Headlight modulator

[Ruddy]

Like the rest of you, I'm always concerned about my "invisibility" in traffic. My bike came equipped with a pair of constantly flashing (with the brakes of course) 16 LED Hyper-Lites on either side of my license plate, and turn signals that had been converted to running lights. These helped a lot, but I still had the cages in front to worry about. My Motolights made me more more visible, but it wasn't enough.

 

My latest acquisition was a headlight modulator. The other drivers definitely see me like never before. The "blinking" high beam along with my lower fork mounted Motolights really get their attention. Other drivers don't really see you unless they perceive you to be a threat. Now they look carefully to see if I'm a cop. In fact, the first week I started using it, two cars pulled over to let me by.

 

You all HAVE to get one of these!

[David]

Congratulations! Now you're simultaneously annoying more people while enjoying a false sense of security! You have arrived! Let's join you!

[Ken H.]

David has always hated them. Ignore him. That's what the rest of us do.

 

Oh, Hi David!

 

But I do agree with him in what he is implying about, "enjoying a false sense of security." His point I believed is NEVER EVER rely on other's seeing you. You MUST have the mental mind set that you always have to avoid them, not the other way around.

 

My opinion on modulators is that they do help, but in no way negates the above.

[Ruddy]

Congratulations! Now you're simultaneously annoying more people while enjoying a false sense of security! You have arrived! Let's join you!

 

False sense of security? No, I don't rely on the modulator to "save" me, I'm just reporting the results I've observed.

 

Annoying more people? I disagree. I run with my high beam during the day and low beam at night. A modulated high beam is no more annoying than a steady one, which is pretty hard on the eyes. Perhaps you prefer to ride with your low beam to avoid offending anyone during the day. I don't.

 

Modulators are now legal in all states, so the DOT seems to think they're worthwhile. After all, if you can't trust the government, who can you trust?

[Whip]

David has always hated them. Ignore him. That's what the rest of us do.

 

Oh, Hi David!

 

But I do agree with him in what he is implying about, "enjoying a false sense of security." His point I believed is NEVER EVER rely on other's seeing you. You MUST have the mental mind set that you always have to avoid them, not the other way around.

 

My opinion on modulators is that they do help, but in no way negates the above.

 

 

Very well said.

 

 

David ....that was unnecessary.

[drzep]

...while enjoying a false sense of security.

 

Show us the data. It's pretty clear that blinking lights grab human attention better than constant illumination.

[David]

David ....that was unnecessary.

 

Nonsense. He's giddy for the wrong reasons and it's appropriate to disagree in the same vein. More than that, we're obligated to present the other side. I was merely making a point by using the same glib tone.

 

We're a little too damn tame around here sometimes. Get over it.

[David]

...while enjoying a false sense of security.

 

Show us the data. It's pretty clear that blinking lights grab human attention better than constant illumination.

 

You're asking the wrong guy.

 

Go ask the guy who said he's now safer.

[RideTN]

annoying inattentive cage operators is not a bad thing.

[Ken H.]

...while enjoying a false sense of security.

 

Show us the data. It's pretty clear that blinking lights grab human attention better than constant illumination.

The point isn't if some people will see them (the blinking lights) some of the time, the point is that not all of the people will see them all of the time.

 

If someone puts a modulator (or anything else) on a bike, then rides around thinking, 'people see me better now' - that's a false sense of security.

 

My often repeated here mantra is, "Do everything you can to make yourself as visible as possible, the ride knowing that none of it works. Being any other way is fool hearty.

[smiller]

I don't know about the annoyance factor as that's in the eye of the beholder (and they personally don't bother me, or at least so less than a constant high beam), but I don't know how anyone who rides with a headlight modulator could possibly think that they are ineffective as they clearly make you more visible. Secure? On a motorcycle? Of course not. The same level of defensive driving would be required even with signal flares burning. But they are definitely of some assistance.

[Couchrocket]

Ruddy,

 

Ignore David's snotty reply ( ). He, and others here who will speed, pass on solid yellows, lane split, and do no end of other things that irritate other motorists, and are not legal. . . have somehow come to the conclusion that headlight modulators are worthless. This is one of the only surprising things I've found on this otherwise open minded safety-conscious DB. It is beyond me. 99.9% of the naysayers have zero personal experience riding a bike equipped w/ a headlight modulator, which makes their criticism all the more illogical. Go figure.

 

So, let me be representative of the small number of people here who do recognize the value of headlight modulators, and say to you, "Good for you."

 

Now, I shall add my obligatory disclaimer that I understand that headlight modulators are not a panacea for conspicuity, or safety. Neither are they a substitute for situational awareness, defensive riding skills, appropriate levels of paranoia where cages are concerned.

 

Man I get tired of re-hashing that . . .

 

They do, however, make you MUCH MORE VISIBLE to oncoming traffic. More than running lights, loud pipes, white helmets, orange vests, rabbits' feet, witches' potions, and the like.

 

They work. I don't care why they work, I don't care if they "irritate" those oncoming drivers. They are legal, AND THEY WORK to make you more visible.

 

Good for you.

 

Wait 'til you see mine w/ the new PIAA bright bulb!

[David]

Close minded? That's a crock. I'm terribly open minded. I'm so open minded that I'm a contrarian, and headlight modulators are supported by a very, very small minority. So that dog isn't going to hunt.

 

They are effective? All we have to believe that are the subjective, self-fulfilling beliefs of those who own them. Again, if there's an objective study, I want to see it. Otherwise, it's not much more significant than dyno butt declarations of added power from a new muffler.

 

Even if they ARE effective, I'd not likely use one, because as a driver/rider, the (unquantified) small improvement in what others noticed isn't a good trade off, to me.

 

But knock yourselves out! Seriously, I understand your position but I don't share it. One glib opinion deserves another, right? And don't you have a pretty picture to take?

[Couchrocket]

And don't you have a pretty picture to take?

 

David, I can always count on you to understand me! Thanks. It has been a bit tame around here lately.

 

But, what "do" you call someone w/ no personal experience with something, who "does have" information from reliable sources (me!), albeit anecdotal (so don't bring that hobby-horse out again, please!), and yet who refuses to even consider enhancing his own riding safety by trying one out -- at a cost less than one of the multi coated filters he undoubtedly has on the lenses for his $8,000 camera body?

[smiller]

What convinced me was the difference in reaction from cars during my lane-splitting days, there was a marked difference with the modulator on and off. A totally anecdotal observation 'tis true, and I didn't devise a blind-test method where I didn't know whether the modulator was on or off to eliminate the psychological factor (this is the only motorcycle forum I know of where I would have to say that ), but FWIW the difference seemed abundantly apparent to me.

[David]

But, what "do" you call someone w/ no personal experience with something, who "does have" information from reliable sources (me!), albeit anecdotal...

 

Sorry, but you lost me when you described "anecdotal" as a reliable source. Interesting that not a single m/c manufacturer includes this technology for use in the US. Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Especially since it's so cheap. And what manufacturer includes every other imaginable safety feature and touts it? Is that BMW?

 

...and yet who refuses to even consider enhancing his own riding safety by trying one out -- at a cost less than one of the multi coated filters he undoubtedly has on the lenses for his $8,000 camera body?

 

Touché. Then again, my willingness to spend that kind of money on a camera body but not a headlight modulator tells you how committed I am to my position.

 

And quit bringing up speeding and passing on double yellows. I've not done that on a motorcycle in 9 months. Not even once!

[russell_bynum]

What convinced me was the difference in reaction from cars during my lane-splitting days, there was a marked difference with the modulator on and off. A totally anecdotal observation 'tis true, and I didn't devise a blind-test method where I didn't know whether the modulator was on or off to eliminate the psychological factor (this is the only motorcycle forum I know of where I would have to say that ), but FWIW the difference seemed abundantly apparent to me.

 

I experienced the same thing the few times I've lane-split on borrowed bikes that had modulators and when I've followed bikes with modulators.

 

 

That said, I think they're tremendously annoying and I resent seeing them on the road. Same with riders who ride with their high beam on all the time during the day.

 

To the folks who think that annoying cagers is a good thing: remember that you're on a puny little 500lbs motorcycle and they're driving a 2+ton battering ram. And you're making progress through traffic while they're stuck.

 

Do you really think that pissing them off is a good idea?

 

And FWIW, the best experience I've had splitting was when I went into stealth mode and turned all the lights off. They didn't see me, so they didn't react to me. I just buzzed right on through unnoticed.

[TheGeep]

I can't say about other states, but in NY the use of a high beam modulator would NOT be legal. It would be "improper use of high beam." Now if there has been a change in the law that I am unaware of, please feel free to post the change.

[Ruddy]

I can't say about other states, but in NY the use of a high beam modulator would NOT be legal. It would be "improper use of high beam." Now if there has been a change in the law that I am unaware of, please feel free to post the change.

 

I suspect that's no longer true. Check here for more info: Official U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Governing Motorcycle Headlight Modulators.

 

In any case, you can install the unit to modulate the low beam if you wish.

[Couchrocket]

you lost me when you described "anecdotal" as a reliable source

David, if anecdotal evidence had been ignored throughout human history as assiduously as you seem to, we'd still be living in caves w/ no fire. Well, perhaps not even in caves.

 

To be fair, a better word is probably empirical vs. "scientific." My "anecdotes" report on empirical evidence.

[Couchrocket]

Do you really think that pissing them off is a good idea?

 

 

They didn't see me, so they didn't react to me.

 

Well, let's take the second notion first. They didn't react to you "so that you noticed" but lots of people in cages are REALLY irritated by lane splitters. Scared even. Irritated to the point of ill will toward riders in general. Most are surprised to learn that it is legal in some places.

 

So, pissing people off who you've already "stealthed past" is fine, but pissing them off in a way that makes them less likely to run over you is not? I honestly don't get the logic. I could accept an irrational prejudice against something "just because" much easier than the tortured logic evident here.

[russell_bynum]

So, pissing people off who you've already "stealthed past" is fine, but pissing them off in a way that makes them less likely to run over you is not? I honestly don't get the logic. I could accept an irrational prejudice against something "just because" much easier than the tortured logic evident here.

 

Tortured logic?

 

I'm opposed to pissing people off while I'm in a position for them to do me harm. I'm less concerned about pissing people off when I'm not in a position for them to do me harm.

 

How is that tortured logic?

[ESokoloff]

Interesting that not a single m/c manufacturer includes this technology for use in the US. Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Especially since it's so cheap.

 

Most if not all trains I've seen have some sort of modulating lights on the lead car/locomotive.

Gotta be a good reason for this.

 

That said people still claim to not see trains or worse yet try to beat them.

Best to make yourself as visible as you can & ride like none of it works.

[smiller]

Do you really think that pissing them off is a good idea?

I don't, nor do I want to be discourteous... I just don't personally find modulators to be all that egregious and am always a bit surprised when I hear someone rail against them for this reason. Actually I don't think I'm often behind anyone long enough to annoy them But if I'm in a situation where I will be behind the same vehicle for an extended period of time then I do turn the modulator off, just in case. It is not my intention or desire to enrage anyone.

[drzep]

I am completely amazed that so many intelligent people would sit here and argue that modulating a light is either detrimental, not advantageous, or otherwise a waste. If you are 'pissing' people off or are 'annoyed' by seeing a modulated light, then has it not served it's purpose? You noticed it!

 

If you want data to illustrate the potency of flashing lights, refer to any psychophysics or human perception text. A light flashing at 2-15 Hz simulates motion which is kinda important when many of the people driving 2 ton battering rams have severe sensory deficits. In fact, most folks over 70 years (~50-60%) lack sufficient depth perception to determine if a single light source is moving towards or away from them! It would be nice to think that we could move that ball into our court by modulating a light. That study has not been done, but I know what the null hypothesis would be going in.

 

In terms of generating a false sense of security, I agree that if you modulate your lights, wear a neon vest and white helmet, put a large pink dorsal fin on your back, and then go ride like a tool - yeah, your gonna get hurt. Will people be more likely to see you before they T-bone you? Perhaps...

[David]

Interesting that not a single m/c manufacturer includes this technology for use in the US. Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Especially since it's so cheap.

 

Most if not all trains I've seen have some sort of modulating lights on the lead car/locomotive.

 

Now you're talking, because there are studies about this. But if you read 'em, you'll discover that the visibility comes more from the "triangle" arrangement, not the flashing lights.

[David]

you lost me when you described "anecdotal" as a reliable source.

David, if anecdotal evidence had been ignored throughout human history as assiduously as you seem to, we'd still be living in caves w/ no fire. Well, perhaps not even in caves.

 

Scott, I'm not rejecting your evidence because it's anecdotal--I'm rejecting it because your anecdotal evidence disagrees with my anecdotal evidence. When that happens, I want to step up a bit to a more scientific study.

 

One that explains why so many people don't see freakin' huge, wildly painted, screaming, multi-light flashing fire engines and ambulances tens of thousand times per day, while you comfortably assert how much safer you are on a puny, dark colored motorcycle with one whimpy flashing light on the front.

 

Do more people see that than see a standard headlight? Of course, but my guess (based on anecdotal evidence) is that the difference is measurable only in your mind, and the reason they see you is because they are already looking at you and would have been looking at you whether your light was flashing or not. If they don't "see" you, it doesn't matter what your light is doing!

 

In every one of these discussions I've said I'd like to be wrong, though, and this is no different.

[alanz]

I can't say about other states, but in NY the use of a high beam modulator would NOT be legal. It would be "improper use of high beam." Now if there has been a change in the law that I am unaware of, please feel free to post the change.

 

 

Bill,

 

There is no question that compliant modulators are legal in New York State as well as the other 49 states, and all of Canada.

 

That said, many officers still don't know about them.

 

I got a ticket in NYS for using a modulator, that was subsequently dismissed.

 

The story is interesting, I've written it up. Click here to read the story.

 

PArt of my defense included a letter sent from the Commissioner of the NYS DOT to all precincts that reminds them of the legality of the devices

[Lawman]

"Now you're talking, because there are studies about this. But if you read 'em, you'll discover that the visibility comes more from the "triangle" arrangement, not the flashing lights."

"In terms of generating a false sense of security, I agree that if you modulate your lights, wear a neon vest and white helmet, put a large pink dorsal fin on your back, and then go ride like a tool - yeah, your gonna get hurt. Will people be more likely to see you before they T-bone you? Perhaps... "

 

___________________________________________________________

 

I'm feeling a little persecuted here since I ride a red bike with 55 watt amber Motolights, Kisan headlight modulator, Hyper lights on the back and do so while wearing a silver Arai helmet and a High Vis Cycleport kevlar jacket...Hadn't thought about getting a pink dorsal fin though...Thanks..

[Ken H.]

your anecdotal evidence disagrees with my anecdotal evidence.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... David, have you ever ridden a bike with a headlight modulator for a day-in day-out extended period of time? If not, I'd say you don't have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

 

As Scott says, much of what we come to believe in life is "anecdotal", not proved out by accepted scientific study or whatever. That in itself doesn't invalidate it. After all what is "proof" other than a larger accumulation of anecdotal evidence with a pattern?

 

I have a switch on my modulator, I can and do turn it on and off at will. And my, admittedly unscientific, but intentional experiments with riding my same old day-to-day ride, with various combinations of modulated, not modulated, high beam, no high beam, etc. clearly illustrates to me people see me more with my high beam on being modulated. I can tell in their vehicle movement reaction patterns. (Sometimes to a detriment I might add, like when they slow down in front of me apparently thinking I'm a LEO, but that's a different subject.)

 

I suspect you, and other's who object strenuously to them have a heightened awareness of them because you are a biker, thus are more attune to bikes 'out there', in your field of vision, in general. When in a cage I look closer at every bike I see because I'm interested in it. Does the general non-riding public (who after all is the target "audience" of them) feel the same irritated, annoyed, hostile way? That's the correct $64 question IMHO. It's like loud pipes; it matters little what we think of the sound of our particular bike, it matters what the people who control our (riding) destiny think. Modulators are the same way, does the general driving public become more or less accommodating to a bike in their vicinity with them? That's the key point that counts. I've never seeing anything that would lead me to believe they overall (there are exceptions to everything of course) react negatively/agressively/hostile toward a bike with one.

 

I'm on the same page as you though about your false sense of security point.

[Mike]

They are effective? All we have to believe that are the subjective, self-fulfilling beliefs of those who own them. Again, if there's an objective study, I want to see it. Otherwise, it's not much more significant than dyno butt declarations of added power from a new muffler.

 

David--

 

The two studies that I've seen cited as supporting the use of modulators are referred to in this Wikipedia article.

 

Clearly it's up to each individual to determine whether the findings in these studies are compelling enough to justify the use of modulators, but the adoption of the FMVSS that permits their use wasn't enacted as the result of anecdotal evidence. I would note, also, that the use of flashing or modulated lights to enhance visibility is hardly a novel concept. They're used almost universally on police, fire, and other emergency vehicles worldwide. They're required in aviation. The big-ass train that I ride to work every day has modulated headlights (actually they wobble, mimicking a modulator). It's not really a novel concept, and I suspect that you and others who criticize the use of modulators recognize that.

 

The real objection I continue to see here seems to revolve around the notion that those who use modulators is the notion that, once a rider installs a modulator, he is likely to lapse into a zombie-like state. Personally, since I spend most of my life in a zombie-like state, it might be difficult to discern any difference. While the caution against complacence is a point that is well-taken, but it hardly seems like an argument against the technology. If it were the case that aids to conspicuity caused dangerous complacence, then it would seem to follow that fire engines should turn off their flashers, trains should run black, and pilots should switch off their navigation lights and beacons while aloft.

 

Over the years I've had a handful of motorcycling acquaintances who have been injuried or died as the result of collisions with cars or trucks driven by drivers who claimed they "didn't see" the motorcyclist. I don't offer this as an argument for modulators, but I always wonder if that motorcyclist might have escaped the accident altogether--and, in some cases, might still be alive--if he had taken just one small step to make himself more visible. Personally, that's a part of the equation that drives me to use modulators more often than not. But, I absolutely do not rely on them.

 

On the other hand, I'm not out to change the world. If someone decides they don't want to use modulators . . . for whatever reason . . . that's fine with me. I would just ask that those who decide against using them to not falsely ascribe careless attitudes to me to rationalize their decision.

[Lawman]

In 32 years of police work I have a little of my own strictly anecdotal evidence and that is the fact that I have been on many, many accident scenes to say the least.. A fair number of those accident scenes involving motorcyclists and some of those accidents involved drivers who said they never saw the bike or saw it too late..As best as could be determined on scene none of those bikes had modulators..I've never personally known of an accident involving a biker who was using a modulator. Granted that doesn't mean much but it might mean something..

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Interesting that not a single m/c manufacturer includes this technology for use in the US. Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Especially since it's so cheap.

 

Most if not all trains I've seen have some sort of modulating lights on the lead car/locomotive.

 

Now you're talking, because there are studies about this. But if you read 'em, you'll discover that the visibility comes more from the "triangle" arrangement, not the flashing lights.

 

Linky?

[FlyingFinn]

There is no question that compliant modulators are legal in New York State as well as the other 49 states, and all of Canada.

 

It also seems that to be compliant the modulator has to meet some pretty strict requirements.

 

"7.9.4.1 A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate either the upper beam or the lower beam from its maximum intensity to a lesser intensity, provided that:

 

(a) The rate of modulation shall be 240 <plus-minus> 40 cycles per minute.

 

(b) The headlamp shall be operated at maximum power for 50 to 70 percent of each cycle.

 

© The lowest intensity at any test point shall be not less than 17 percent of the maximum intensity measured at the same point

.....

 

(f) The system shall include a sensor mounted with the axis of its sensing element perpendicular to a horizontal plane. Headlamp modulation shall cease whenever the level of light emitted by a tungsten filament light operating at 3000 deg. Kelvin is either less than 270 lux (25 foot-candles) of direct light for upward pointing sensors or less than 60 lux (5.6 foot-candles) of reflected light for downward pointing sensors. The light is measured by a silicon cell type light meter that is located at the sensor and pointing in the same direction as the sensor. A Kodak Gray Card (Kodak R-27) is placed at ground level to simulate the road surface in testing downward pointing sensors."

 

I wonder how many of the widely available modulators meet also those requirements.

 

--

Mikko

[Couchrocket]

I wonder how many of the widely available modulators meet also those requirements

I suspect that the manufacturers are aware of the regs. and take them into consideration.

Kisan seems to be, since they have a link to the regs on their web site. I carry a copy on my bike.

 

I appreciate all the empirical anecdotes posted in this thread. Good stuff. It helps shed light on the absurd illogical opposition to modulators expressed by some.

 

The fact that everyone feels compelled to genuflect and say the "I know it doesn't SOLVE the visibility problem, I will STILL be careful, defensive, aware, keep my head on a swivel, my-father-beat-your-father-at-dominoes . . . Amen....." is evidence of the absurdity.

 

I've yet to see a post about motolights, white helmets, orange vests, defensive tactics, and even loud pipes, where the contributors feel compelled to confess that each of these small contributions to survival "isn't THE answer."

 

Good grief.

 

A modulator is another valuable small contribution to safety that costs less than a good bottle of single malt.

 

That's all. It is just that simple.

[Couchrocket]

Even if they ARE effective, I'd not likely use one, because as a driver/rider, the (unquantified) small improvement in what others noticed isn't a good trade off, to me.

 

I just noticed this thought. David, not a good trade off for what? Even if they are effective? Not a good trade off to trade "what" for even incrementally improved safety? Please don't tell me that you're saying that you'd rather be less safe in order not to "potentially" irritate a cage driver? Is that the trade off? If not, what? A hundred bucks?

[Lets_Play_Two]

Not having an opinion on modulators....but I think that auto drivers saying "I never saw the motorcycle" is an attempt at excusing the accident rather than evidence, of any type, about visibility. I do drive many days with my high beams on, particularly on the interstate, but I also am very aware of staying out of blind spots and being otherwise visible. I'm in these case more concerned about the cars next to me or overtaking me rather than those I am overtaking. On surface streets I just assume that all of those cars making left turns or coming from side streets don't see me and prepare accordingly. But, maybe I'll try the modulating lights for the same reason I wear a white helmet. I know that my girl friend gets a lot of attention wearing high viz yellow....of course I am assuming, anecdotally, it is the high viz attracting the attention!!

[David]

your anecdotal evidence disagrees with my anecdotal evidence.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... David, have you ever ridden a bike with a headlight modulator for a day-in day-out extended period of time? If not, I'd say you don't have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa yourself. And go back and read my post. I was very clear in admitting that more people notice you with a modulator. I just don't think it's the people who matter--the ones who won't notice you no matter what.

[David]

The two studies that I've seen cited as supporting the use of modulators are referred to in this Wikipedia article.

 

Thanks! I'll take a look when I get back to the office. That's the sort of stuff I'm looking for.

 

On the other hand, I'm not out to change the world. If someone decides they don't want to use modulators . . . for whatever reason . . . that's fine with me. I would just ask that those who decide against using them to not falsely ascribe careless attitudes to me to rationalize their decision.

 

I don't know if you're talking to me or referring to someone else, but if you're talking to me, I think you're off base. When someone pops onto a site and claims how much safer they are and that we ought to all join the party, the burden for some justification is on him and the burden for questioning it is on me. It's not the other way around.

 

I don't give a damn whether someone uses a modulator or not, in the bigger scheme of things. What bothers me is false security and disrespectful use of them.

 

Although I'll admit that sometimes I get confused and forget if we're talking about modulators or deer whistles.

[David]

In 32 years of police work I have a little of my own strictly anecdotal evidence and that is the fact that I have been on many, many accident scenes to say the least.. A fair number of those accident scenes involving motorcyclists and some of those accidents involved drivers who said they never saw the bike or saw it too late..As best as could be determined on scene none of those bikes had modulators..I've never personally known of an accident involving a biker who was using a modulator. Granted that doesn't mean much but it might mean something..

 

And at these accident scenes, with your lights of many colors blaring, parked sideways, and in a vehicle about 10 times larger than a motorcycle, how many people nearly hit you? And how many officers have died in just that position?

[Mike]

Not having an opinion on modulators....but I think that auto drivers saying "I never saw the motorcycle" is an attempt at excusing the accident rather than evidence, of any type, about visibility.

 

We may be swaying a little off course here, but there have been a lot of studies about "inattentional blindness," a well-proven phenomenon that occurs when items clearly in the visual range of the eye are not perceived by the brain. The Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois has conducted a fair amount of research and some of the videos used in its studies can be viewed on the website.

 

When inattentional blindness occurs, it's not necessarily the result of intoxication, fatigue, or a lack of caring--it's simply a fact of life that many people can be looking squarely at an event unfolding in front of them and fail to perceive it because of a disconnect between the eye and the brain. In fact, it causes me no small amount of distress to know that decent, conscientious, and alert people who inadvertantly cause accidents as the result of a ubiquitous psychophysical condition are sometimes labeled "negligent," then lose their belongings and, sometimes, their freedom.

 

The claim that "I didn't see him" tends to get the blood of motorcyclists boiling, but it's quite often not a fabrication. It's the truth, and it's often not the fault of the person making the claim.

[David]

Linky?

 

I don't have it handy, but look for a '95 study funded by the DoT on "Safety of External Lighting Devices to Improve Locomotive Conspicuity" or something like that. As I recall, it was the unusual triangle pattern AND the fact that it allowed the driver to judge converging distances. Neither is present in a single flashing headlight.

 

It's been a few years since I read it, though.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

In 32 years of police work I have a little of my own strictly anecdotal evidence and that is the fact that I have been on many, many accident scenes to say the least.. A fair number of those accident scenes involving motorcyclists and some of those accidents involved drivers who said they never saw the bike or saw it too late..As best as could be determined on scene none of those bikes had modulators..I've never personally known of an accident involving a biker who was using a modulator. Granted that doesn't mean much but it might mean something..

 

And at these accident scenes, with your lights of many colors blaring, parked sideways, and in a vehicle about 10 times larger than a motorcycle, how many people nearly hit you? And how many officers have died in just that position?

 

Funny, I just saw a cop-car-dashboard-video clip of a traffic stop, in which the driver got out to talk to the cop. She came back between her car and the cop car. She got a couple of words out before the cop said "let's go stand off to the side over here, just in case someone hits the back of my car." They had literally just stepped out from between the two cars when, sure enough, someone rammed the cop car, closing the gap they had just been standing in.

 

I think the flashing lights may have been more of a homing beacon in that case.

[David]

Even if they ARE effective, I'd not likely use one, because as a driver/rider, the (unquantified) small improvement in what others noticed isn't a good trade off, to me.

 

I just noticed this thought. David, not a good trade off for what? Even if they are effective? Not a good trade off to trade "what" for even incrementally improved safety? Please don't tell me that you're saying that you'd rather be less safe in order not to "potentially" irritate a cage driver? Is that the trade off? If not, what? A hundred bucks?

 

My opinion is that they are so ineffective at helping the unaware see you (vs. the aware, that are looking in the right place and scanning and are made more aware of your position by the flashing) that I think it's a bad trade for the annoyance factor.

 

Don't get all emotional about this. We disagree, and that's fine.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

In 32 years of police work I have a little of my own strictly anecdotal evidence and that is the fact that I have been on many, many accident scenes to say the least.. A fair number of those accident scenes involving motorcyclists and some of those accidents involved drivers who said they never saw the bike or saw it too late..As best as could be determined on scene none of those bikes had modulators..I've never personally known of an accident involving a biker who was using a modulator. Granted that doesn't mean much but it might mean something..

 

If headlight modulators were extremely popular, this might be a meaningful observation. But the fact is that they're extremely rare.

 

Suppose 1 in 1000 bikes is equipped with a modulator (probably not far from the truth). If the modulators didn't make any difference at all, then you could observe 500 crashes, and there'd be a 60% chance that none of the crashed bikes had a modulator.

[Mike]

I've seen references to that study, and some excerpts, but not the whole enchilada. One of the important points, which you note, was the conclusion that the triangle of lights improved the ability of observers to judge the distance (and perhaps the closing speed) of trains. It does seem that one of the problems motorists have with motorcyles is judging their distance and speed. This is, I think, exacerbated by the fact that motorcycles can accelerate much faster than cars. So, motorists are also saddled with a subconscious preconception of how quickly motorcyclists can change speed that seriously underestimates how quick they are.

 

I think multiple lights--ideally in a triangle configuration--are a good idea on motorcycles. One problem I would note, however, is the use of two side-by-side lights: I can recall one occasion when I was contemplating passing another car (I was in a cage) and momentarily mistook a twin-light motorcycle for a car at a much greater distance.

[Ken H.]

My opinion is that they are so ineffective at helping the unaware see you (vs. the aware, that are looking in the right place and scanning and are made more aware of your position by the flashing) that I think it's a bad trade for the annoyance factor.

Not trying to nit-pick a fight with you here David, rather trying to understand...

 

The term "not a good trade off" to me implies the negatives out weigh the positives. True representation of your position?

 

Even if they are an annoyance to the general non-riding public, and we have no evidence here anecdotal or otherwise that they are, I still don't see what the large negatives are that would offset enough the positive of some ___% of the population being some ___% more likely to see the bike and react appropriately, than if there wasn't a modulator.

 

Now admittedly I'm specifically excluding your personal annoyance with them, because as a rider I don't think of you as being a valid representation of the group whose attention we are trying to get with them. E.g. - Non-riding cage drivers.

 

A negative could be that cage riders are so annoyed by them that they take a specifically intended hostile action toward the rider. E.g. - Intentionally turn in front of the bike with the intent to inflict harm. Or at the extreme, pull a gun on a rider with a modulator. But there seems to be even less evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that those types of negative reactions are happening.

 

So the question to you remains, what are the negatives of the equation that make them in your mind not a good trade off?

[russell_bynum]

Even if they are an annoyance to the general non-riding public, and we have no evidence here anecdotal or otherwise that they are, I still don't see what the large negatives are that would offset enough the positive of some ___% of the population being some ___% more likely to see the bike and react appropriately, than if there wasn't a modulator.

 

Now admittedly I'm specifically excluding your personal annoyance with them, because as a rider I don't think of you as being a valid representation of the group whose attention we are trying to get with them. E.g. - Non-riding cage drivers.

 

They've always annoyed me...long before I was a rider.

 

Here's a question: If you admit that they might annoy some people, but that's OK in your mind because of the perceived benefits, how is that different than someone running a loud pipe on their bike and saying "I know it might piss some people off, but I like it and I don't think it's such a big deal."?

[David]

I've seen references to that study, and some excerpts, but not the whole enchilada. One of the important points, which you note, was the conclusion that the triangle of lights improved the ability of observers to judge the distance (and perhaps the closing speed) of trains. It does seem that one of the problems motorists have with motorcyles is judging their distance and speed. This is, I think, exacerbated by the fact that motorcycles can accelerate much faster than cars. So, motorists are also saddled with a subconscious preconception of how quickly motorcyclists can change speed that seriously underestimates how quick they are.

 

Yes, indeed. My instinct tells me (no other corroboration) that in many cases motorists do see motorcycles but misjudge their distance because of the size. You can see this phenomenon when you observe a 747 flying. It seems to be flying so slowly, when in fact it's just a long ways off but appears closer because of its size. So that's the reverse issue, but it illustrates the point.

[Couchrocket]

Don't get all emotional about this. We disagree, and that's fine.

Not emotional at all, just very surprised as your rationale is expanded upon. Tell you what, if you'll do your own analysis over say, a six month period actually riding a bike with one installed and operating, I'll buy you the modulator of your choice. They are easy to install and easy to remove. Then you can sell it on the DB here, and make a profit, if you don't see any value.

 

Kisan is a good one. Hook it up to the high beam. The "high" then modulates during the day and the photo sensor turns it off at night automatically. That way you can have it on, or off, as you see fit for your test.