Told tonight that my rear light 'is too bright and illegal'....?

fudgey

To set the scene i cycled to work today, and left at 5pmish, while going down one particular narrowish back lane that has overhanging trees etc so very dark i turned on my second front light as the road has some massive pot holes along it and i couldnt see bugger all.
Up front i have an ebay special £17 3200lm light and a BBB strike 500lm light, and on the rear a Knog blinder R which was on the fast flash mode.

Now, i was aware of a car behind me so pulled into a passing place and slowed down, only for the chap to stop right next to me making me stop. He then goes on to tell me that my rear light was illegal as he couldnt see to get past me - my reply of its a narrow road, that was why i moved over to let you pass had fallen on deaf ears as he kept going on that it was too bright.
I asked him if he seen me? The reply was yes, so i said isnt that the point of a cyclist using lights in the dark - to be seen by other motorists.
He said 'well, at least you have lights' and drove off. So i set off, got up to speed thinking knob and then he slams the brakes on and stops right in front of me... By this this point im pretty pissed off so pull up alongside and he starts telling me my front lights are even worse!
They are angled down to about 10' in front so i can see where im going, not level etc to dazzle oncoming motorists.
I just called him a cock and carried on, he followed me for a good 3/4 of a mile until the road widened and then over took me shouting to turn my front lights off...

I am trying to understand if he was serious or just trying to be clever.

I have never had any trouble off anyone before using these lights so a bit miffed really.

fat daddy

They might well be too bright ... I followed someone in the rain the other night and his rear was painfully blinding, I struggled to over take as I couldn't see past him due to the intense red reflecting off everything and when I looked over my shoulder to check for cars all I could see was a dark blob burned into my retina

So some lights can be too bright

wishitwasallflat

He was serious.

He was serious because he is a dick.

You are correct - if he saw you your lights are good - if you saw the road clearly ahead your lights are good - if your lights were so bright a dick was reluctant to overtake you then your lights are excellent.

If an astronaut complains their moon landing was disrupted by your lights then your lights may need to be angled a little lower but they are good.

wishitwasallflat

fat daddy wrote:

They might well be too bright ... I followed someone in the rain the other night and his rear was painfully blinding, I struggled to over take as I couldn't see past him due to the intense red reflecting off everything and when I looked over my shoulder to check for cars all I could see was a dark blob burned into my retina

So some lights can be too bright

Perhaps you shouldnt have overtaken, have you ever considered driving a little slower for everyone's safety? How much of a problem would it be if it your journeys took you a bit longer?

meanredspider

3200lm up front is absurd for normal road use - that's probably more than my car puts out. Personally I've made do with 250lm on forest-lined highland roads - though I do believe we all have different sensitivities to low light.

A Knog "blinder" might do just that. There's such thing as too much light.

meanredspider

wishitwasallflat wrote:

Perhaps you shouldnt have overtaken, have you ever considered driving a little slower for everyone's safety? How much of a problem would it be if it your journeys took you a bit longer?

Maybe spare a thought for the cyclists that have to follow such lights...

redvision

What a load of cr@p.
Cycle weekly (may be it was bike radar...) had an article on this topic last month.

The law states minimum requirements for front and rear bicycle lights, but no maximum brightness.
The law actually states that all pedals must also have reflectors but so long as you have a rear light then most plod wouldnt bother stopping you (I've never known one person to be stopped for no pedal reflectors).

Ignore the tw@t.

webboo

I got flagged down by a guy driving towards me on an unlit lane, who said my front light( Cateye Volt 800 ) was blinding. He was perfectly reasonable about and I just pointed it down a bit more.

I then bought a 1250 to go with it :twisted:

cougie

Mate has a knog blinder. Doesnt seem illegally bright and unless you look directly at a light i dont see how you would have it burnt into your retinas.

fudgey

The 3200lm front light was pointing down a lot as i was aware it was bright, i did turn the 500lm off after that road also.

My mate has a Moon rear light and that thing is painful if you are behind him but he has never complained about mine.

I just thought that was the whole point of lights - to be seen.

I usually wear reflective bands on my ankles too, but forgot those today..

scoobers

I would suggest that he was driving far too close to you if he thought your rear light was too bright. He should have been concentrating on the road ahead instead of looking in his mirror, especially on dark narrow roads.

awavey

redvision wrote:

What a load of cr@p.
Cycle weekly (may be it was bike radar...) had an article on this topic last month.

The law states minimum requirements for front and rear bicycle lights, but no maximum brightness.
The law actually states that all pedals must also have reflectors but so long as you have a rear light then most plod wouldnt bother stopping you (I've never known one person to be stopped for no pedal reflectors).

Ignore the tw@t.

theres no law on maximum brightness for sure, but there is a law that says you must not use lights in a way which would dazzle or cause discomfort to other road users, your choice as to how you interpret that but dont assume just because theres no maximum defined its free reign to use what you like.

DeVlaeminck

Unless the guy stops several cyclists on each journey just for fun it's likely the lights were bright enough to be annoying. Whether they were dangerous is another matter though 3200 lumens certainly has that potential - it was only a few years back that anything over 500 or so was considered unsuitable for road use - 3200 is excessive.

Matthewfalle

wishitwasallflat wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

They might well be too bright ... I followed someone in the rain the other night and his rear was painfully blinding, I struggled to over take as I couldn't see past him due to the intense red reflecting off everything and when I looked over my shoulder to check for cars all I could see was a dark blob burned into my retina

So some lights can be too bright

Perhaps you shouldnt have overtaken, have you ever considered driving a little slower for everyone's safety? How much of a problem would it be if it your journeys took you a bit longer?

Errr - I think he was on his bicycle. Both of them.

Matthewfalle

Matthewfalle wrote:

wishitwasallflat wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

They might well be too bright ... I followed someone in the rain the other night and his rear was painfully blinding, I struggled to over take as I couldn't see past him due to the intense red reflecting off everything and when I looked over my shoulder to check for cars all I could see was a dark blob burned into my retina

So some lights can be too bright

Perhaps you shouldnt have overtaken, have you ever considered driving a little slower for everyone's safety? How much of a problem would it be if it your journeys took you a bit longer?

Errr - I think he was on his bicycle. Both of them.

As in both people on separate bicycles, not fat daddy on both his bicycles.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

napoleond

It may well be that the flashing caused the discomfort and difficulties. Fronts can indeed be worse, heading towards a cyclist whether on my bike, running, walking, driving, whatever who has ridiculously powerful lights on full on disco strobe mode can be so bad as to cause me to stop and wait for them to go past. I'd suggest that is an offfence.
The clue is on the name of that rear light. Try it on constant mode rather than flashing?

feisty

I have the BBB 500. I only ever use it on its highest setting when in pitch black. It is incredibly bright and blinding. I use it on the middle setting on lit roads and have been told even then it's a bright light. Your other front light sounds unsuitable for riding on lit roads to me.

Bobbinogs

I do weekly club rides at night and rear lights can be a real issue due to over brightness. Lezyne do a rear light which, even on the lowest setting, is simply blinding to ride behind.

Pituophis

I have a Lezyne 1000/500/250 lumen front light (adjustable, obviously.) When I have tried it on 500 lumens flashing, I sometimes get approaching cars flashing me back! I tried it on 1000 solid on a country lane the night I got it, and some of the guys I was riding with said it was a bit over the top.
I tend to use it on 250 flashing, switching it solid and up to 500 for very dark sections on back roads. 1000 lumens does seem a little unnecessary.
Similarly, a pal has a very bright rear light, and I tend to stay in front if possible. I think it's a ploy.

Maybe its down to the individual? I find the new LED car headlights far too bright when they are following me in my car, and am always flipping the mirror up.
A cyclist who doesn't give a f*** if they are blinding drivers is no better than the c*ck who drives about with their full beam headlights on. :shock:

AK_jnr

There was a guy on a chaingang a few years ago with some ridiculously bright wired thing! I couldnt bare to ride near him it was painful.
My front light tends to slip upwards over bumps so I always make a note to cover it a bit when coming across cars down unlit country roads.

webboo

The advantage of a high lumens light is that they last for longer on the lower settings. I tend to use my 800 on the lowest flashing mode and when I need to be able to see the road use the 1250 on the 950 setting pointing down. Back lights one on flashing, one on constant.
On the narrow country roads I have been using drivers coming towards me often pull in to the side of the road to let me past. I get the occasional driver who has full beam on and doesn't dip.
I often find that a lot of drivers appear to have their head lights set pointing up. I find this a real issue driving on unlit roads.

ayjaycee

NapoleonD wrote:

It may well be that the flashing caused the discomfort and difficulties. Fronts can indeed be worse, heading towards a cyclist whether on my bike, running, walking, driving, whatever who has ridiculously powerful lights on full on disco strobe mode can be so bad as to cause me to stop and wait for them to go past. I'd suggest that is an offfence.
The clue is on the name of that rear light. Try it on constant mode rather than flashing?

Pituophis wrote:

.........A cyclist who doesn't give a f*** if they are blinding drivers is no better than the c*ck who drives about with their full beam headlights on. :shock:

IMHO, these are two of the more sensible contributions to this thread. I sometimes encounter fellow cyclists on my local lanes and cycle paths whose lights are simply too bright (whether by sheer power or bad positioning) and it is sometimes impossible to see past them - NV gets impacted and, even if it's momentary, that's not a good thing. Some rear light can be just as bad. Personally, the first thing that I do on refitting my lights is to switch them on and move 10M or so away to see how they look from there.

Anonymous

Of course lights can be too bright, but I do not think the Knog Blinder (silly name) would be.

I would have thought it was more the epileptic educing flash mode that was annoying him than the brightness.

Personally I use a slow flash mode in daylight, and full brightness (no flash) or 'pulse' at night.

You want to be seen but not annoy.

I think bike light manufacturers are causing a problem for cyclists by having the stupid fast flash modes.
They look good in the shop as you toggle through them, but I fail to see any point to them other than to pi55 car drivers off.

It seems v silly to encourage a car to overtake you badly just because your rear light is annoying them.
Its like the people who drive at 45 in a 60 and cause a head on crash when they are overtaken by a frustrated driver behind them.

lesfirth

Pituophis wrote:

A cyclist who doesn't give a f*** if they are blinding drivers is no better than the c*ck who drives about with their full beam headlights on. :shock:

Not exactly as I would have put it but I agree entirely.

cougie

Still the fault of the overtaking driver. Not the fault of the slower driver at all.

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

Still the fault of the overtaking driver. Not the fault of the slower driver at all.

Thats a sweet thought but not very realistic IMO.

Just the fact more overtaking manouvers are performed means that there is then a chance of something going wrong.

cougie

By that logic then cyclists shouldnt be on the Road too? 60 is only the max speed. You dont have to drive at it.

What about speed limited vehicles too? Ban them?

God forbid drivers actually take responsibility for their own actions eh?

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

3200lm up front is absurd for normal road use - that's probably more than my car puts out. Personally I've made do with 250lm on forest-lined highland roads - though I do believe we all have different sensitivities to low light.

A Knog "blinder" might do just that. There's such thing as too much light.

This.

I use 400 Lumen front and a cheap flashing light rear...

Anonymous

cougie wrote:

By that logic then cyclists shouldnt be on the Road too? 60 is only the max speed. You dont have to drive at it.

What about speed limited vehicles too? Ban them?

God forbid drivers actually take responsibility for their own actions eh?

Er, no, cyclists generally share a lane so thats a stupid thing to say.

You don't 'have to' or 'not have to' do a lot of things in life, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't or should!

There are minimum speed limits in the world and they are there for a reason.
Do you think all current speed limits, road laws and markings are perfect then?
i.e. maybe there should be minimum limits.

What vehicles are limited to 45 mph or less?
Thats completely different from choosing to drive at slower speeds and clearly (if they are even looking) see no one on front of you for miles, yet a big snaking line of cars all bunched up behind you.

Taking responsibility for your own actions is exactly what I am talking about lol

People driving stupidly slow must cause accidents.
Sure you can blame the person overtaking, or even the other driver involved, but at the end of the day it was the slow driver that started the whole chain of events and it might just have been better if they 'took a bit more responsibility' for their actions

fat daddy

Matthewfalle wrote:

Errr - I think he was on his bicycle. Both of them.

Yeah, I was cycling .... I suppose his point still stands though I could have dropped back 25m and cycled home at 7mph. I didn't though I waited until there was no cars passing and over took as quickly as I could whilst muttering about cheap Chinese lights off ebay with 30billion lumens blinding the crap out of every one.

ultimately, as much as mega lights are not illegal, they don't necessarily make you safer, there are plenty of drivers that will pass you at any cost, if they loose track of where you are doing this due to being half blinded by the light, at least when you are lying in hospital, you can lay there in the righteousness that you were in the right.

Its a difficult call to make though as you cant follow your self on a journey and decide how visible you are where you are lacking visibility

ugo.santalucia

The sector needs regulations (said the man who hates regulations)... some products on the market are just plain silly... 2K Lumen are needed if you travel at 70 mph, but if you only do 20, you don't need that kind of output... the fact that you can direct it wherever you fancy, makes it dangerous to other road users (and yourself of course)