headlight recommend?

Victor Kan said:

Consider two bike lights like the Cateye EL-500 and the Planet Bike
SuperSpot. Both use 1W Luxeon LEDs and run off 4 AA batteries without
current regulation. Nominally, they should be equally "bright" since
they use the same light and power source. But the EL-500 is more
useful as a bike light, for me anyway, because it lights up the path
in front of you for a decent distance while the SuperSpot, despite its
name, puts out a broad flood over a very short distance with lots of
dark stripes mixed in with bright stripes.

It doesn't necessarily take a physicist, but it does take a user who
knows what he actually needs (or I suppose a product designer who
knows what the intended user needs), and useful information about the
shape of the light put out by the lamp, as well as the amount of light
put out by the lamp.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Germany and other
European countries have specifications regarding brightness and beam
shape. IOW, they have standards for the optics, designed so the bike
headlights do a good job of lighting the road and making the cyclist
visible, without blinding anyone.

The US (or, more accurately, the 50 separate-but-United-States) do
not. The typical state law for bike headlights says the light has to
be visible from 500 feet. Period.

So the US gets crude optical technology, with garage mechanics hacking
together lights that spray lumens everywhere, including into oncoming
cyclists' eyes. It's the typical US attitude: "More is better,
intelligence is for wimps, and if my equipment bothers you, go #%*!
yourself."

It's the same as the US attitude toward SUVs, McMansions, sound
systems, boomer cars, and conspicuous consumption in general.

And like many of those, it's "justified" by irrational fear. "Hey,
I'm using the Hummer to drop my little princess off at the school
door. If I don't, someone driving a mere Explorer might run her
over!"

- Frank Krygowski

It's Chris said:

Why can't they standardize the way these things were rated? This
headlight has a 32 watt bulb, that one gives 3400 max candlepower, yet
another has 4500 lumens of light.

So which one is brightest? I don't know, go ask a physicist, stupid!

Because it's not that simple. "Watts" is really meaningless these days
with the advent of HID and LEDs, you can't compare by power consumption,
not that it was ever all that good a way to compare but when all bulbs
were roughly equal in efficiency and design it at least provided some
basic information.

Candlepower is a measure of the brightest spot in the beam. Lumens is a
measure of the total light output.

One thing you can be sure of is that the manufacturer is likely to use
the spec that makes them look the best, though lumens seems to be more
commonly used for LED flashlights.

SMS said:

Chalo said:

You keep saying "conspicuous" when what you mean is "visible".  And
merely being visible only works when someone is _trying_ to see you.
On some streets, that's plenty.  On others, it would be better to be
mistaken for a police car.

That's a key point that some people don't understand. Telling someone to
look at your bicycle while your riding at night, and having them tell
you whether they notice you or not, is ludicrous by definition. You need
to be visible when people _aren't_ trying to see you. Of all the
ridiculous justifications that people use for not having adequate
lighting, 'I asked someone to look at for bicycle at night and they said
they could see me, and that proves my lights are fine' has got to be the
dumbest.

Quoted message said:

By "at night", I think you mean "in darkness".  Downtown at night is
not a good place to be made conspicuous by a feeble light turned down
towards the road.  The street lighting alone will do at least that
much for you.

I do quite a bit of night riding in downtown-like areas with street
lights and a lot of traffic lights and other distracting lights from
stores, etc. You may as well turn off a low power light, whether it's a
dynamo or a battery powered, because it won't do anything for you for
either seeing or being seen. You can either use a more powerful light,
or use some sort of white strobe light.

Quoted message said:

Three hit & runs on four peds (two fatalities) in the last week in
central Austin.  Another attempt to leave the scene by a driver who
hit a pedicab and injured the passengers.  And that's just the ones
reported to me by my personal friends.

Sadly, there's been a lot of fatalities around the Bay Area in the past
month or so. Two killed by an idiot sheriff's deputy, three school kids,
a 40 year old killed by a quarry truck in Santa Cruz. While cycling home
from the grocery store today, I ran into someone (not literally) whose
husband had been killed by a quarry truck quite a few years ago on the
same road where the sheriff's deputy killed the two cyclists.

Here's a bit of irony: in the Metro section of the Oregonian there
was an article on the front page about how Portland was the first
major city to win a "platinum" designation from the LAB for "bicycle
friendliness." On page two was a story about a man who had been
arrested for intentionally running down and trying to kill two
cyclists. http://tinyurl.com/5o96jh and http://tinyurl.com/5aao4r
I figure we should punish the guy by whacking him over the head with
our platinum award trophy.-- Jay Beattie.

Quoted message said:

Victor Kan said:

Consider two bike lights like the Cateye EL-500 and the Planet Bike
SuperSpot.  Both use 1W Luxeon LEDs and run off 4 AA batteries without
current regulation.  Nominally, they should be equally "bright" since
they use the same light and power source.  But the EL-500 is more
useful as a bike light, for me anyway, because it lights up the path
in front of you for a decent distance while the SuperSpot, despite its
name, puts out a broad flood over a very short distance with lots of
dark stripes mixed in with bright stripes.

Quoted message said:

It doesn't necessarily take a physicist, but it does take a user who
knows what he actually needs (or I suppose a product designer who
knows what the intended user needs), and useful information about the
shape of the light put out by the lamp, as well as the amount of light
put out by the lamp.

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Germany and other
European countries have specifications regarding brightness and beam
shape.  IOW, they have standards for the optics, designed so the bike
headlights do a good job of lighting the road and making the cyclist
visible, without blinding anyone.

The US (or, more accurately, the 50 separate-but-United-States) do
not.  The typical state law for bike headlights says the light has to
be visible from 500 feet.  Period.

So the US gets crude optical technology, with garage mechanics hacking
together lights that spray lumens everywhere, including into oncoming
cyclists' eyes.  It's the typical US attitude:  "More is better,
intelligence is for wimps, and if my equipment bothers you, go #%*!
yourself."

It's the same as the US attitude toward SUVs, McMansions, sound
systems, boomer cars, and conspicuous consumption in general.

And like many of those, it's "justified" by irrational fear.  "Hey,
I'm using the Hummer to drop my little princess off at the school
door.  If I don't, someone driving a mere Explorer might run her
over!"

- Frank Krygowski

Your comments, not in detail but in rough generalities, could also
apply to automotive headlights, which I'm a bit more familiar with.
The E-code headlights are so vastly superior to the DOT-approved ones
that it's not even funny. Yes, I'm a scofflaw, at least in this one
respect. And let's not even get started on some of the [censored]-poor
implementations of DRLs...

nate

Jay Beattie said:

Here's a bit of irony: in the Metro section of the Oregonian there
was an article on the front page about how Portland was the first
major city to win a "platinum" designation from the LAB for "bicycle
friendliness." On page two was a story about a man who had been
arrested for intentionally running down and trying to kill two
cyclists.

Yeah, well I think my city's plan to apply for the LAB "Bicycle Friendly
City" designation was effectively ended by one our sheriff's deputies
killing two cyclists with his patrol car. I've lived here nine years,
and the city has taken numerous steps to worsen the cycling environment,
but probably the worst thing they do is to not have their own trained
police force, saving money by contracting with the sheriff's department
for police services. Ask any police officer in any neighboring city with
a real police department about the sheriff, and you'll get several earfuls.

N8N said:

*consistently* blowing stop signs in front of me, when by conventional
rules of traffic I have the right of way. Gutter passing approaching
stop signs/lights when there is right turning traffic.

This is very dangerous, but I'm not sure that it's illegal, unless it's
a right turn only lane.

SMS said:

Jay Beattie said:

Here's a bit of irony:  in the Metro section of the Oregonian there
was an article on the front page about how Portland was the first
major city to win a "platinum" designation from the LAB for "bicycle
friendliness."  On page two was a story about a man who had been
arrested for intentionally running down and trying to kill two
cyclists.

Yeah, well I think my city's plan to apply for the LAB "Bicycle Friendly
City" designation was effectively ended by one our sheriff's deputies
killing two cyclists with his patrol car. I've lived here nine years,
and the city has taken numerous steps to worsen the cycling environment,
but probably the worst thing they do is to not have their own trained
police force, saving money by contracting with the sheriff's department
for police services. Ask any police officer in any neighboring city with
a real police department about the sheriff, and you'll get several earfuls..

I was raised down there and used to ride the Stevens Canyon loop
(where that accident occurred, IIRC) and a lot of the unicorporated
areas in the 60s/70s/80s --and the sheriffs were never any worse than
SJPD or the other local law enforcement agencies -- but I do know that
at least historically, hiring qualifications were different for the
two departments -- and that jail duty was thought of as the lowest
rung of law enforcement. I think that sheriff just screwed up, and I
don't see it as systemic -- but maybe it could be.

Frankly, I don't recall any interactions with the police down there --
except that once a CHP officer slowed traffic so I could get across
HWY 17 to the Los Gatos exit. It was an exceptionally nice gesture,
since I was having trouble spinning up to the necessary 60mph to get
across traffic. -- Jay Beattie.

SMS said:

N8N said:

*consistently* blowing stop signs in front of me, when by conventional
rules of traffic I have the right of way.  Gutter passing approaching
stop signs/lights when there is right turning traffic.

This is very dangerous, but I'm not sure that it's illegal, unless it's
a right turn only lane.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal when there's a stop sign at the
intersection and you don't stop for it. SOP seems to be to pass all
the stopped cars on the right and then blow the stop sign.

nate

Jay Beattie said:

two departments -- and that jail duty was thought of as the lowest
rung of law enforcement. I think that sheriff just screwed up, and I
don't see it as systemic -- but maybe it could be.

Big differences in training and qualifications. The sheriff's deputies
start out as jail guards, and some of them get a bad attitude from
dealing with the low-lifes. The sheriff's deputies are continuously
trying to get jobs in city police departments because the pay is much
better for a regular amount of hours.

I have had no big problems with them myself. They don't know the law
very well, which has caused me some extra work, as they give parking
tickets at random, and I have to appeal them to an independent
adjudicator who always throws them out. Many years ago I got one for
parking in a handicapped space even though I wasn't parked in a
handicapped space. I got one earlier this year for parking in a fire
lane even though I wasn't parked in a fire lane. They do come out when
you call them with a traffic enforcement issue, but they don't take the
initiative themselves, preferring to hand out California stop tickets in
large quantities, rather than doing red light enforcement or crosswalk
enforcement (my two pet peeves).

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't recall any interactions with the police down there --
except that once a CHP officer slowed traffic so I could get across
HWY 17 to the Los Gatos exit. It was an exceptionally nice gesture,
since I was having trouble spinning up to the necessary 60mph to get
across traffic. -- Jay Beattie.

You can take the gravel road down from the reservoir into Los Gatos, you
don't have to cross 17. I've ridden that part of 17 many times, as it
saves a long ride around the other side of the reservoir, but I've never
tried that left exit into Los Gatos.

On Thu, 01 May 2008 19:51:34 -0400, Luke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The price of crude in May 2003 was ~$25 per barrel, five years on it's
increased more than four-fold. A gas tax holiday significantly
affecting this trend would bankrupt the nation. There's no need to
repeat the exercise: fiscal mismanagement and the Iraq war are already
doing a nice job of it as it is.

I don't know about bankrupting the nation - but it will increase the
deficit and compound the current problems.

Don't expect the American public to pick up on that though. Look at
the reaction to Mondale, who told the public that "yes I will raise
your taxes to pay off the deficit" against Reagan's "I'll cut your
taxes and continue to increase spending without restraint". Mondale
lost in a landslide (not completely due to his tax honesty). But, the
deficit (tax increase) came home to roost later, and cost a Republican
his re-election. It's coming home to roost again.

Very few in this country understand the economic equation and why
these foolish offers and policies screw over the many to the profit of
the few. Even now, Obama is taking a lot of heat for not backing yet
another ignorant proposal from yet some more pandering politicians. I
don't suggest that the gas tax issue is a reason to vote for Obama -
but it is yet another example of the incredible stupidity of the
average American.