5 ms·

Add to that rental bikes that have always-on flashing lights. My neurospice is relatively mild, but flashing lights and animations in my field of view really fu

by Y_Y 11mo ago

Add to that rental bikes that have always-on flashing lights. My neurospice is relatively mild, but flashing lights and animations in my field of view really fuck up my ability to focus on other things. I can't be the only one with this issue, but it doesn't seem to garner much sympathy. I still drive when I have to, but I had to give up watching soccer on tv when they added animated ads to all the pitches. I'm honestly considering some kind of AR filtering at this point. Also shoutouts to the places in South America (esp. Guayaquil) where people modify cars and buses to have constantly flashing lights, animated screens etc. It's like having a little Times Square in every traffic jam! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LOdfcJpvps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LOdfcJpvps

crazygringo 11mo ago
To be fair, the flashing on bicycles is intentional, precisely to make sure you are aware of them, since they're so much smaller and vulnerable, and the light itself is so much smaller than the rear light on a vehicle. It's not just on rentals, it's a standard feature of bicycle rear lights that is there for safety.
- martijnvds 11mo ago
  In the Netherlands, bike lights _must not_ flash. The law very explicitly states that they need to be "always on" (in the dark). The main reason seems to be that it's hard for others to to gauge your speed when your lights are flashing.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    Fascinating. I just looked up a bit of research on it, and it seems there are two contradicting phenomena at play. Flashing helps in seeing cyclists further away and helps with visibility generally -- but it also makes it harder to estimate speed and distance. Apparently, the absolute safest solution is to have two rear lights side-by-side -- one that is always on and one that is always flashing. It doesn't seem like there's clear data on which is safer if you have to pick only one. Different countries/states have chosen differently.
    - exmadscientist 11mo ago
      Flashing on-off and always on aren't the only options. I wish more designers went with flashing bright-dim, because it solves a lot of problems. I once worked on a device where we were required to blink the Important Safety Light™ on-off. I often glanced at this light out of the corner of my eye, and saw that it was off, so we were Safe™. We were not Safe™: it was just in the off phase of its blink. I am very glad I never got hurt by trusting that light. I wanted to blink it bright-dim but was denied by people who said that IEC 61010 required it to blink, and blinking bright-dim isn't blinking. I didn't quite understand that objection.
      - Y_Y 11mo ago
        This is a strong point. Nobody likes a rapidly flashing light (extra annoying, seems broken, can be hard to differentiate from "on but dim"). Then again if you flash slowly then you'll have some appreiable amount of time when it's off and that can include the entire opportunity you have to look at something. Ideally (for me) you could have smooth high-low alternation or colour alternation. (I recognize that something that looks like emergency services, e.g. alternating blue/white may be illegal, and that colour-blindness may limit this approach.)
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        Having a third brightness state feels confusing. If a safety indicator needs to be visible at a glance, why did it blink at all? Blinking only works for things that are in your vision and need to be the primary focus. It seems like blinking to begin with is terrible design for something like this, or else having it be in the corner of your eye is the terrible design decision.
        exmadscientist 11mo ago
        > If a safety indicator needs to be visible at a glance, why did it blink at all? Beats me! But they've apparently flashed for ages and ages on these things, and somewhere along the line it got standardized. > It seems like blinking to begin with is terrible design for something like this, or else having it be in the corner of your eye is the terrible design decision. This is benchtop equipment, not cars, so "corner of your eye" has a little bit different context here. But, yes, I kind of agree. It is also really important to get this one right since for this particular type of device, conditions are lethal (yes, genuinely lethal, no exaggeration) if you get cavalier with it.
  - arccy 11mo ago
    but also there are so many bikes there already that they didn't need to raise general awareness that much
- jandrese 11mo ago
  Blinding and dazzling oncoming traffic in the name of safety is outright stupid. If you are riding a bike and you're lighting up the heads of oncoming riders or pedestrians you are being dangerous and obnoxious. Never shine a flashlight above someone's shoulders at night if you can help it.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    What are you talking about? Did you mean to reply to a different comment? Bicycle lights aren't blinding anybody. At least none I've ever seen. They're powered by little batteries usually. The subject at hand was whether they flash or not. Not their brightness, which I've never heard anybody complain about.
    - jandrese 11mo ago
      You definitely don't ride around here if you have not been blinded by a bike headlight. They can blow away your vision from half a mile away easily. I can't even see the trail in front of me without putting my hand up to block the light. I call it the nighttime salute. They are much worse if they flash. That blinds and disorients. Even after they pass you won't be able to see anything for some time.
      - crazygringo 11mo ago
        True, I'm referring to places where there are already car headlights. The bike lamps are so dim by comparison, there's nothing to complain about. If you're somewhere without any other lighting and your eyes have adjusted to the darkness, then I can understand how they might seem bright. But I'm not really sure what you think the solution is. They're already vastly dimmer than cars, but make them any dimmer and the cyclist won't be able to see the ground and it won't be safe.
        jandrese 11mo ago
        That is still very much not my experiance. I ride on the roads a bit and usually cars are fine, although there are people with aftermarket lights and people who just leave high beams on all the time in heavy traffic. But I've experienced riding down the road with oncoming traffic in the other direction and doing just fine until a bicycle comes and blinds me just like the high intensity high beam guys. They are generally much brigter in terms of light delivered directly to the eyeballs of oncoming traffic. Are you sure people aren't seeing you because your lights are too dim, or because you're making it impossible to see anything around them?
- RandallBrown 11mo ago
  Flashing lights on bicycles are illegal in a lot of places. If bikes didn't move, a blinking light would be fine. But they do move and it makes it really hard to tell where the bike is in the dark.
- Y_Y 11mo ago
  I dunno man, I'm a cyclist, and I live in a big city full of cyclists. I've also used and seen a lot of bike lights in my time. Flashing is often an option, but the default is usually "always on". Also flashing is really fucking annoying, and I my own experience is that it does notale cyclista more visible or safe. I don't use flashing lights myself, even though I can't see the rear one and eould probably rather be annoying than dead.
  - crazygringo 11mo ago
    It seems like it depends a lot on the city/country. To be clear, I'm talking about rear lights only. The front light is white and always-on so you can see the ground. Plus you can see what's in front of you, so you avoid things, people don't need to avoid you as much. It's the rear red light that flashes. You yourself don't see the flashing, but it increases visibility so people don't run into you, when you can't see them behind you. When I'm behind a cyclist with a flashing red rear light, it doesn't bother me. It feels safe. It probably encourages me to keep a little extra distance from them, which is a good thing.

by Y_Y 11mo ago

crazygringo 11mo ago

To be fair, the flashing on bicycles is intentional, precisely to make sure you are aware of them, since they're so much smaller and vulnerable, and the light itself is so much smaller than the rear light on a vehicle. It's not just on rentals, it's a standard feature of bicycle rear lights that is there for safety.

martijnvds 11mo ago
In the Netherlands, bike lights _must not_ flash. The law very explicitly states that they need to be "always on" (in the dark). The main reason seems to be that it's hard for others to to gauge your speed when your lights are flashing.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  Fascinating. I just looked up a bit of research on it, and it seems there are two contradicting phenomena at play. Flashing helps in seeing cyclists further away and helps with visibility generally -- but it also makes it harder to estimate speed and distance. Apparently, the absolute safest solution is to have two rear lights side-by-side -- one that is always on and one that is always flashing. It doesn't seem like there's clear data on which is safer if you have to pick only one. Different countries/states have chosen differently.
  - exmadscientist 11mo ago
    Flashing on-off and always on aren't the only options. I wish more designers went with flashing bright-dim, because it solves a lot of problems. I once worked on a device where we were required to blink the Important Safety Light™ on-off. I often glanced at this light out of the corner of my eye, and saw that it was off, so we were Safe™. We were not Safe™: it was just in the off phase of its blink. I am very glad I never got hurt by trusting that light. I wanted to blink it bright-dim but was denied by people who said that IEC 61010 required it to blink, and blinking bright-dim isn't blinking. I didn't quite understand that objection.
    - Y_Y 11mo ago
      This is a strong point. Nobody likes a rapidly flashing light (extra annoying, seems broken, can be hard to differentiate from "on but dim"). Then again if you flash slowly then you'll have some appreiable amount of time when it's off and that can include the entire opportunity you have to look at something. Ideally (for me) you could have smooth high-low alternation or colour alternation. (I recognize that something that looks like emergency services, e.g. alternating blue/white may be illegal, and that colour-blindness may limit this approach.)
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      Having a third brightness state feels confusing. If a safety indicator needs to be visible at a glance, why did it blink at all? Blinking only works for things that are in your vision and need to be the primary focus. It seems like blinking to begin with is terrible design for something like this, or else having it be in the corner of your eye is the terrible design decision.
      - exmadscientist 11mo ago
        > If a safety indicator needs to be visible at a glance, why did it blink at all? Beats me! But they've apparently flashed for ages and ages on these things, and somewhere along the line it got standardized. > It seems like blinking to begin with is terrible design for something like this, or else having it be in the corner of your eye is the terrible design decision. This is benchtop equipment, not cars, so "corner of your eye" has a little bit different context here. But, yes, I kind of agree. It is also really important to get this one right since for this particular type of device, conditions are lethal (yes, genuinely lethal, no exaggeration) if you get cavalier with it.
- arccy 11mo ago
  but also there are so many bikes there already that they didn't need to raise general awareness that much
jandrese 11mo ago
Blinding and dazzling oncoming traffic in the name of safety is outright stupid. If you are riding a bike and you're lighting up the heads of oncoming riders or pedestrians you are being dangerous and obnoxious. Never shine a flashlight above someone's shoulders at night if you can help it.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  What are you talking about? Did you mean to reply to a different comment? Bicycle lights aren't blinding anybody. At least none I've ever seen. They're powered by little batteries usually. The subject at hand was whether they flash or not. Not their brightness, which I've never heard anybody complain about.
  - jandrese 11mo ago
    You definitely don't ride around here if you have not been blinded by a bike headlight. They can blow away your vision from half a mile away easily. I can't even see the trail in front of me without putting my hand up to block the light. I call it the nighttime salute. They are much worse if they flash. That blinds and disorients. Even after they pass you won't be able to see anything for some time.
    - crazygringo 11mo ago
      True, I'm referring to places where there are already car headlights. The bike lamps are so dim by comparison, there's nothing to complain about. If you're somewhere without any other lighting and your eyes have adjusted to the darkness, then I can understand how they might seem bright. But I'm not really sure what you think the solution is. They're already vastly dimmer than cars, but make them any dimmer and the cyclist won't be able to see the ground and it won't be safe.
      - jandrese 11mo ago
        That is still very much not my experiance. I ride on the roads a bit and usually cars are fine, although there are people with aftermarket lights and people who just leave high beams on all the time in heavy traffic. But I've experienced riding down the road with oncoming traffic in the other direction and doing just fine until a bicycle comes and blinds me just like the high intensity high beam guys. They are generally much brigter in terms of light delivered directly to the eyeballs of oncoming traffic. Are you sure people aren't seeing you because your lights are too dim, or because you're making it impossible to see anything around them?
RandallBrown 11mo ago
Flashing lights on bicycles are illegal in a lot of places. If bikes didn't move, a blinking light would be fine. But they do move and it makes it really hard to tell where the bike is in the dark.
Y_Y 11mo ago
I dunno man, I'm a cyclist, and I live in a big city full of cyclists. I've also used and seen a lot of bike lights in my time. Flashing is often an option, but the default is usually "always on". Also flashing is really fucking annoying, and I my own experience is that it does notale cyclista more visible or safe. I don't use flashing lights myself, even though I can't see the rear one and eould probably rather be annoying than dead.
- crazygringo 11mo ago
  It seems like it depends a lot on the city/country. To be clear, I'm talking about rear lights only. The front light is white and always-on so you can see the ground. Plus you can see what's in front of you, so you avoid things, people don't need to avoid you as much. It's the rear red light that flashes. You yourself don't see the flashing, but it increases visibility so people don't run into you, when you can't see them behind you. When I'm behind a cyclist with a flashing red rear light, it doesn't bother me. It feels safe. It probably encourages me to keep a little extra distance from them, which is a good thing.