Talk:Bicycle lighting

message: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: legal requirements 

message: 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)
replies: text: No plans for major revisions, not sure about anyone else. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You seem well suited to update the section. Please, dive in. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEDs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing plans 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LED front lights 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've put one back - please discuss here if you don't think it should be included. -SCEhardT 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dynamo photos 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is a reference to a Danish survey showing a 32% decrease in casualties using bike lighting during the day. (google translate) I think you might want to check surveys from countries where people actually ride bikes in the street, like Holland or Denmark. There is of cause the whole language thing.--Thorseth (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the reference and removed the "lack of.." statement--Thorseth (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comments, Corrections and External Link. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  In fact if you ever see a discharge chart with both Ni-MH and alkalines you will see alkalines will last less than lower rated (mAh) NiMH. The reason is alkalines dont like "high discharge" (IIRC more than 350 mAh is considered high for alkalines). Some charts: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=214890, http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=224932. They are not bicyle lights but the discharge should be similar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.117.64.177 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rechargable Battery Fud 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LED lights and BS 6102/3 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "How-to" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Entering the LED era 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battery and light confusions 

message: I was mightily confused when reading this article. It reads as a how-to guide for what lights to pick if you live in a country where lights are not fitted to your bike by definition. In the Netherlands, there are strict legal requirements on bike lighting and heavy fines if you ride a bike which does not have working lights at night. Almost every new ordinary bike (that is, not a bike specifically designed for sports) will come with lighting, usually using an electric generator for the front light, and a battery-powered light on the back. The tail light used to be powered by the generator as well, but several years ago that changed in almost all new bikes (first only in high-end bikes, now it would be hard to find bikes which don't have a battery-powered taillight). Presumably this was done because the wiring (often in-frame) from the generator on the front wheel to the light on the back was known to break, and hard to fix.
Now, I realize that this is all Original Research, and I can't just chuck it in the article like this - but mind you, so is the current article. So for now I've tagged this with a globalize tag, and I hope that someone can fix some of the bias present in the article. Cheers! Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: I personally object to the contents which is critical of CPSC and sides with Forester's POV as well as presenting contents from  Foreter's opinion source as"it is generally believed that...".  The source uses a court case in which he was directly involved. WP:BIAS. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may object, but you may not censor, no matter how strong your personal views are. If CPSC disagrees with Forester, then it also has a POV, namely that reflectors are good enough and lights are not necessary. The best we can do is present both. Since the court case is with CPSC, it is "directly involved" just as much. The solution to correcting bias is to add balancing material, not remove unbalanced material. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If you don't want to use Forester, despite his publication history, then you can use Sheldon Brown's, John Allen's, or Bob Mionske's. If none of those work for you, try any of the studies cited by Forester. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, just look at Special:Contributions/Cantaloupe2. One long stream of crass bulk deletion section by section on the thinnest of excuses. Challenge a single reference, so delete the whole section heading-to-heading. No attempt to find new sources, no editing, let alone realising that a ref to support one claim is hardly a reason to blank an entire section.  Not AfD, because they require the consensus of others and this is anything but.  Articles created?  Content added?  What do you think?!   Not even our committed vandals are this regularly destructive overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Forester source on reflector issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bicycle lighting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005200344/http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/bike/BikeReport.pdf to http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/bike/BikeReport.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the Magnetic lights section could be improved. Currently it lists only one manufacturer, for me looks like an advertisement. My opinion may be biased here because I'm the designer of one of such lights, so I'm asking for you advice. Which external links are allowed and which - not? Currently this section refers to an article on The Verge about these Danish lights. Can I add two more makes and refer to each of their company's websites? Or would be a single external article covering all these magnetic lights preferred?
As for the Supplementary lighting and visibility - would it be OK to add a "Wheel-mounted lights" subsection? There is a lot of different wheel-mounted bike light designs out there and these should be included in that page, I suppose.
Filippovsemyon (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the Magnetic lights section: removed the link to The Verge article (it falls into the Links normally to be avoided list and there is a deleted video embedded), removed the "...while incurring less resistance to the rider than traditional dynamos and eliminating the noise and wear of the tire" part (it only relates to bottle dynamos, while comparison with hub dynamos would be more fair), added a short description of different designs and physical phenomena involved and added a CC-BY-licensed photo. Also created the Wheel-mounted lights section, where I've added a short description of different designs and added a CC-BY-SA-licensed photo as well. Filippovsemyon (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic lights and Supplementary lighting and visibility sections 

message: "Germany requires that all bikes over 11 kg be fitted with compliant dynamo lighting systems, but even lightweight bikes are required to be fitted with lights (battery powered lights allowed) except when racing." This is the old §67 StVZO. 
Since 2017:
https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/10146/a175970.htm
--46.79.79.88 (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements in Germany have changed in 2017 

message: Powered by a roller against the rim?  The only ones I've ever seen have had the roller running on the tyre. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom-bracket dynamos