Low (dipped) vs high-beam debate

[buggerit]

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

[buggerit]

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]

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]

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.

The rules state that a dipped beam with a defined cutoff must drop 30-75mm at 3m.
A symmetrical dipped beam (high-beam pointed down) must drop 90-105mm at 3m.

[Katman]

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.

[russd7]

Time to get your eyes checked?.

mate you sir are a fuckwit, i actually have worn corrective lenses since the age of ten,
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]

+ 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (rectified now)

[Hitcher]

The only beam some bikers are interested in is Jim.

[Mushu]

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]

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]

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?