Talk:Bicycle lighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Re the revert of 29/09/05: Good work, someone was losing the run of themselves to the point of vandalism, was about to revert it myself --Sf 18:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty confident the vandal was Steven M Scharf (scharf.steven). He does not like dynamo (generator) lights and (as usual when he gets a fixed idea) is very dogmatic about it. There have been long arguments on rec.bicycles.* not helped by the fact that Scharf rather immodestly styles himself "one of Earth's leading experts on bicycle lighting" - and on a number of other topics. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh Goody! I like it when self styled "leading experts" come out to play in public fora, its fun! --Sf 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: legal requirements

The statement that the US is "noted for permitting unlit cycling" is not true. Every US state requires that a bicycle operated at night be equipped with a red tail light and a white headlight, and cyclists can be fined for cycling at night without proper lights. It is extremely common for US cyclists to cycle without lights, and a very high percentage of American cyclists have no idea that lights are required. The widespread perception that bicycles are toys and not real vehicles is partly to blame for this situation, as is the widespread belief that the reflectors installed on bicycles sold in the US satisfy the law and provide adequate visibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markfelber (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Checked on this, I am given to understand that in the US, the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) historically only specified a white front light, and a red rear reflector. I believe the UVC was recently changed to include a rear red light requirement for bicycles. As I understand it, the UVC is only an aggreed model for traffic legislation and has no legal force in and of itself. As I understand it, many states still reflect the "whit light/red reflector" requirement only but may also "permit" cyclists to use a red light as well or as an alternative. --Sf 10:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LEDs

Surveyed the market and some product announcements - LED market more advanced than I had credited; I have updated the section to reflect this. Not to mentioned ordering an LED powered headlight for my Brompton :-) What do the rest of you think? Just zis Guy, you know?

The LED section looks great! Do you have any big upcoming editing plans for the article? I think I'll re-record the spoken version at some point if the content is somewhat stable. -SCEhardt 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
No plans for major revisions, not sure about anyone else. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing plans

Had a thought about putting in a breakdown of night versus day fatality rates by way of explaining the rationale behind "the generally considered unsafe to cycle without lights" issue. Plus maybe something to give a bit more of the flavour of the conspicuity versus perspicuity debate. etc. However, I intend being up a mountain for the next week or more so it won't be my edit in the immediate future. --Sf 15:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I would think that there should be some note that there are three basic types of dynamos: bottle, bottom bracket, and hub. There does not seem to be any talk about bottom bracket dynamos in the article. --Gam3 03:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LED front lights

With the development of high power LED front lights that rival 10W halogen lights, the last sentence that suggested they were suitable only for occasional or emergency use is clearly incorrect. I have modified it to read "Self-contained LED front lights have reached a stage where some are viable alternatives to conventional bicycle lights although the majority are more suitable for being seen or emergency use only." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.199.250 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamo photos

Why were both dynamo photos removed? I think at least one should be left to illustrate the object. -SCEhardT 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put one back - please discuss here if you don't think it should be included. -SCEhardT 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, I removed them because they advertise commercial products in the captions but on reflection it seems harmless - Adrian Pingstone 09:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Safety section

I added the paragraph "Most cycling organisations advocate the use of lights for night riding although, surprisingly, there is no reliable published evidence that lights make a measurable difference to safety in an urban context." - it has been tagged with {{fact}} a couple of times.

I am a cycle activist, and take a close interest in safety issues. I amke a habit of looking for and reading published evidence, and I have a number of friends who help me in this. I have looked long and hard for evidence in respect of lighting, this search has been largely fruitless. I have found references to one paper which states that retro-reflective material on the arms increases passing distances, b ut no evidence that shows any meausurable effect from the use of lights or other conspicuity aids.

According to the scientific method, scepticism is the default. In other words, before we can state in the article that lighting is important to safety (which we seem to do) we must first prove it. I cannot do that, although I have tried, but my literature bases are not good on that subject (much better on helmets).

As far as I am concerned we can either state that organisations such as CTC advocate use of lights, but intellectual honesty requires that we own up to lacking prof that it makes any difference. The dynamo pictures were of my bikes, I have spent more on lights for each of my bikes than most people spend on the entire bike, I am an enthusiastic advocate of lights, but I do not know of any evidence to back this position. Help wanted... Just zis Guy you know? 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for that explanation. Since the claim that "... there is no reliable published evidence ..." is based on original research, that portion of the new material does not comply with the no original research policy. To avoid losing the other points that you made, I've incorporated the following derived material into the Safety section:
    • "...almost all cycling organizations unconditionally advocate using a headlight at night..."
    • "...the majority of unlit cyclists are riding in urban areas with many streetlights.... the additional conspicuousness afforded by bicycle lights may not always provide a significant safety benefit under those conditions,..."

--Wiley 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are original research as well. It is not OR to say that no evidence is known; that is an inference drawn from the lack of available material and is therefore based on the published evidence base (i.e: none). Seriously. I've tried again. The problem is that the article had text which drew novel inferences or represented uncited opinion; I know fomr past experience that evidecne is elusive, and I think intellectual honesty demands that we say so, even while nnoting that every reliable authority strongly recommends light use. Just zis Guy you know? 12:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments, Corrections and External Link.

Great article, there are some incorrect statements however.

The brightest type is the high power High Intensity Discharge (H.I.D) light, which requires special circuitry and a powerful battery - Is incorrect.

Firstly, currently the most powerful HID lamp is an over charged 10 watt, which will produce the equivalent of a 40 watt lamp (roughly). The brightest lights are infact Halogen lamps. The reason they are not mentioned is that they draw so much power they drain batteries very quickly. The point is however that the "brightest type is..." high power halogen lamps, not HID.

Secondly, HID lamps as stated above draw 10 watts making them surprisingly efficient. Therefore they do not need powerful batteries.

The is some concern around the legal requirements the author breezes over the change in UK law about flashing LEDs. This was one of the industries pivotal moments, this should be stressed. Secondly, the author completely omits any reference to BSI standards, which in the UK stipulates what is road legal or not. BSI specifies, horizontal angle from ground level and beam divergence to the sides (thus preventing blinding of oncoming traffic and ensuring safety from the sides).

The external link is extremely concerning. It links to a bike light manufacturer in Germany. By German law these lights are illigal (law stipulates that bicycle lights be "dynamo systems" which these are not). Secondly not one of these systems meets the BSI standards. Thirdly the page demonstrates only systems the manufacturers' produce, this is blatant advertising. Very bad news. Remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stimz (talk • contribs) 13:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rechargable Battery Fud

Modern Ni-MH batteries should last just as long as an Alkline battery, so I am deleting the paragraph stating that recharagable batteries don't last very long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.41.51 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Older Nickel Metal Hydride batteries don't last very long, due to self discharge. However, the new breed of "low self discharge batteries" batteries last very well. Most NiMH on the market are the old type, but if you search around you can pick up the low-self-discharge ones, which are very well suited to bicycle lighting. Cheers, Lester 04:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This depends significantly on what you mean 'don't last very long'. If you are using your light for an hour or more per day every day your batteries aren't going to last more then a month or so anyway so self discharge becomes a lot less relevant. If you only occasionally used your bicycle light then self discharge does become a problem Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LED lights and BS 6102/3

I thought flashing LED lights were legal even IF they had a constant mode (but then that constant mode had to be BS6102/3 certified).81.178.230.19 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "How-to"

I've deleted the worst part of the "how-to" tone of this article, which caused me to tag it in the first place, and retitled one about "Choosing". The article could do with the advantages and disadvantages subtitles in the front and rear lighting sections made into prose, but that's not such a big issue. The overall tone reads as a how-to guide, although I'm not really sure how to remedy that. SeveroTC 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entering the LED era

It is becoming clear that we are entering into an era of LED-only bike lights. Even cars are going all-LED, like the Audi R8 which uses LEDs for all external lighting, including the headlamps. Halogen and HID bike lights are fast becoming less popular, and ending up on eBay as people upgrade to high-intensity LED systems. There are now LED bike lights on the market that are as bright as any Halogen or HID system. My point is, some of the text about HID and Halogen also needs upgrading. Some of the claims in the article about HID and Halogen are no longer valid, such as "High power output"; "Readily available"; "Reasonable battery capacity", "Very reliable". I'd like to say that these claims are dated, as there is nothing reliable about HID & Halogen (compared to LED), and there is nothing "reasonable" about their battery performance compared to LED. The article text needs updating. 124.170.206.4 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battery and light confusions

It seems to me that many of the disadvantages associated with halogen and even LED lights are disadvantages about present battery technology, not the lights themselves. It would be appropriate to say that one kind of light has a higher rate of power consumption then another, but listing battery problems as a disadvantage of a bulb is irrelevant. As an example, listing "Batteries have limited life, typically 500-1000 recharge cycles" as a disadvantage of halogen bulbs seems to be inappropriate in my opinion.--FlamingoChavez (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)