Rear light on N4 this morning

rp

Was it anyone here who I asked about where they got their rear light this morning, just past Liffey Valley on the N4?
Gotta get me one, that was the brightest light on the road, cars and trucks included!

kenmc

Wasn't me in case that helps narrow it down a bit

07Lapierre

Probably this one!

rp

07Lapierre wrote: »

Probably this one!

yeah that is what it looked like, thanks. Well worth 85 quid, I reckon.

Lumen

rp wrote: »

yeah that is what it looked like, thanks. Well worth 85 quid, I reckon.

The price is €109.53.

That's a very expensive rear light.

feck sake lads

i bought the cateye TL-LD1100 excellent light .

smcclaw

Lumen wrote: »

The price is €109.53.

That's a very expensive rear light.

There's no arguing that's its a lot if cash for a light but I got one of these last year and find it great especially on narrow country roads. The light diffuses quite widely so a car coming around a bend behind you will still be able to see a red glow on the hedge before he can see you if its a narrow road.

I've a few Hope front lights and find then very good too but definitely a long term buy at this kind of price

07Lapierre

smcclaw wrote: »

There's no arguing that's its a lot if cash for a light but I got one of these last year and find it great especially on narrow country roads. The light diffuses quite widely so a car coming around a bend behind you will still be able to see a red glow on the hedge before he can see you if its a narrow road.

I've a few Hope front lights and find then very good too but definitely a long term buy at this kind of price

+1, Expensive lights, but excellent quality products and VERY bright lights.

Weirdview

Can't understand anyone paying over e100 for a rear light!!

Got this recently and at e17 it's incredibly bright. Visible for a mile it's so bright I'm almost embarrassed putting it on full blast for fear of blinding the drivers behind me

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mobile/MobileModels.aspx?ModelID=56546

Seweryn

Weirdview wrote: »

Can't understand anyone paying over e100 for a rear light!!

I can't understand anybody that puts "value for money" against safety when it comes to chosing peoper bike lights.

Seweryn

Weirdview wrote: »

Got this recently and at e17 it's incredibly bright. Visible for a mile it's so bright I'm almost embarrassed putting it on full blast for fear of blinding the drivers behind me

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mobile/MobileModels.aspx?ModelID=56546

Not a bad one, but this one is a lot better.

Weirdview

Seweryn wrote: »

I can't understand anybody that puts "value for money" against safety when it comes to chosing peoper bike lights.

That makes no sense. The e17 light is blindingly bright. In what way is that not being safe?

MB Lacey

A little reminder to those with the ultra safe bright BLINDING lights to lower the setting or point them down to the road when commuting in lit up streets where there are plenty of other cyclists.
Your lights are BLINDING to other commuter cyclists cycling behind you.
Blinding.

rp

Weirdview wrote: »

That makes no sense. The e17 light is blindingly bright. In what way is that not being safe?

I don't know that exact model, but I'm on my second AA-powered rear light this year, so I'd happily pay out more for quality (so rain doesn't get in and corrode the innards) and for recharge-ability, as well as the sheer bloody visibility of that Hope light.

Seweryn

Weirdview wrote: »

That makes no sense. The e17 light is blindingly bright. In what way is that not being safe?

I never said it is not safe, but I just wouldn't criticise anybody spending €100 on a rear light.

By the way, some people spend €20,000 on a car, just because it seems to be safer than another safe car that cost €2,000. Not my business, but the cheaper car is still almost as safe as the dearer one.

07Lapierre

Weirdview wrote: »

Can't understand anyone paying over e100 for a rear light!!

Got this recently and at e17 it's incredibly bright. Visible for a mile it's so bright I'm almost embarrassed putting it on full blast for fear of blinding the drivers behind me

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mobile/MobileModels.aspx?ModelID=56546

Quality and Reliablity ?

Weirdview

Seweryn wrote: »

I never said it is not safe, but I just wouldn't criticise anybody spending €100 on a rear light.

By the way, some people spend €20,000 on a car, just because it seems to be safer than another safe car that cost €2,000. Not my business, but the cheaper car is still almost as safe as the dearer one.

You said you couldn't understand anyone putting value for money against safety. Does that not strongly imply a disregard for safety in favour of value for money?

The object of the exercise is for vehicles approaching from behind to be able to see you clearly. The e17 light achieves that comfortably. I can't comment on its longevity as I've only had it a few weeks but it seems pretty robust and has some positive comments on the review section.

osheen

Weirdview wrote: »

You said you couldn't understand anyone putting value for money against safety. Does that not strongly imply a disregard for safety in favour of value for money?

The object of the exercise is for vehicles approaching from behind to be able to see you clearly. The e17 light achieves that comfortably. I can't comment on its longevity as I've only had it a few weeks but it seems pretty robust and has some positive comments on the review section.

As a truck driver who covers a lot of country roads - i'd welcome every bike that had those . especially on dark wet mornings wheb eejits in cars have their rear fogs on.
Wonder could cyclists get the Rsa to subsidise them ?

Weirdview

07Lapierre wrote: »

Quality and Reliablity ?

Fair enough. But with lights as with everything else it doesn't HAVE to be top of the range to be decent quality and reliable.

07Lapierre

Weirdview wrote: »

Fair enough. But with lights as with everything else it doesn't HAVE to be top of the range to be decent quality and reliable.

Agreed.. I bought My lights with a gift voucher...Am i excused??:D

Lumen

Weirdview wrote: »

You said you couldn't understand anyone putting value for money against safety. Does that not strongly imply a disregard for safety in favour of value for money?

The question is either "what level of illumination is sufficient to provide adequate safety?" or "how much would you pay to cheat death?", depending on your perspective.

I've had issues with cheap lights breaking, but when a 0.5W AAA-powered flasher can be had for €3.73 with free shipping I struggle to see the sense in spending 30x that.

http://dx.com/p/bicycle-bike-2-mode-3-led-red-light-tail-warning-safety-light-red-white-2-x-aaa-120031

I have a Moon Shield rear light which I bought it because I was curious. It is a good light, but I'm still not sure I'm any safer than I was with a 0.5W flasher.

Rural roads is one thing, but for urban cycling 0.5W is perfectly sufficient.

Mefistofelino

Lumen wrote: »

The price is €109.53.

That's a very expensive rear light.

That price doesn't include the battery. You have to either buy the cable that allows you run it from your pre-existing Hope light OR drop another 80 notes on a battery & charger.

Weirdview

The e17 light is 1w not 0.5w !

Anyway life's too short to be arguing about rear lights, I'm off for a spin

(not that anybody will see me )

GlennaMaddy

Lumen wrote: »

The question is either "what level of illumination is sufficient to provide adequate safety?" or "how much would you pay to cheat death?", depending on your perspective.

Really? I thought the question would be how many Lumen's do you need in a lightbulb

Seweryn

I use the Moon Shield 60 and I believe it is just good enough for my riding conditions. But I always keep a spare one in the bag or in my pocket, because no matter how good your light is - it is only good if it's working.

rp

just on the subject of flashing lights, I got Grant Petersen's "Just Ride" for xmas - great little book - and he is suggesting that flashers might be more dangerous as they tend to draw drivers eyes to them (in the m/c world, they say you go where you are looking). Anyone here ever been rear-ended by a hypnotized motorist?

07Lapierre

Lumen

rp wrote: »

just on the subject of flashing lights, I got Grant Petersen's "Just Ride" for xmas - great little book - and he is suggesting that flashers might be more dangerous as they tend to draw drivers eyes to them (in the m/c world, they say you go where you are looking)

Indeed, first rule of mountain biking/off-piste skiing: don't look at the tree!

I saw a set of those drop-end-mounted flashers this morning on Dublin's north quay. Me likey. I vaguely recall they take coin batteries.

Blinkies are handy if you're using disposable batteries (longer runtime), but I'm also unconvinced on the safety aspect.

monkeybutter

Flashing lights definitely stand out in the sea of other lights on the road, which is one of the reasons emergency vehicles use them.

The same holds for bicycles, your eyes are programmed to notice change and this draws their attention, which is what you want.

A good example is people pulling out on bicycles and motorbikes, even with dipped lights on, happens all the time, thats where you want to catch peoples attention. As the bike is so narrow as it comes towards you, it barely breaks the pattern of whats behind it. A flashing light breaks that pattern.

petethedrummer

I have two rear lights. One flashing, one still.

Some bicycle lights can be too bright and cause spots in vision if you look directly at them.

Surveyor11

monkeybutter wrote: »

Flashing lights definitely stand out in the sea of other lights on the road, which is one of the reasons emergency vehicles use them.

The same holds for bicycles, your eyes are programmed to notice change and this draws their attention, which is what you want.

A good example is people pulling out on bicycles and motorbikes, even with dipped lights on, happens all the time, thats where you want to catch peoples attention. As the bike is so narrow as it comes towards you, it barely breaks the pattern of whats behind it. A flashing light breaks that pattern.

I find almost the polar opposite, flashing light people will pull out, sure it's only a fella on a bike. My led lenser b7 pumps out an alleged 240 lumen - I find that gets the attention (it doesn't flash btw, but I'm in the habit of focussing it when approaching potential danger points)

monkeybutter

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I find almost the polar opposite, flashing light people will pull out, sure it's only a fella on a bike. My led lenser b7 pumps out an alleged 240 lumen - I find that gets the attention (it doesn't flash btw, but I'm in the habit of focussing it when approaching potential danger points)

You'd still have to say that they still saw the fella on the bike though, which is the key point.

You'd be just as likely to get knocked off by someone pissed at your 240 lumen light blinding them

el Bastardo

Surveyor11 wrote: »

I find almost the polar opposite, flashing light people will pull out, sure it's only a fella on a bike. My led lenser b7 pumps out an alleged 240 lumen - I find that gets the attention (it doesn't flash btw, but I'm in the habit of focussing it when approaching potential danger points)

Fully agree with that. My experience has been that a solid, bright red light typicallly causes motorists to slow down and put their full beams on to identify what's in front of them, whereas a flashing light is completely disregarded as part of the road furniture.

monkeybutter

el Bastardo wrote: »

Fully agree with that. My experience has been that a solid, bright red light typicallly causes motorists to slow down and put their full beams on to identify what's in front of them, whereas a flashing light is completely disregarded as part of the road furniture.

What driver disregards a flashing red light exactly, is it you ? is this the same one who deliberately pulls out in front of you cause you don't have a 240 lumen front light.

Are they not flicking on their full beams cause they don't see ya?

Lumen

el Bastardo wrote: »

a solid, bright red light typicallly causes motorists to slow down and put their full beams on to identify what's in front of them

Eh, what? Who does that? If you see a bright light ahead you dip the beams, not stick them on full.

Full beams on is the standard signal for "you're blinding me" or "you have no lights".

Zorba

Lumen wrote: »

Eh, what? Who does that? If you see a bright light ahead you dip the beams, not stick them on full.

Full beams on is the standard signal for "you're blinding me" or "you have no lights".

Yes i find this as well, a lot of cars behind me dip and then some put their full beams back on when the realise it's only some lad on a bike, sometimes glad i don't have one of them mirror things on the bike.

monkeybutter

Zorba wrote: »

Yes i find this as well, a lot of cars behind me dip and then some put their full beams back on when the realise it's only some lad on a bike, sometimes glad i don't have one of them mirror things on the bike.

Yes, that is fine, while slightly less than polite, a country driver might be inclined to put on full lights when he sees you are a cyclist, when passing from behind.

But what el Bastardo is saying is that a car will either not see the bright flashing light, or because it is only a flashing red light, it is a cyclist, so it doesn't need to be identified, or he is going to ignore it. In fact he is only going to put on his beams because he can't tell what kind of veh-hi-cle has said bright red light is. So he needs to illuminate such a veh-hi-cle.

Wishbone Ash

monkeybutter wrote: »

because it is only a flashing red light, it is a cyclist, so it doesn't need to be identified

That sounds a bit contradictory. If the driver has identified that it is a cyclist why would they not need to identify it. They already have!

And why would any cyclist object to a vehicle behind using full beams? It helps to further illuminate the road ahead for us. I don't understand why many drivers dip their lights when approaching a cyclist from behind.

Zorba

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I don't understand why many drivers dip their lights when approaching a cyclist from behind.

My theory is the light is that bright they think it might be a motor bike up ahead with mirrors so they dip so as not to blind the biker.

But i never complain when the leave their full lights on, would be nice if they followed me the whole way home with them on actually.

el Bastardo

Zorba wrote: »

My theory is the light is that bright they think it might be a motor bike up ahead with mirrors so they dip so as not to blind the biker.

But i never complain when the leave their full lights on, would be nice if they followed me the whole way home with them on actually.

That's not exactly what I meant: They don't appear to know what I am when approaching from behind; They don't assume that it's a bicycle.

Yes, I imagine putting on full beams helps if you can't identify the (slow-moving) vehicle in front of you (I'm pretty sure I can be seen).

By 'disregarding' I meant that motorists become accustomed to flashing bike lights and don't always take as much notice of them as they should.

It's not a focused beam on that Hope District light and it's red rather than white light, so I can't imagine that it's particularly blinding.

monkeybutter

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

That sounds a bit contradictory. If the driver has identified that it is a cyclist why would they not need to identify it. They already have!

And why would any cyclist object to a vehicle behind using full beams? It helps to further illuminate the road ahead for us. I don't understand why many drivers dip their lights when approaching a cyclist from behind.

it doesnt make sense, which is why I was reiterating what el B said.

Riding at night the flood of light from the full beams of a car from behind can be very blinding and will ruin your night vision, if they followed you the whole way home it would be grand, thats why you should dip your lights, passing pedestrians, cyclist etc on country roads. If it's a lit up area, then you'd be on dipped lights anyway.

Thats what the polite driver would do anyway.