Low (dipped) vs high-beam debate [Archive]

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 17:30

I hope this doesn't mean some moronic imbecile is trying to allow full beam headlights to be used when other traffic is about?

actually.. yes.. moronic imbeciles aside you're more visible on highbeam with a properly adjusted headlight (shouldnt blind anyway - mines 110w and bright as hell but doesnt cause blindness), so there shouldn't be a problem. I ride in auckland traffic daily and can tell from experience that i have more issues when my light isn't on high beam.

Also: https://www.toi.no/publications/glare-effecs-of-high-beam-on-motorcycles-in-daylight-article18249-29.html

The effects on other road users are so minimal compared to the gain in visibility that there is no question we should be using highbeam in daylight.

The results showed no difference between the headlight conditions on neither visual acuity nor contrast sensitivity. This indicates that motorcycles using the high beam in
ordinary day light conditions do not degrade the visual abilities of oncoming drivers.

russd7

3rd July 2013, 18:22

shouldn't have to have the bloody light on during day, more problems since i started riding with light on than before when i rode with it off, the whole thing is a stuff up, only way to fix is make it illegal for cars to travel in daylight with lights on,

actually.. yes.. moronic imbeciles aside you're more visible on highbeam with a properly adjusted headlight (shouldnt blind anyway - mines 110w and bright as hell but doesnt cause blindness), so there shouldn't be a problem. I ride in auckland traffic daily and can tell from experience that i have more issues when my light isn't on high beam.

and as for bikes riding with full beam, i agree in principal but as for not blinding, what a load of bull crap, when im in the cage and a modern bike with modern lights comes towards with light on high beam it is bloody blinding, what is worse, a driver that cant see where they are going because they have been blinded by some dickhead riding with his light on full or a driver that happens to be able to see where he is going and stay on their own side of road

swbarnett

3rd July 2013, 18:45

(shouldnt blind anyway - mines 110w and bright as hell but doesnt cause blindness)
Do you really know that? Have you stopped drivers to ask? Blindness aside it ceratinly increases eye fatigue and distracts drivers. I find it hard to concentrate on anything else when I have a bike behind me with high beem on - to the point that I have pulled over to let them pass and can feel the pain in my eyes ease.

swbarnett

3rd July 2013, 18:54

Also: https://www.toi.no/publications/glare-effecs-of-high-beam-on-motorcycles-in-daylight-article18249-29.html

The effects on other road users are so minimal compared to the gain in visibility that there is no question we should be using highbeam in daylight.
Just read the abstract to this. It's talking about oncoming drivers. I agree that this isn't the problem it could be. The problem is when you're following.

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 19:02

and as for bikes riding with full beam, i agree in principal but as for not blinding, what a load of bull crap, when im in the cage and a modern bike with modern lights comes towards with light on high beam it is bloody blinding, what is worse, a driver that cant see where they are going because they have been blinded by some dickhead riding with his light on full or a driver that happens to be able to see where he is going and stay on their own side of road
Time to get your eyes checked?

Do you really know that? Have you stopped drivers to ask? Blindness aside it ceratinly increases eye fatigue and distracts drivers. I find it hard to concentrate on anything else when I have a bike behind me with high beem on - to the point that I have pulled over to let them pass and can feel the pain in my eyes ease.
as noted, its oncoming. If they are behind you there is a little lever on your mirror you can use to dim it.

I've never heard of anyone going "Sorry Mate, I did see you, your headlight was so bright i couldnt miss it, but I smashed you anyway".

Rule #5 - harden the fuck up..

bogan

3rd July 2013, 19:06

I've never heard of anyone going "Sorry Mate, I did see you, your headlight was so bright i couldnt miss it, but I smashed you anyway".

Nothing has been said about hitting the fuckwit using high beam, its effect is to cause eye strain and fatigue causing the dazzled driver to be more at risk of hitting something else; which swbarnett explained pretty well I thought.

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 19:44

Nothing has been said about hitting the fuckwit using high beam, its effect is to cause eye strain and fatigue causing the dazzled driver to be more at risk of hitting something else; which swbarnett explained pretty well I thought.

yeah except.. as the testing shows.. it doesnt. And I quote again:

The results showed no difference between the headlight conditions on neither visual acuity nor contrast sensitivity. This indicates that motorcycles using the high beam in
ordinary day light conditions do not degrade the visual abilities of oncoming drivers.

Scuba_Steve

3rd July 2013, 19:47

actually.. yes.. moronic imbeciles aside you're more visible on highbeam with a properly adjusted headlight (shouldnt blind anyway - mines 110w and bright as hell but doesnt cause blindness), so there shouldn't be a problem. I ride in auckland traffic daily and can tell from experience that i have more issues when my light isn't on high beam.

Also: https://www.toi.no/publications/glare-effecs-of-high-beam-on-motorcycles-in-daylight-article18249-29.html

The effects on other road users are so minimal compared to the gain in visibility that there is no question we should be using highbeam in daylight.

No it doesn't blind but neither does trucks & cars with full beams tho it sure as hell is annoying & distracting.
I've often thought about swerving in-front of idiots with high beams on, after all that wouldn't blind them either but it would, again, get their attention.

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 19:49

No it doesn't blind but neither does trucks & cars with full beams tho it sure as hell is annoying & distracting.
I've often thought about swerving in-front of idiots with high beams on, after all that wouldn't blind them either but it would, again, get their attention.

again.. the effects to the drivers are minimal, but the visibility for motorcyclists is HUGE.. the positives outweigh the negatives considerably. HTFU.

Why should a motorcyclist reduce their visibility because it upsets a driver. Never.

Scuba_Steve

3rd July 2013, 20:00

again.. the effects to the drivers are minimal, but the visibility for motorcyclists is HUGE.. the positives outweigh the negatives considerably. HTFU.

Why should a motorcyclist reduce their visibility because it upsets a driver. Never.

Well if your idea of being seen is annoying the fuck out of everyone you got issues
Also it doesn't improve visibility for the biker & that sentence is massively self-righteous wankery

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:02

Well if your idea of being seen is annoying the fuck out of everyone you got issues
Also it doesn't improve visibility for the biker & that sentence is massively self-righteous wankery

Yes it DOES improve visibility and has negligible visual effects on the drivers. My life is more important than any mild and momentary discomfort on their behalf.

Its called common sense not self righteousness.

buggerit

3rd July 2013, 20:04

I find vehicles on high beam with modern lights affect my perception of distance between myself and vehicle.

Madness

3rd July 2013, 20:09

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:10

I'd give you another red if I could, you self-righteous prick!

ah well.. its always a good way to win an argument I guess. I guess science isnt important.. as long as you're happy.

Madness

3rd July 2013, 20:12

ah well.. its always a good way to win an argument I guess. I guess science isnt important.. as long as you're happy.

Science & my happiness have fuck all to do with the issue being discussed. If you're so concerned for your life whilst riding a motorcycle that you have to keep your headlight at full beam then maybe you should sell it & buy a Corolla.

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:16

Science & my happiness have fuck all to do with the issue being discussed. If you're so concerned for your life whilst riding a motorcycle that you have to keep your headlight at full beam then maybe you should sell it & buy a Corolla.

Oh right, because we shouldn't care?

Of course it has to do with the issue being discussed. Testing shows headlight on high beam is more visible than low beam. Testing also shows that it has little to no actual effect on other drivers other than they can see you more easily.

If that's not what you're talking about, feel free to discontinue the conversation... (well, if you can call it that..)

Madness

3rd July 2013, 20:25

Oh right, because we shouldn't care?

Of course it has to do with the issue being discussed. Testing shows headlight on high beam is more visible than low beam. Testing also shows that it has little to no actual effect on other drivers other than they can see you more easily.

If that's not what you're talking about, feel free to discontinue the conversation... (well, if you can call it that..)

Testing schmesting. The NZ Transport Agency have this to say;

Main beam headlamps are used for lighting the way a long way ahead of the vehicle. Because they are not dipped, they will dazzle other road users if not used properly.

You're simply being a self-centered discourteous road user riding with your lights on full. As I said, HTFU.

Fucking god-botherers.

Scuba_Steve

3rd July 2013, 20:28

Of course it has to do with the issue being discussed. Testing shows headlight on high beam is more visible than low beam. Testing also shows that it has little to no actual effect on other drivers other than they can see you more easily.

If that's not what you're talking about, feel free to discontinue the conversation... (well, if you can call it that..)

Then tell us all, how does it work? How does light make you more visible without affecting other road users?

I can tell you for a fact a bike on high beam IS distracting, IS annoying, DOES piss people off just like any-other vehicle running high beams

Madness

3rd July 2013, 20:31

I think I might have just figured out what caused the 4WD vs. bike accident on Twilight Road a few weeks back.

:facepalm:

St_Gabriel

3rd July 2013, 20:36

Oh right, because we shouldn't care?

Of course it has to do with the issue being discussed. Testing shows headlight on high beam is more visible than low beam. Testing also shows that it has little to no actual effect on other drivers other than they can see you more easily.

If that's not what you're talking about, feel free to discontinue the conversation... (well, if you can call it that..)

My unscientific testing shows no trucks carrying/towing houses as a long wide load, have been hit by an oncoming vehicle who did not see them (not saying they havent hit cars and other things but i digress). Are you saying perhaps that all motorcycles should tow houses whilst having 2 police cars and 2 escort vehicles immediately ahead of them.

Just because it may be safer or make you more conspicuous does not mean it is necessarily a good idea...

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:49

Then tell us all, how does it work? How does light make you more visible without affecting other road users?

I can tell you for a fact a bike on high beam IS distracting, IS annoying, DOES piss people off just like any-other vehicle running high beams

It pisses off selfish arrogant discourteous people who do not care about anyone else, other than themselves.

Testing schmesting. The NZ Transport Agency have this to say;

You're simply being a self-centered discourteous road user riding with your lights on full. As I said, HTFU.

Fucking god-botherers.

"HEADLIGHT: The best way to help others on the road see your motorcycle is to keep the headlight on at all times. Use of the high beam in daylight increases the likelihood that you will be seen by oncoming drivers."

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1239165923762&ssbinary=true

If you cant handle a little bit of bright light, its not me who needs to HTFU.. heh.

ps, I wasnt _in_ an accident on twilight road.

Madness

3rd July 2013, 20:52

If you cant handle a little bit of bright light, its not me who needs to HTFU.. heh.

ps, I wasnt _in_ an accident on twilight road.

I never said you were _in_ the accident, merely suggested your self-righteous attitude and use of full beam may have attributed to the cause of said accident. I shouldn't have to handle a bit of bright light. Most "normal" road users are courteous with their application of full beam and restrict it's use to times where it's required for them to see the way ahead. Then there's wankers like you.

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:52

My unscientific testing shows no trucks carrying/towing houses as a long wide load, have been hit by an oncoming vehicle who did not see them (not saying they havent hit cars and other things but i digress). Are you saying perhaps that all motorcycles should tow houses whilst having 2 police cars and 2 escort vehicles immediately ahead of them.

Just because it may be safer or make you more conspicuous does not mean it is necessarily a good idea...

actually, it is a good idea..

Which is the point. it's been a good idea as long as I can remember (i've been riding on the road for 31 years), and it will continue to be regardless of all this idiotic bleating until someone comes up with a better method. Probably some kind of non light that kindly asks other motorists, if it would not upset them too much, to please keep an eye out for motorcyclists, if they dont mind..

iYRe

3rd July 2013, 20:55

I never said you were _in_ the accident, merely suggested your self-righteous attitude and use of full beam may have attributed to the cause of said accident. I shouldn't have to handle a bit of bright light. Most "normal" road users are courteous with their application of full beam and restrict it's use to times where it's required for them to see the way ahead. Then there's wankers like you.

How do you even know I was on a motorcycle?

Most NORMAL road users care about peoples safety, and dont care if someone makes themselves more visible in a way that WONT ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM. Honestly... cant you read?
Must be a bit hard to read after all that one handed typing.. also explains why a bit of light affects your eyes so badly you have to rant on about it for hours on end.

Madness

3rd July 2013, 21:00

How do you even know I was on a motorcycle?

Because after the accident you came on here and started at least one thread about it, carrying on about the riding of others like some kind of demi-god. Yeah, that'll be how, unless you were bullshitting.

Most NORMAL road users care about peoples safety, and dont care if someone makes themselves more visible in a way that WONT ACTUALLY AFFECT THEM. Honestly... cant you read?

It affects me by distracting me. It affects others I know to the extent of creating what I can only assume (as I'm not in their head, just in the seat beside them as they're driving) as temporary blindness. This is more dangerous than your "perceived" reduced risk as a motorcyclist in my opinion and quite likely in the opinion of the law-makers. I hope you get a smack in the head for it. Come to think of it, didn't you recently post about a road rage incident you were involved in? Coincidence much?

Must be a bit hard to read after all that one handed typing.. also explains why a bit of light affects your eyes so badly you have to rant on about it for hours on end.

You churchies are fucking shit at slinging insults. Soft-cock.

Scuba_Steve

3rd July 2013, 21:06

It pisses off selfish arrogant discourteous people who do not care about anyone else, other than themselves.

So you admit it pisses you off when others do it

MrKiwi

3rd July 2013, 22:39

I heard, from a reputable source, that the "lights" thing on bikes was a stuff up - they were trying to pass some other laws and this one slipped under teh radar. They are/were trying to amend the rules to allow headlights on full and driving lights of various descriptions - glad to see its official now..

No, headlights on full has never been under consideration - it would be considered too dangerous - lights should be set at the appropriate angle when on coming traffic is approaching...

Berries

3rd July 2013, 23:42

again.. the effects to the drivers are minimal, but the visibility for motorcyclists is HUGE.. the positives outweigh the negatives considerably. HTFU.

Why should a motorcyclist reduce their visibility because it upsets a driver. Never.
Bollocks. You are not reducing your visibility, you are using your lights as legally supposed to. And funnily enough bike riders get pissed off with cars and other bikes poncing around during the day with their lights on full as well as car drivers.

I am with Scuba Steve and often think of swerving into the path of some arrogant twat who rides with his lights on full instead of mouthing the words 'you fucking twat' which is what I do at the moment. Doesn't do much with a dark visor.

mulletman

4th July 2013, 00:17

I find vehicles on high beam with modern lights affect my perception of distance between myself and vehicle.

+ 1 here as well

swbarnett

4th July 2013, 07:27

Time to get your eyes checked?
My eyes are fine. They were tested in my teens at 10/5* and have not changed since except for a little myopia in my mid 40's. My long-distance vision is still spot-on.
My eyes take longer than most to adjust to changes in light levels and don't like prolonged exposure to bright lights.

If they are behind you there is a little lever on your mirror you can use to dim it.
I do use that. That doesn't help with side mirrors though. Also, when the entire inside of the car is lit up the pupil contracts, making it harder to see anything that's less bright.

I've never heard of anyone going "Sorry Mate, I did see you, your headlight was so bright i couldnt miss it, but I smashed you anyway".
Actually, this does happen. It's well documented. It's callled target-fixation. And even if you don't get hit you've probably increased the likelihood of the affected driver hitting someone else.

Rule #5 - harden the fuck up..
This is not a mental attitude that can be changed by growing a pair. This is a physioliogical reaction that is just part of my physical makeup.

*The lower the number the better the vision.

iYRe

4th July 2013, 10:26

My eyes are fine. They were tested in my teens at 10/5* and have not changed since except for a little myopia in my mid 40's. My long-distance vision is still spot-on.
My eyes take longer than most to adjust to changes in light levels and don't like prolonged exposure to bright lights.

And yet, as studies show, the effects of a highbeam in daylight are so negligible as to be irrelevant.

I do use that. That doesn't help with side mirrors though. Also, when the entire inside of the car is lit up the pupil contracts, making it harder to see anything that's less bright.
That is more to do with badly adjusted headlights than it being on fullbeam

If you read up on international forums, you'd find a large number of motorcyclists in the UK and USA now adjust their headlights down to "dip" level and leave them on fullbeam 24/7. they claim it makes very little difference to how _far_ you can see, but it doesnt affect oncoming traffic or cars in front in your lane.

But.. being in NZ we get all upset that the beloved car driver might experience some VERY minor discomfort (if any at all), despite the proven (and anecdotal) fact that a motorcyclist with their light on highbeam in daylight is more visible than one who has it on dip.

I experience it everyday... on my bicycle and on my motorcycle, how I am supposed to keep out of car drivers way, never inconvenience them in any way, follow the road rules as they see them, and yet NEVER experience any "give" from their side. I've had enough.

Actually, this does happen. It's well documented. It's callled target-fixation. And even if you don't get hit you've probably increased the likelihood of the affected driver hitting someone else.
If this is happening from people on motorcycles coming from behind in daylight (because this is what you were talking about initially), then we really have a problem. People are target fixated

This is not a mental attitude that can be changed by growing a pair. This is a physioliogical reaction that is just part of my physical makeup.

Actually, it can. Because your opinion is merely an opinion. Research demonstrates this to be generally true. I admit, it _might_ affect the odd person more than most, but we do not make policy and safety decisions because they might be someone in the world, somewhere who might experience a bit more discomfort than most.

Berries:

I have spoken to someone at MotoNZ (or who was there and has moved on to bigger and better things), and THEY claimed the changing of the law to not allow headlights on full beam only occurred due to an oversight [sic], and that this was never intended. I was told they want to change the law back to allow highbeam and driving lights, or at least driving lights.
A quick perusal of Europe and the USA shows very few places do not allow highbeams in daylight, some have the caveat that "some motorists consider the use of lowbeam to be more considerate". It is only Aus and NZ that specifically state otherwise. And since the research shows the effect to be negligible we dont need to worry about being "considerate" and compromising our safety any more.

buggerit

4th July 2013, 10:53

If you read up on international forums, you'd find a large number of motorcyclists in the UK and USA now adjust their headlights down to "dip" level and leave them on fullbeam 24/7. they claim it makes very little difference to how _far_ you can see, but it doesnt affect oncoming traffic or cars in front in your lane.

So they adjust their headlights down to dip level for what reason?
And this doesnot affect highbeam riding at night?:bs:

iYRe

4th July 2013, 11:08

So they adjust their headlights down to dip level for what reason?
And this doesnot affect highbeam riding at night?:bs:

From what I understand its the difference of about 5cm over 100m - but it just appears to give the motorist no excuse to complain

I've never tried it.. just found several discussions on it when looking for replacement headlamp units for my bike.

I'm guessing it probably works better in countries where people are taught that safety is more important than peoples feelings.

Bassmatt

4th July 2013, 11:11

If you read up on international forums, you'd find a large number of motorcyclists in the UK and USA now adjust their headlights down to "dip" level and leave them on fullbeam 24/7. they claim it makes very little difference to how _far_ you can see, but it doesnt affect oncoming traffic or cars in front in your lane.
.

If they have adjusted their headlights "down to dip" then they aren't riding around with lights on fullbeam, are they? :facepalm:

Bassmatt

4th July 2013, 11:15

From what I understand its the difference of about 5cm over 100m - but it just appears to give the motorist no excuse to complain

I've never tried it.. just found several discussions on it when looking for replacement headlamp units for my bike.

I'm guessing it probably works better in countries where people are taught that safety is more important than peoples feelings.

Yet according to you they adjust thier hibeam down to dip ?

iYRe

4th July 2013, 11:16

If they have adjusted their headlights "down to dip" then they aren't riding around with lights on fullbeam, are they? :facepalm:

I dont know about your bike, but on mine, there is a line that the beam cuts. On dip it is a little bit lower than on high beam. As I said, its something like 5cm over 100m. So they adjust the highbeam angle down to where the lowbeam would normally be, and then never turn highbeam off. That is how I understand it anyway.

bogan

4th July 2013, 11:20

No, headlights on full has never been under consideration - it would be considered too dangerous - lights should be set at the appropriate angle when on coming traffic is approaching...

Quoted for relevancy.

Do you know if there has been any progress on modulators?

iYRe

4th July 2013, 11:23

Quoted for relevancy.

Do you know if there has been any progress on modulators?

Thus why, overseas they adjust the headlight.

Also... irrelevant since studies now show that there is NO danger..

bogan

4th July 2013, 11:26

I dont know about your bike, but on mine, there is a line that the beam cuts. On dip it is a little bit lower than on high beam. As I said, its something like 5cm over 100m. So they adjust the highbeam angle down to where the lowbeam would normally be, and then never turn highbeam off. That is how I understand it anyway.

That is quite simply and utterly incorrect, difference between high beam and low beam is over 5cm at 1m. the dip beam is also biased to shine less light towards the side of oncoming cars.

Here's a pic of my headlight on dip
<img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll52/bogan229/Cylonbros%20Comes%20Online/P1020492.jpg" width=640>

And one of it on full beam.
<img src="http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll52/bogan229/Cylonbros%20Comes%20Online/P1020493.jpg" width=640>

You can clearly see both the height difference, and beam pattern bias. There is no chance you could adjust the full beam down far enough to avoid dazzling oncoming road users.

Bassmatt

4th July 2013, 11:27

iYRe

4th July 2013, 11:45

That is quite simply and utterly incorrect, difference between high beam and low beam is over 5cm at 1m. the dip beam is also biased to shine less light towards the side of oncoming cars.

Here's a pic of my headlight on dip

You can clearly see both the height difference, and beam pattern bias. There is no chance you could adjust the full beam down far enough to avoid dazzling oncoming road users.

I _did_ say "on my bike". Its fairly easy on mine, since I can take the fairing off and loosen the bolts, adjust to where I want, and tighten it.. then use the adjusters to get it right.

IIRC the rules in NZ are 5cm over 3m, but I cant remember exactly. But then, as usual people on this forum are incapable of reading comprehension - I will repeat.. THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE USA AND EUROPE (generally the UK). I dont care WHAT your bike is/does..

My bike has separate hi and lowbeam headlights. If I was to adjust the highbeam side down to dip all I would achieve is having two lights on lowbeam.
You appear to be using the fact that people in other countries adjust their highbeam to dip to justify your riding with your highbeam on high. Your are comparing apples with oranges.

Partially correct.. your lowbeam is lower wattage than your highbeam (Mine are 55(Low)/60 (high)), and your highbeam _should_ have a different light dispersal pattern.
You'd end up with a brighter light with a _better_ light dispersal pattern

Anyway, I've had enough of being polite and repeatedly trying to explain the obvious.. gonna do some work and try and find someone with common sense to have a discussion with.

bogan

4th July 2013, 11:54

I _did_ say "on my bike". Its fairly easy on mine, since I can take the fairing off and loosen the bolts, adjust to where I want, and tighten it.. then use the adjusters to get it right.

IIRC the rules in NZ are 5cm over 3m, but I cant remember exactly. But then, as usual people on this forum are incapable of reading comprehension - I will repeat.. THESE PEOPLE ARE IN THE USA AND EUROPE (generally the UK). I dont care WHAT your bike is/does..

If the difference between high and low beam on your or anyone elses bike is 5cm at 100m, you need a new headlight. The 5 cm over 3m is how far below horizontal the beam cutoff has to be, its not the difference between the dip beams cutoff and the high beams cutoff (which is so gradual in most cases that it cannot be considered a cutoff at all).

So you care more about USA and UK bikes than the rest of the bikes on local roads? that seems a bit strange.

And the worst bit about stupidly adjusting your full beam into a dip is the beam pattern. See the bright spot on the full beam pic which would end up around 20m in front of the bike, adjust the headlight down enough to be a dip beam and that bright spot is going to be more like 5m in front, and having such a bright spot so close is going to effect your night vision sensitivity, and well as leaving less light for the areas that need it. Of all the retarded suggestions around here, that one is very high up there.

Jantar

4th July 2013, 11:58

...I've never heard of anyone going "Sorry Mate, I did see you, your headlight was so bright i couldnt miss it, but I smashed you anyway"....

Too bad you don't read more threads on KB about this issue.

I very nearly had a head on with a motorcyclist because of his high beam. It happened under the old rules where a left turning vehicle had to give way to a right turning vehicle, and because of the oncoming motorcyclist's high beam I couldn't see his right indicator blinking. I was turning left and he suddenly cut right across and almost into me. He assumed I would ahve seen his indicator and so given way. He got a hell of a suprise when we stopped and he discovered that he couldn't see his own indicator from the front when his bike was on high beam.

Maybe you need to get someone to ride your own bike towards you with your lights on high and then say it doesn't blind you.

Jantar

4th July 2013, 12:02

I posted the previous reply before reading the part about adjusting your high beam downwards. OK that's fine. Just don't try riding rural roadsa t night.

buggerit

4th July 2013, 12:10

From what I understand its the difference of about 5cm over 100m - but it just appears to give the motorist no excuse to complain

I've never tried it.. just found several discussions on it when looking for replacement headlamp units for my bike.

I'm guessing it probably works better in countries where people are taught that safety is more important than peoples feelings.

Well maybe your opinion will change once you get a decent headlamp:msn-wink:

buggerit

4th July 2013, 12:24

If the difference between high and low beam on your or anyone elses bike is 5cm at 100m, you need a new headlight. The 5 cm over 3m is how far below horizontal the beam cutoff has to be, its not the difference between the dip beams cutoff and the high beams cutoff (which is so gradual in most cases that it cannot be considered a cutoff at all).

So you care more about USA and UK bikes than the rest of the bikes on local roads? that seems a bit strange.

And the worst bit about stupidly adjusting your full beam into a dip is the beam pattern. See the bright spot on the full beam pic which would end up around 20m in front of the bike, adjust the headlight down enough to be a dip beam and that bright spot is going to be more like 5m in front, and having such a bright spot so close is going to effect your night vision sensitivity, and well as leaving less light for the areas that need it. Of all the retarded suggestions around here, that one is very high up there.

+1 , there is prizes on here for pic of week, are there any other catagories?

swbarnett

4th July 2013, 12:45

And yet, as studies show, the effects of a highbeam in daylight are so negligible as to be irrelevant.
The one you quoted talked about oncoming. I agree that in daylight this is less of an issue than following.

That is more to do with badly adjusted headlights than it being on fullbeam
You may have a point here. It may well be that those of us that have had problems have been followed by someone with their light badly out of line.

I experience it everyday... on my bicycle and on my motorcycle, how I am supposed to keep out of car drivers way, never inconvenience them in any way, follow the road rules as they see them, and yet NEVER experience any "give" from their side. I've had enough.
This I can well understand. I stopped cycling because of how I started to react to every car that got too close.

If this is happening from people on motorcycles coming from behind in daylight (because this is what you were talking about initially), then we really have a problem. People are target fixated
Yeah, point taken. I did switch my mental picture when I wrote that.

Actually, it can. Because your opinion is merely an opinion.
Pain in the eyes is not an opinion. It's something my body does.

Research demonstrates this to be generally true. I admit, it _might_ affect the odd person more than most, but we do not make policy and safety decisions because they might be someone in the world, somewhere who might experience a bit more discomfort than most.
While I see your point this is the same argument that saw the introduction of WRBs. Ignore the minorities.

NordieBoy

4th July 2013, 14:19

Katman

4th July 2013, 19:45

My life is more important than any mild and momentary discomfort on their behalf.

It pisses off selfish arrogant discourteous people who do not care about anyone else, other than themselves.

Oh, the contradictory irony.

:facepalm:

russd7

4th July 2013, 20:23

Time to get your eyes checked?.

mate you sir are a fuckwit, i actually have worn corrective lenses since the age of ten, :finger:
you go on and on about research about full beam not having affect on peoples eyes, well i would suggest by the number of people on here saying otherwise that your research is well and truely flawed. as for riding for 31 yrs you are shy of a few on what i have been riding.
as for lowering my headlight so the full bean is lower, that aint gonna help my night riding which i do quite a lot of. it is self absorbed arrogant fuckwits like yourself that get other motorists pissed off with motorcyclists

chasio

4th July 2013, 21:36

+ 1 here as well

And here.

A "fuck you" bright light is bloody hard to judge the speed of as well. So not only do I not know how far away they are, I also can't tell how fast they are approaching.

Hopefully (for you) an oncoming (or waiting) vehicle won't decide you're far enough away and going slow enough to pull across in front of you. They'll see you alright, but you will need a cautious driver to make the right decisions in the absence of clarity about your speed and distance.

I'd take a triangle of lights over high beam any day. For that matter I'd take low beam and good roadcraft on my part over high beam as well.

MrKiwi

5th July 2013, 09:45

And here.

A "fuck you" bright light is bloody hard to judge the speed of as well. So not only do I not know how far away they are, I also can't tell how fast they are approaching.

Hopefully (for you) an oncoming (or waiting) vehicle won't decide you're far enough away and going slow enough to pull across in front of you. They'll see you alright, but you will need a cautious driver to make the right decisions in the absence of clarity about your speed and distance.

I'd take a triangle of lights over high beam any day. For that matter I'd take low beam and good roadcraft on my part over high beam as well.

Well said ...

Some of the work the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council has commissioned and is currently being undertaken right here in NZ, which will be world leading in its determination, is quantifying and road testing for NZ conditions triangular and "T" shaped lighting configurations where dipped headlights working in conjunction with additional forward facing white daytime running lights can improve the conspicuity of motorcyclists.

Running high beams is unsafe for all road users. If you're like me, which a lot of the population are, and have less than perfect eye sight high beams creates a blinding hazard for me whether it is cars or motorcyclists running them. It significantly reduces my ability to properly and safely ride my bike. It is a dumb idea.

The research citing increased visability of motorcyclists running high beam scored an own goal. Of course it increases conspicuity, but it does so in a dangerous manner. No person in their right mind would advocate using an unsafe practice to improve safety outcomes. No, they wouldn't... Really... ...

Scuba_Steve

5th July 2013, 10:12

Well said ...

Some of the work the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council has commissioned and is currently being undertaken right here in NZ, which will be world leading in its determination, is quantifying and road testing for NZ conditions triangular and "T" shaped lighting configurations where dipped headlights working in conjunction with additional forward facing white daytime running lights can improve the conspicuity of motorcyclists.

Does this mean other colours will not be considered for legal status? I can understand colours like Red, Pink, Amber/Orange etc due to them either representing function lights or being mistaken for said lights, but colours like Blue & green etc I see no reason not to allow them also i.e. that blue glow some vehicles have at the edge of their headlights provide enough of a difference to make people notice

MrKiwi

5th July 2013, 11:18

Does this mean other colours will not be considered for legal status? I can understand colours like Red, Pink, Amber/Orange etc due to them either representing function lights or being mistaken for said lights, but colours like Blue & green etc I see no reason not to allow them also i.e. that blue glow some vehicles have at the edge of their headlights provide enough of a difference to make people notice

From a legal status no it doesn't, my mistake (and apologies) if I implied that. However, the current research is only looking at white lights. Cheers...

Scuba_Steve

5th July 2013, 11:50

From a legal status no it doesn't, my mistake (and apologies) if I implied that. However, the current research is only looking at white lights. Cheers...

Sweet cheers, wasn't so much about any implication it was more to do with the fact you specifically mentioned "white" & knowing what sort of imbeciles write legislation like "hey we should make it illegal for cars to park in bus stops" then go & make it illegal for even busses to stop at bus stops :facepalm: (rectified now)

Hitcher

5th July 2013, 13:10

The only beam some bikers are interested in is Jim.

Mushu

5th July 2013, 13:46

The research shown is seriously flawed, I would assume it was undertaken by someone who went out to prove hi beam is safe in daylight (ie. not an impartial test) it doesn't address problems like fixation, depth or speed perception.

Since I drive a small car that runs the same type of bulb that my R6 uses, would you be okay with me running hi beams all the time on that.

Not to mention the added effects of road rage, if you're splitting or filtering and shining your hi beam in each cars mirror as you pass you will find a much higher incidence of angry drivers cutting you off or chasing you after you pass.

If you are worried about visability, triangle or 'T' shaped running lights have been proven to help, and you can wear your hi vis (which some people are so convinced works it is illegal to ride without hi vis in some countries)

Maha

5th July 2013, 19:31

As a law abiding and courteous road user...my opinion is high beam when/where necessary ie: My bike My rules I choose when/where necessary.

Mushu

5th July 2013, 20:07

As a law abiding and courteous road user...my opinion is high beam when/where necessary ie: My bike My rules I choose when/where necessary.

Isn't there a law that states headlights must be dipped if there is a vehicle in front of you?

Jantar

5th July 2013, 20:32

Headlights must be dipped when:
when other vehicles are coming towards you, so that you don't blind the oncoming driver
when you are following other vehicles
when a police officer is directing traffic
when you park.
In a built up area with street lighting.

pzkpfw

5th July 2013, 20:35

Do the "fuck you it's MY safety" people wear hi viz vests?

(Seems to me the "fuck you" part is the bit they like, not the "safety" ...)

nzspokes

5th July 2013, 20:40

Meh. I have DRLs in a triangle. People still pull out in front of me.

Try riding with high and low beams on, my rocker switch can sit in the middle so both run. ;)

scumdog

5th July 2013, 20:56

as noted, its oncoming. If they are behind you there is a little lever on your mirror you can use to dim it.

..

Oh, I must need new outside mirrors, mine haven't got that function...

scumdog

5th July 2013, 20:59

scumdog

5th July 2013, 21:00

Why should a motorcyclist reduce their visibility because it upsets a driver. Never.

So it will never upset another RIDER then??

vifferman

5th July 2013, 21:03

Children, children! Stop fucking fighting! All you needed to do was ask my opinion about this. Having recently experienced being dazzled by inconsiderate arseholes on bikes with their lights on full (while I was riding mine), I can say unequivocally that it does NOT aid their safety (nor that of other motorists). I couldn't tell where exactly the bike was to avoid it, exactly how far away it was, and for a minute or two afterwards I couldn't see clearly. An aid to safety?!? Fuck off - it's the complete opposite!!:facepalm:
Maybe from a long way away it may make a rider more visible, but otherwise it's inconsiderate, illegal and ill-considered ("Fuck you Jack, - I'm alright!")

SPman

5th July 2013, 22:36

And yet, as studies show, the effects of a highbeam in daylight are so negligible as to be irrelevant. Do they drive with their fucking eyes shut! The pricks that do it over here get high beams back at them (including spots).They sure don't like it when they're on the receiving end. Fuck em! I'm with vifferman on this one, and also as Jantar has pointed out, it is against road regulations.

Madness

5th July 2013, 22:50

ah well.. its always a good way to win an argument I guess. I guess science isnt important.. as long as you're happy.

You're really giving me the learn now eh?

Mushu

6th July 2013, 01:24

Oh, I must need new outside mirrors, mine haven't got that function...

That's another point as to why you shouldn't run hi beams, if a vehicle behind me has hi beams on when I'm driving my Levin I push the little button on the dash to fold the mirrors in so I don't have the light in my eyes. Probably illegal, I don't give a fuck but I'll guarantee this reduces my ability to see a vehicle behind me.

bogan

6th July 2013, 02:16

And can prevent a clear view of what is behind the bike with the mego-bright headlight...

What do you need a clear view for? there is quite clearly a fuckwith back there so look out!

Brian d marge

6th July 2013, 03:13

Ive been riding for years on the Enfield with the lights on full , pointing straight ahead ... no one has complained or flashed back

Stephen

swbarnett

6th July 2013, 06:44

Ive been riding for years on the Enfield with the lights on full , pointing straight ahead ... no one has complained or flashed back

Stephen
Perhaps you need a stronger headlight. I've always been very unimpressed with the headlight on 250s.

Maha

6th July 2013, 07:44

Isn't there a law that states headlights must be dipped if there is a vehicle in front of you?

Which is what I do, always have....courteous was a key word in my post.

BMWST?

6th July 2013, 09:13

Oh right, because we shouldn't care?

Of course it has to do with the issue being discussed. Testing shows headlight on high beam is more visible than low beam. Testing also shows that it has little to no actual effect on other drivers other than they can see you more easily.

If that's not what you're talking about, feel free to discontinue the conversation... (well, if you can call it that..)

you are deluding your self.If your theory was only partly true all vehicles would only have the option of full beam all the time.Using high beam when other vehicles are around is extremely annoying.You are right in that it doesnt cause blindness ,but the glare can cause a temporary reduction in vision.Its similar to sun strike.The glare is extremely annoying and you cant look directly at the vehicle with high beam.The high beam glare also obscures vehicles behind the offending vehicle.So my suggestion to you is that you get your eyes checked if you truly beleive there is no deleterious effect to other road users because of your use of high beam.

awayatc

6th July 2013, 09:55

Yes it DOES improve visibility and has negligible visual effects on the drivers. My life is more important than any mild and momentary discomfort on their behalf.

Its called common sense not self righteousness.

Common sense...?

Can't be all that common.....

you don't seem to have much of it...if any at all.

You want road users to care about you while giving them the fingers....?

Respect works both ways....

You blind me ....I may not react in a way that is beneficial to your health or longlevity,

and Karma being the bitch it is.....

It will come back to you

Woodman

6th July 2013, 10:11

I experience it everyday... on my bicycle.

Think this explains his holier than thou, moral highground fucked up attitude quite well.

BMWST?

6th July 2013, 10:16

Thus why, overseas they adjust the headlight.

Also... irrelevant since studies now show that there is NO danger..
you keep quoting theses studies....show us one

Motig

6th July 2013, 10:27

In my real world I find vehicles with lights on high beam during daylight hours nearly as blinding as those that don't dip their lights at night. As for changing where your high beam shines to where dip normally is - the whole idea of high beam at night is to give you more of a lit up view in front of you when the road is clear, I'd call it a safety margin, changing it will only give you less reaction time and a better chance of disaster. My impression of the op's theory - a load of rubbish in reality land.

blackdog

6th July 2013, 15:19

This thread needs a poll.

And tags.

How much butthurt can you keep taking OP, before you admit that this was a terribly conceived thread and that perhaps you should reconsider and admit that ya just got it wrong?

I will certainly think more of you if you can achieve that, than I will if you continue to promote not just unsafe but downright dangerous motoring habits.

There are quite a few professional drivers here, and contributors to this thread that I respect as safe and considerate riders. Not one of them has endorsed your suggestion as even remotely sensible.

Give it up mate, yer well outgunned.

Kickaha

6th July 2013, 16:28

How much butthurt can you keep taking OP, before you admit that this was a terribly conceived thread and that perhaps you should reconsider and admit that ya just got it wrong?

He didn't get it wrong, all those studies that he hasn't posted prove how right he is:shifty:

bogan

6th July 2013, 16:45

blackdog

6th July 2013, 16:48

Looks like he has given up as soon as the mods split it from the original thread. Not surprising when he had no fucking idea about beam angles/patterns...

I had trouble finding evidence that he had any idea about anything at all!

St_Gabriel

7th July 2013, 09:04

BMWST?

7th July 2013, 21:45

Crasherfromwayback

8th July 2013, 01:42

caspernz

8th July 2013, 08:36

I bet you're short and have a really small cock.

Judging by what's been written by him to date that has to be a safe bet :2thumbsup

Low beam during the day or go the DRL route.

speeding_ant

8th July 2013, 08:53

My current bugbear is these bloody cyclists with their 1 trillion cree LED front lights that FLASH, hmm thought flashing white lights and headlight modulators were illegal. Some of those fucking things are awfully blinding.

I agree - I'm a mountain biker and I go night riding with those lights. They're awesome, but really... dim the damn lights when you're on the road. I always make sure I aim it low to make sure I don't blind someone and cause a crash.

The latest lights put out 2000 lumen, and they flash at that output (bad design). You can see them a kilometre away, up close they'll burn your retinas.

awayatc

8th July 2013, 09:15

Didn't you read the articles that prove those lights are safe? You just got to keep your head down.

buggerit

8th July 2013, 09:38

Scuba_Steve

8th July 2013, 10:04

One of the things I struggle with at night is major roadworks, especially if its wet, just the sheer number of flashing beacons and lights
to me defeats the purpose as they dazzle you as you try to find your way through the zigzag array of cones:eek5:.

Yea now meet that dazzle at 100km/h on a corner you cannot see around.
I've meet these morons on the motorway shutting down the left lane, not before the corner as would be logical & safe, but right on the corner in a place that gives you no warning they are there until you're upon them; Only thing saving me that night was the fact no-one was in the right lane... It would have got messy if there was as it wasn't cones shutting the lane it was one of those trucks with the obnoxious brick walls attached to the back

speeding_ant

8th July 2013, 10:16

Didn't you read the articles that prove those lights are safe? You just got to keep your head down.

I'm sure they're safer than no light at all. You can aim the lights independently, though some cyclists prefer to aim it straight in your face :bash:

Mushu

8th July 2013, 23:20

Headline. HV vest to become compulsory, including a Hi beam headlight built in.

Op. Calling the OP?

OK, I am bored.

They aren't actually gonna make that hi vis shit a law are they, I know it's required in some countries in Europe.
I'll be pissed if they try regulate that shit here, pissed but but not surprised.

Berries

8th July 2013, 23:46

Agree with you, I would not be surprised if someone sees some random research somewhere that shows an x% reduction in motorcycle related injuries when wearing hi-viz and correlates that to meaning having hi-viz will reduce the crash rate for motorcylists in NZ. Absolute bollocks but it will happen.

Creating Safer Journeys for motorcyclists

Safer Journeys is working to improve safety for motorcyclists through a number of areas. Policy changes will be put in place, and training will be improved. There will also be improvements to roads popular with motorcyclists and enforcement targeted at careless or unsafe motorcyclists. The Accident Compensation Corporation's introduction of a motorcycle safety levy to fund motorcycle safety initiatives will also help to engage motorcyclists in efforts to improve their safety.
I don't know about anyone else but I feel engaged.

HFH.

MrKiwi

9th July 2013, 09:26

They aren't actually gonna make that hi vis shit a law are they, I know it's required in some countries in Europe.
I'll be pissed if they try regulate that shit here, pissed but but not surprised.

Not here in NZ, no. Not while I still have breath in my lungs...

The current research by the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council shows the myth around Hi Viz for what it is. Hi Viz vests works in some situations but not not enough to warrant it being made mandatory. I don't believe officials are looking at making it mandatory. So the choice remains with the rider. If you want to wear it then do.

Personally when I am riding a push bike I wear it as I am the bulky bit of the deal. I need to be seen. I wear the hi viz vest in addition to those blinking led lights. However, when I am on my Triupmh Tiger 955i the bike is what is easier to see than me, especially from front on, so I use Danali LED's running in addition to my head lights to improve my conspicuity. It is harder to seem me as the rider front on because I am partially obscured by the screen.

GTRMAN

9th July 2013, 20:03

Not here in NZ, no. Not while I still have breath in my lungs...

The current research by the Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council shows the myth around Hi Viz for what it is. Hi Viz vests works in some situations but not not enough to warrant it being made mandatory. I don't believe officials are looking at making it mandatory. So the choice remains with the rider. If you want to wear it then do.

Personally when I am riding a push bike I wear it as I am the bulky bit of the deal. I need to be seen. I wear the hi viz vest in addition to those blinking led lights. However, when I am on my Triupmh Tiger 955i the bike is what is easier to see than me, especially from front on, so I use Danali LED's running in addition to my head lights to improve my conspicuity. It is harder to seem me as the rider front on because I am partially obscured by the screen.

I would be interested in seeing this research, can you post references please.

MrKiwi

9th July 2013, 21:41

I would be interested in seeing this research, can you post references please.

It is on the MotoNZ website, the literature review into conspicuity.

Here's the link - http://motonz.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Visibility-Project-TRL-Report-w.pdf

Read section 5.3. The main conclusion is along the lines of:

The results are interesting in that they show the previously held assertion that a
bright reflective jacket will improve rider conspicuity may not always be true. When the
findings from Hole et al. (1996) and Rogé et al. (2011) are also considered, the message
seems to be that the most conspicuous outfit will be dictated by the lighting conditions
and local environment at the time, which may be extremely variable within the confines
of even a fairly short ride.