Hacker News Reader

If you see the biker then I think the lights did a good job. I suppose you could make an argument that it could blind people and they hit someone/something but I never heard of that happing - I only hear bikers getting hit because they were not seen.

View on HN

> the lights did a good job

No, absolutely not.

Lights are to help the cyclist SEE.

To be SEEN you need reflectors. [1]

Worse, if a cyclist's frontlight is blinding other cyclists coming at him it means they're failing both the others AND themselves, as: The oncoming ones can't see shit and are more likely to make a mistake and the rider themselves isn't illuminating the ground ahead of them so they can't actually see where they're going.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfWzeGlaFvI

i'm a cyclist and i sometimes have to stop and get off my bike and wait for an oncoming cyclist to pass me (eg, on a multipath). it's not necessarily the brightness, it's that it's not constructed to be visible (and/or illuminate the road) without also blinding oncoming traffic. fortunately i haven't ever hit someone or something while blinded by an oncoming cyclist, but that's in spite of the crap bike light, not because it did a good job.

Yes, me too. I'm a daily bike commuter and am quite sympathetic to the being seen aspect. This goes way beyond that in some cases. Case in point: a good chunk of my ride goes through the Portland Springwater corridor. This is a dedicated bike/pedestrian path. Much of it is unlit at night. I've seen these riders a half mile ago (~2 minutes) and by the time we're getting close enough to matter their lights are blinding. It's like a driver who refuses to dim their high beams for oncoming traffic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com