What Flashing Tail Light are Members Using?

[VirtuallyMiranda]

I own a Garmin Varia and I love it for for longer rides where traffic is light; it's mostly the radar I love and because I find I have to charge it relatively frequently and also use a bike computer to pair it with, it requires forethought. So not my first choice when I just want a tail light. I have used a Cygolite HotShot and it wins for brightness. But my go-to light for commuting has become this super inexpensive smart light: https://www.aliexpress.us/item/2251832703693311.html
It lasts for ages, like ... weeks, between charges, is super easy to remove for charging and then to ensure it is securely refastened, its brightness is probably somewhere between the Garmin and the Cygolite, but far and away the best feature is that it does auto-on with any movement, and auto-off when entirely stationary. I have enough to worry about getting ready for a ride (battery, shell clothing, helmet, goggles, lock/keys, loading panniers, etc.). I love that I don't have to think about my tail light.

 

[Kayakguy]

I was all for the flashing bike tail light until I discovered how such light (especially a bright one) irritated me as a driver and how badly it affected my night vision.

Just saying.

Red lights supposedly don't affect night vision, or so I've been told.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

Red lights supposedly don't affect night vision, or so I've been told.

Blinking bright red lights do.

 

[VirtuallyMiranda]

Red lights supposedly don't affect night vision, or so I've been told.

Pure red light has a minimal effect on the dark-adaptation of the rod cells in the retinal periphery when it comes to perceiving very dim light. But I think if tail lights are bright enough they can certainly produce glare and halo effects for people with even mild lens opacity (early cataracts), and reduce the ability to see objects with the cone cells in the fovea (focal area), not to mention that the flashing can certainly be distracting and create sensory stress for many people.

miranda

 

[mschwett]

Pure red light has a minimal effect on the dark-adaptation of the rod cells in the retinal periphery when it comes to perceiving very dim light. But I think if tail lights are bright enough they can certainly produce glare and halo effects for people with even mild lens opacity (early cataracts), and reduce the ability to see objects with the cone cells in the fovea (focal area), not to mention that the flashing can certainly be distracting and create sensory stress for many people.

miranda

there seems to be quite a bit of variation in the law around this from country to country and state to state. quite a few studies show how much more “attention getting” a flashing light is, which for me is the primary goal of a tail light. i set mine for full time flashing in the day, changing frequency to flash more rapidly when a car approaches, and solid at night, turning to flashing as a car approaches.

A 2017 study from Clemson University compared the visibility of flashing and steady rear lights. Using a long, straight road and a curved road, researchers looked at how light choice affected detection distance.

The study found the flashing light was far superior on the straight road, allowing detection of the rider from three times the distance of the steady light. This equated to detection 82m sooner, on average.

 

[VirtuallyMiranda]

From a sensory standpoint I much prefer taillights that have a "throb" setting. I would love to see studies about whether this setting still offers better detection at a distance than a solid light, because I find it much less annoying than a flashing one.

Miranda

 

[mschwett]

From a sensory standpoint I much prefer taillights that have a "throb" setting. I would love to see studies about whether this setting still offers better detection at a distance than a solid light, because I find it much less annoying than a flashing one.

Miranda

i haven’t seen such a study. but i’m a lot more concerned about someone getting killed than annoyed. the varia “steady flash” is fairly slow and gradual.

 

[VirtuallyMiranda]

i haven’t seen such a study. but i’m a lot more concerned about someone getting killed than annoyed. the varia “steady flash” is fairly slow and gradual.

Yes, I'd characterize the Varia as more of a throb than a flash. But by annoying I mean harsh at a sensory level, rather than just at an emotional level: something that causes you to blink, squint and look away, which obviously isn't good for safety.

 

[Stefan Mikes]

I don't want to generalize as we live on different continents and in different countries with different drivers' mentality and behaviour so I can only talk for myself and Poland/Mazovia.

Whenever I drive at dark night and spot a cyclist with a "road blinder" tail-light emitting quick blinks at 70 lm, the road in front of me becomes totally invisible; I have an urge to kill the cyclist! His tail-light is an equivalent of, say, a 1700 lm headlight if he rode from the opposite side! It is good we have not a small number of bike paths around, and the flashing tail-light is less dangerous in such a situation.

When riding myself, I use the stock steady lights of my e-bikes, and these LEDs are really bright. There was no single situation a driver would not spot me.

Again, it is my country and my area.

 

[Deacon Blues]

There's an odd phenomenon (target fixation) that causes people to steer towards whatever they're they're looking at.
Stefan's on to something here. During the daylight hours a flashing light is noticeable, but, in most cases, not bright enough to really stand out, and cause target fixation, but at night I would think it's a different story. The urge to drive towards that very bright, flashing light would be huge. Your eyes would be drawn to it.

 

[m@Robertson]

There's an odd phenomenon (target fixation) that causes people to steer towards whatever they're they're looking at.

I brought this up earlier as the 'moth effect'. However the studies out there have noted its existence, but taken pains to also note its effect is unproven; only noting it may exist. What has been noted is it is prone to affect an impaired (i.e. drunk) driver rather than a sober one. Which is not exactly comforting but it does limit the population likely to plow into you.

What a sole blinker does for sure, which has been studied and confirmed, is increase the visibility of the thing blinking, while at the same time hampering the oncoming vehicle's ability to track the blinking object's motion. So positive and negative, and its not as bad as all that. If it were, and evidence existed to confirm all the negative waves emanating here, I am certain a state like California would outlaw them and create some kind of re-education camp.

As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I have experienced the motion-tracking issue myself as a rider in the early (early!) pre-dawn hours. I'm on a 28 mph commuter and the blinker is a recreational analog rider going less than half that speed, so I'm overtaking. Given the rural roads in my area, there are no streetlights on some stretches bordering orchards. On a long straight street that goes on for a few miles, its almost impossible to figure out how far away that blinker is until I'm fairly close. If an auto was traveling at the speed limit (50 mph) instead of my speed, they would be on top of that rider in no time.

BUT I can see that blinker from waaaay off. Between what the studies say and what I see on the road (i.e. steady automobile taillights passing me by don't blind me or unusually affect my night vision) I also use two steady lights to supplement the blinker and give drivers back that ability to track my motion.

 

[dodgeman]

This is the light I use, it can be on solid, blinking, or three blinks and a pause.