The discussion is about bike lights, and written with no sense of irony whatsoever…

…but this is road.cc’s contributors we’re talking about here:

lesterama wrote:

Not just the lumens, but also the legislation. Bike lights that aren't
dipped are a menace.

We need to be like Germany, and only allow lights with beam control on
sale. Otherwise we're just giving bike-haters another stick to beat us
with.

I've been using Ravemen front lights for years. I won't ever use a strong non-dipped light again.

Secret_squirrel replied to lesterama

Of all the things cycling needs it's not more legislation or ammunition for another culture war.

It's a meaningless trivial problem - get some perspective.[!!!]

quiff replied to lesterama

I have two StvZsvotVso compliant lights, or whatever they're called, but there's still room for human error as they need to be angled appropriately.
At what *I think* is the right angle, I no longer get oncoming pedestrians shielding their eyes - but the flip side is I can be alarmingly close
behind an all-in-black pedestrian in the unlit park before the beam picks
out their ankles.[!!!]

So blinding people with dazzling cycle lights is “…a meaningless trivial problem”, and pedestrians “…[dressed] all in black” is a problem for cyclists? No mention of the problems of cyclists dressed all in black…

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)