While everyone is bashing BUMM, we shouldn't forget that one of theirlamps is clearly the very best in the world

While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding, we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best in the world.

I mean that literally. The best rear lamp in the world is a cheap-looking, plasticky, but very light and electrically and optically efficient, BUMM lamp called the Toplight Line, which has something called Linetek technology, which shapes a fresnel to spread the light of a single bright LED along a line which research proves is more visible to other road users than a point-source rear lamp.

Credit where it is due.

Andre Jute

On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:19:02 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding, we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best in the world.

I mean that literally. The best rear lamp in the world is a cheap-looking, plasticky, but very light and electrically and optically efficient, BUMM lamp called the Toplight Line, which has something called Linetek technology, which shapes a fresnel to spread the light of a single bright LED along a line which research proves is more visible to other road users than a point-source rear lamp.

Credit where it is due.

Andre Jute

The only way to improve BUMM's Toplight Line would be to give it a flashing mode so that one doesn't have to carry, and find a space to fit, a flashing rear lamp as well.

Those thick German legislators have this shortfall to answer for as well. And it isn't even as if not having flashing lights is a matter of principle with them. They deny flashing lamps to utilitly and commuting cyclists, who need them more than anyone else, but permit them to racng cyclists, who ride mostly in daylight. That makes zero sense, a patently irrational decision.

Andre Jute

On 10/21/2013 12:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:19:02 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding, we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best in the world.

I mean that literally. The best rear lamp in the world is a cheap-looking, plasticky, but very light and electrically and optically efficient, BUMM lamp called the Toplight Line, which has something called Linetek technology, which shapes a fresnel to spread the light of a single bright LED along a line which research proves is more visible to other road users than a point-source rear lamp.

Credit where it is due.

Andre Jute

The only way to improve BUMM's Toplight Line would be to give it a flashing mode so that one doesn't have to carry, and find a space to fit, a flashing rear lamp as well.

Those thick German legislators have this shortfall to answer for as well. And it isn't even as if not having flashing lights is a matter of principle with them. They deny flashing lamps to utilitly and commuting cyclists, who need them more than anyone else, but permit them to racng cyclists, who ride mostly in daylight. That makes zero sense, a patently irrational decision.

Their legal system seems to be based on the premise of "Let's pass more
dumb laws regulating activities that we know nothing about, even if it
makes those activities more dangerous." Actually, there intentions are
probably good, they just lack the knowledge to craft reasonable laws
that strike a balance between the needs of cyclists and imagined issues
with flashing lights.

I suspect that using a flashing rear light in Germany would result in a
ticket and fine. In the U.S., even before flashing lights were legal,
they were widely used (starting with the Belt Beacon) and I doubt if
anyone ever got cited.

What's amusing is that there are people in the U.S. that for some reason
believe that these German legislators are somehow experts on bicycle
lighting, so they sing the praises of clearly inferior lights apparently
believing that if it's German, and complies with the StVZO standard, it
must be good. Reminds me of a friend whose neighbor was constantly
repairing his Mercedes in his driveway. Every time my friend saw him
under the car he would walk over and say "da German vay is zee only vay."

The Germans laugh at Americans that romanticize about awful German
products like the BMW Izeta and the East German Trabant. No doubt they
would laugh at anyone that believes that the StVZO compliant lights are
the be-all and end-all in terms of bicycle lights.

On Monday, October 21, 2013 3:59:44 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

What's amusing is that there are people in the U.S. that for some reason
believe that these German legislators are somehow experts on bicycle
lighting, so they sing the praises of clearly inferior lights apparently
believing that if it's German, and complies with the StVZO standard, it
must be good.

Wrong, of course. You seem opaque to the fact that essentially ALL legal road vehicle beams share most of the characteristics of the German beams we're discussing.

Vehicle beams are not round beams, like flashlight beams, so they don't waste lots of light upward into the trees, and so they reduce glare in the eyes of other road users. Instead, they re-focus that upward light to shine further down the road, to see objects at a distance. And in the near field, they smoothly decrease the light hitting the road close to the vehicle, to give even illumination without glaring hot spots that are detrimental to night vision.

Those crazy Germans are paying attention to the same optic principles as the designers of car headlights, truck headlights, motorcycle headlights, scooter headlights, and probably even golf cart headlights.

Only self-proclaimed "guerrilla marketers" who get commissions on Chinese flashlights seem to think all other vehicle headlight beams are wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:24:12 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 3:59:44 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:



What's amusing is that there are people in the U.S. that for some reason

believe that these German legislators are somehow experts on bicycle

lighting, so they sing the praises of clearly inferior lights apparently

believing that if it's German, and complies with the StVZO standard, it

must be good.



Wrong, of course. You seem opaque to the fact that essentially ALL legal road vehicle beams share most of the characteristics of the German beams we're discussing.



Vehicle beams are not round beams, like flashlight beams, so they don't waste lots of light upward into the trees, and so they reduce glare in the eyes of other road users. Instead, they re-focus that upward light to shine further down the road, to see objects at a distance. And in the near field, they smoothly decrease the light hitting the road close to the vehicle, to give even illumination without glaring hot spots that are detrimental to night vision.



Those crazy Germans are paying attention to the same optic principles as the designers of car headlights, truck headlights, motorcycle headlights, scooter headlights, and probably even golf cart headlights.



Only self-proclaimed "guerrilla marketers" who get commissions on Chinese flashlights seem to think all other vehicle headlight beams are wrong.



- Frank Krygowski

Yo, Franki-boy, if this German legislation on bicycle lamps, which effectively forced second-rate low beams on cyclists, as if they are second class citizens, which you've told us for years is so great, was so great, how come they had to get off their fat arises and change it? How come even BUMM with the most expensive Luxos tried for a lamp throwing wider and higher if they didn't realize something was wrong with their lamps all along?

I mean, you aren't so stupid that you don't understand the implications of two different sets of legislation, or are you? I mean, we grasp that a fascist authoritarian like you suffers from kneejerk approval of "authorities" everywhere, but stupidity added to your bullying would be too much to tolerate.

Scharfie is right about you where he says, "What's amusing is that there are people in the U.S. that for some reason believe that these German legislators are somehow experts on bicycle
lighting, so they sing the praises of clearly inferior lights apparently
believing that if it's German, and complies with the StVZO standard, it
must be good." He should have added, "whatever the 'standard' is from day to day." (This doesn't imply that I agree with Scharfie that a Cyo lamp is inferior to a homebrew MR11/16. I have both, and the Cyo is a superior lamp in a number of crucial aspects, mainly to do with the convenience of automobilists rather than my riding efficiency, whereas the round lamp is superior in fewer aspects but those essential to my safety on the roads I ride.)

Let's get this on the table once and for all. Bicycle lamps are bad, and bicycling at night is more dangerous than it needs to be because the lamps are bad. The lamps could be so much better, but in the States they will never be, because of kneejerk morons like Krygowski who approve of repressive German measures that turn cyclists into second-class citizens, subservient to the interests of automobilists.

Krygowski can't even be consistent. If his mantra of "vehicular cycling", no matter how intrinsically stupid and dangerous it might be to cyclists, is ever to have any meaning, cyclists should have the same rights as motorists, including the right to both low and high beam lamps. Period. Any argument against this point is a betrayal of cyclists in general, and the vehicular cyclists in particular. Not that that will stop the idiot Krygowski from automatically condemning everything I say, however sensible, purely because it is me saying it.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus
Policies, not personalities -- Lord Chesterfield to his son

On 10/21/2013 3:44 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

Yo, Franki-boy, if this German legislation on bicycle lamps, which effectively forced second-rate low beams on cyclists, as if they are second class citizens, which you've told us for years is so great, was so great, how come they had to get off their fat arises and change it? How come even BUMM with the most expensive Luxos tried for a lamp throwing wider and higher if they didn't realize something was wrong with their lamps all along?

On 10/21/2013 3:44 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

snip

He should have added, "whatever the 'standard' is from day to day."
(This doesn't imply that I agree with Scharfie that a Cyo lamp is
inferior to a homebrew MR11/16. I have both, and the Cyo is a superior
lamp in a number of crucial aspects, mainly to do with the convenience
of automobilists rather than my riding efficiency, whereas the round
lamp is superior in fewer aspects but those essential to my safety on
the roads I ride.)

Well laws evolve and presumably advances in both motor vehicle
headlights and bicycle lights finally made the German legislators
realize that there had to be some changes, though those changes didn't
go far enough. The "off-road" only schtick on the Supernova E3 Triple
reminds me of the disclaimer you'll see on lights for true SUVs (not
MTVs (Mall Terrain Vehicles)) where they also say "For Off-Road Use
Only." But we're talking about lamps in the 90-130W range of power
consumption, not a 5-10W bicycle light that's not going to blind any
driver if it's properly aimed.

Let's get this on the table once and for all. Bicycle lamps are bad, and bicycling at night is more dangerous than it needs to be because the lamps are bad. The lamps could be so much better, but in the States they will never be, because of kneejerk morons like Krygowski who approve of repressive German measures that turn cyclists into second-class citizens, subservient to the interests of automobilists.

Oh please, the miniscule number of cyclsts that approve of the German
standards have absolutely no effect on bicycle lights available in the
U.S.. In the U.S. cyclists are buying proper lights from a large number
of manufacturers, from Magicshine clones on the low end to $500 systems
from Light snd Motion. Without removing your shoes, you could count the
number of people that foolishly believe that the StVZO standard is g-d's
gift to bicycle lighting; that's why it's merely amusing and not an
actual threat to cyclists in the U.S..

On 10/21/2013 12:15 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:19:02 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
While everyone is meanly bashing BUMM for being supinely law-abiding, we shouldn't forget that one of their lamps is clearly the very best in the world.

I mean that literally. The best rear lamp in the world is a cheap-looking, plasticky, but very light and electrically and optically efficient, BUMM lamp called the Toplight Line, which has something called Linetek technology, which shapes a fresnel to spread the light of a single bright LED along a line which research proves is more visible to other road users than a point-source rear lamp.

Credit where it is due.

Andre Jute

The only way to improve BUMM's Toplight Line would be to give it a flashing mode so that one doesn't have to carry, and find a space to fit, a flashing rear lamp as well.

Those thick German legislators have this shortfall to answer for as well. And it isn't even as if not having flashing lights is a matter of principle with them. They deny flashing lamps to utilitly and commuting cyclists, who need them more than anyone else, but permit them to racng cyclists, who ride mostly in daylight. That makes zero sense, a patently irrational decision.

The good thing (in the U.S. anyway) is that just as a rear red flasher
became the de-facto identifying characteristic of a bicycle as seen from
the rear, powerful front flashers are becoming the de-facto daytime
identifying characteristic of a bicycle as seen from the front. Thank
the bicycle light manufacturers for this development. Vehicle operators
are conditioned to look for these identifying characteristics and it
registers in their brain that there's a bicycle present. You don't get
the same sort of awareness by vehicle operators by just wearing an
orange vest! The down side is that vehicle operators now almost _expect_
a bicycle operator to take steps to make themselves conspicuous in the
daytime by the use of a front flashing light so those cyclists that lack
such a device are at a big disadvantage.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Monday, October 21, 2013 3:59:44 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

What's amusing is that there are people in the U.S. that for some reason
believe that these German legislators are somehow experts on bicycle
lighting, so they sing the praises of clearly inferior lights apparently
believing that if it's German, and complies with the StVZO standard, it
must be good.

Wrong, of course. You seem opaque to the fact that essentially ALL legal road vehicle beams share most of the characteristics of the German beams we're discussing.

Vehicle beams are not round beams, like flashlight beams, so they don't waste lots of light upward into the trees, and so they reduce glare in the eyes of other road users. Instead, they re-focus that upward light to shine further down the road, to see objects at a distance. And in the near field, they smoothly decrease the light hitting the road close to the vehicle, to give even illumination without glaring hot spots that are detrimental to night vision.

Those crazy Germans are paying attention to the same optic principles as the designers of car headlights, truck headlights, motorcycle headlights, scooter headlights, and probably even golf cart headlights.


I'm not agreeing with Steven's position, but the problem of bicycle
headlights carries a *huge* constraint (input power) differentiating
it from any of those other "vehicle" applications.

snip

On Monday, October 21, 2013 10:46:11 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:

I'm not agreeing with Steven's position, but the problem of bicycle
headlights carries a *huge* constraint (input power) differentiating
it from any of those other "vehicle" applications.

Seems to me that would argue for putting the lumens where they do the most good, and NOT wasting them upwards just because a primitive round beam requires no optical design.

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/21/2013 7:46 PM, Dan wrote:

snip

I'm not agreeing with Steven's position, but the problem of bicycle
headlights carries a *huge* constraint (input power) differentiating
it from any of those other "vehicle" applications.

It's not just the input power constraints that differentiate the actual
requirements of bicycle lights from those of motor vehicle lights,
though that's one of the differences.

The core issue is that those that promote the StVZO standard simply
don't understand, or don't want to admit that they _do_ understand, all
of the differences. Perhaps it's because they are so committed to the
"vehicular cycling" movement. After all, if a bicycle is to be treated
as any other vehicle, it should have he same equipment regulations--even
though it really doesn't.