!

Peowpeowpeowlasers 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.

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:

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!

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-f...

DaveE128 wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers 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.

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.

 

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:

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?)

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:

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?)

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:

oldstrath 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?)

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.

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:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

oldstrath 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?)

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.

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. 

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:

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. 

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:

oldstrath 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. 

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.

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.