news paper nutcase

[661-Pete]

Well, as someone who has worked in the fire alarm industry, in which flashing strobe lights are often deployed in addition to audible warning signals - I am well aware of the rules that we have to observe in relation to the frequency of strobe lights. As a general rule, we are advised that a flash rate of 1Hz or slower is regarded as 'safe' for photosensitive epileptics (which are themselves only a small minority of those who suffer from epilepsy). And the last thing you want to happen, when people are hurriedly evacuating the scene of a fire, is for someone to suffer an epileptic seizure! Accordingly, I have worked on software to ensure that all the strobe lights controlled by a single system, flash simultaneously, so that the overall flashing rate is still 1Hz or less.

With a single cycle lamp there is unlikely to be a problem. However, when a large group of cyclists are cycling together at night (as happens on a popular event organised by someone from CycleChat), then yes there might be a problem: you can't synchronise cycle lamps! But photosensitive seizures are incredibly rare: what is more likely is the 'annoyance' factor which increases with the increasing rate of flashing. People who get really worked up might think they're going to have a fit - but they won't.

Now for my personal pet peeve: why oh why on BBC news do they still preface every bit of location news footage with the words "This report contains flash photography"? This is so wrong on two counts. Firstly, there is plenty of software around that can edit flashgun flashes out of a video. So why aren't the BBC using it? Secondly, why are press photographers persisting in using flash, when sensitive CMos sensors in cameras make flash all but obsolete except in very low light settings? I was once told a lot of b******* about flash being 'necessary' to 'fill in' the daylight and get the best quality image. I thought I knew something about photography, but that's old hat. I think they do it to intimidate their subjects, to catch them in awkward poses as they try to evade the barrage of flashes. Or maybe it's a Union, Luddite sort of thing? Bring back the old magnesium flashbulbs - when they have to manually change a scorching hot bulb after each snap, that'll teach 'em!

[mjr]

Can't you blame North Somerset Council for the problems facing cyclists? We've been waiting what, 40 years for them and their predecessor councils to do any building of the Weston-Clevedon railway path? Then lots of riders would be flashing nowhere near cars

[dbennett1882]

Gosh, I hope that the unfortunate author of the editorial didn't find it necessary to SLOW DOWN. That's what all other flashing lights on vehicles or the roadside are intended to achieve.

[Vorpal]

I was once told a lot of b******* about flash being 'necessary' to 'fill in' the daylight and get the best quality image. I thought I knew something about photography, but that's old hat. I think they do it to intimidate their subjects, to catch them in awkward poses as they try to evade the barrage of flashes.

There may be an intimidation factor when it comes to the paparazzi approach, but a flash does produce a better quality image in many circumstances. Even bright natural light leaves shadows. Not that it isn't possible to get good photos, but it may require more time & care than is available in 'news' circumstances.

[jan19]

I always think its worth taking the time to reply to this sort of thing. As has been pointed out, you won't convince fervent cycle-haters but others who previously hadn't really considered the situation will think about it and be better informed.

Some years back I responded to an anti-cycling rant in our local rag. It had made the "Star letter" status in the centre of the letters page. My first drafted reply was a rant, but I kept going back to it and tweaking it until it answered all the points raised but in a calm and (I hope) considered manner. To my surprise, the following week it also made "Star letter" status! I commented on here, and several people pointed out that the vast majority of letters sent to newspapers are rants, and they're pleased if they get one that isn't. There were several other pro-cycling replies, and indeed all were rants. One of the points answered (inevitably) was the "who pays for the road" one and I pointed out in the course of the reply that bikes cause far less damage to the fabric of the road than cars so more bicycles would mean less of the Council tax spent on road repairs - the rag helpfully picked up on this and headed the piece "Cyclists save you money!"

One thing I would say is that although I carefully kept to the word limit, my letter was shortened and this did mean full emphasis was lost in a couple of places so just be aware of that...

Jan

[mercalia]

too many cyclists with battery lamps in London point them direct ahead and some of these lamps are BRIGHT. If they are flashing more the worse if a motorist is caught off guard? So I sympathise with the op source.

[pau1ine]

Flashing cycle lights are barely noticeable compared with the strobe effects on display atop the modern police car.

[Jon Lucas]

Looks like I am going to disagree with almost everyone who has posted so far.

I don't suffer from epilepsy and I am not a driver, but do cycle most days, and one of the worst problems I face when cycling is being behind another cyclist with a flashing rear light. A flashing light, especially when it is fairly close, makes it very hard for me to see anything else around it at each flash, and at times I have found myself blinded momentarily by them. On a busy road, this is incredibly dangerous, and I have sometimes just had to stop suddenly as the light is making it impossible for me to see clearly ahead. So yes, while I think it worth replying about the legal aspect of flashing lights, I think any response should also recognise that for some people this is a major problem.

For those who have compared them to lights on emergency vehicles, there is no comparison. A cycle light is directed at your face level if you are another cyclist, coming straight into your eyes, while emergency vehicle lights are way above and have never given me any concern.

[reohn2]

I've stopped using flashing lights generally,especially on the front as they say to other road users bike=slow=I can turn out in front of.
On the rear I have one central at saddle height on the rear of a seatpost bag,and one on a band just above my right elbow to try to emphasise width,which generally it does.

[Flinders]

Secondly, why are press photographers persisting in using flash, when sensitive CMos sensors in cameras make flash all but obsolete except in very low light settings? I was once told a lot of b******* about flash being 'necessary' to 'fill in' the daylight and get the best quality image. I thought I knew something about photography, but that's old hat. I think they do it to intimidate their subjects, to catch them in awkward poses as they try to evade the barrage of flashes. Or maybe it's a Union, Luddite sort of thing? Bring back the old magnesium flashbulbs - when they have to manually change a scorching hot bulb after each snap, that'll teach 'em!

Fill-in flash:
The time you need fill-in (as opposed to flash needed because the whole subject is dark) is usually when the daylight is strong, but your subject is backlit (and within flash range). If you take a photo without it, either your light areas will be burnt out, or your dark areas would be black.

You can also use flash to deal with moving subjects when the light is somewhat limited, which may be why the press use it, though of course intimidation might be a factor.

Personally I photograph horses as part of my job, and never use flash whatever the circumstances; my main work cameras have no internal flash at all.Some press horse photographers use it for fill-in in special situations, like portraits and pictures of winners in the paddock after races (though not when horses are racing, etc.) as their needs are different from mine.

[Bicycler]

In truth some tail lights are rather simple things with small but bright rearward facing LEDs with no attempt at diffusing the emitted light. Same goes for front lights. These can be annoyance to others. Flashing lights needn't be overly bright in order to achieve the desired effect but a larger emitting surface will always be beneficial.

[661-Pete]

Fill-in flash:
The time you need fill-in (as opposed to flash needed because the whole subject is dark) is usually when the daylight is strong, but your subject is backlit (and within flash range). If you take a photo without it, either your light areas will be burnt out, or your dark areas would be black.

Yes I understand how that might work. My argument is that there are less intrusive ways of getting a good picture. Such as processing the image after you've taken it and before publication.

When I said I 'know something about photography', I must confess my main interest, in recent years, has been in astrophotography (sadly I haven't done any for a while ). When photographing a distant planet, star or galaxy, you don't have the benefit of fill-in flash!! But there are things you can do to enhance the detail in the image you've captured. I thought, I'd post a pair of 'before' and 'after' images of a well-known astronomical object, the so called 'Helix Nebula'. Yes I know my piccies aren't of professional quality, but they show what can be achieved with a bit of curve-pulling and other fiddling.

As from the camera, stacked but not processed.

After a bit of processing.

Yes I know this is a bit off the topic of cycle lamps! Sorry, my 'pet' subject....

[snibgo]

Nice piccies. Is that a smudge on your lens? Tee-hee!

I fear that modern press photography doesn't have time for curve-pulling and other fiddling. I suspect the in-camera JPEGs are zapped off to the editor, who clicks on this one and that one, and that's that.

[Bonefishblues]

Apropos of flashing lights, is there any research which has shown their relative effectiveness when compared with steady lights when used by cyclists?

[mercalia]

it seems there are some monster rear red lights out there? the other day a couple of cyclists passed me and one had one so bright had it not been red I would have thought it was a front light, it was that bright, never seen one so bright ever.