RonK wrote:MattyK wrote:OK, they do state it's an approximation of the regulations. I am arguing that tilting the light down is absolutely nothing like the regulations. It resembles one poorly worded (as I understand it) part of the regulation with regards to how lights should be aimed, but tilting down a symmetric beam has a very different (and adverse) effect on the light for the rider.
As we have already established, the objective of the test methodology is to establish the visibility of the light to the observer, not the effectiveness to the rider.
Yes, and I think that's a crap objective.
Once you're seen, you're seen. Saying one light gets 85 points and another gets 86 points is meaningless. Especially when the test observers are DELIBERATELY LOOKING AT THE LIGHT. The point of "being seen" is to attract attention to yourself away from other sources.
I don't know why they chose to limit their test to this particular methodology, but I suspect a sales analysis would confirm the obvious answer the question. And it's quite valid for those who want a light to be seen by.
There would only be one effective way to conduct a "be seen" test properly, and it would require unwitting test subjects and not telling them what they were actually looking for (say in a sea of car headlights). Then afterwards you ask them "did you see the bike light?". Of course you need about a thousand test subjects because when you've done the test once you can't do it again - you'll be looking for the light.
As for the side view test - I can't think of one circumstance where I would be seen from 50 metres at 45 degrees, and be in any sort of danger. 20 metres at 60-75 degrees, probably way more relevant.
As an aside I used to own the exact Cateye lights they first recommended back in 2005. Nearly got me killed at least twice from cars pulling out of side streets.