4 Sevens
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

  1. #1
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    To come soon: Report on the Philips demo/discussion day about their Saferide lamps (in Aachen, Germany, 19 January)

    I will probably miss the introduction as the train takes so long to get there from Alphen a.d. Rijn (4 hours to Aachen (Hauptbahnhof) so I'll get there at ca. 10.00 at the earliest when it all starts, but then I still have to get to the testlab some way away), hmm... I'll see if there's another option to get there. I'm going to ask why they haven't improved the lamps in the way I would like it, hehe ;-)

    So, I have a bunch of questions that I'm going to ask the technical people, and I'll make suggestions of course similar to on my webpages. If you have anything you'd like to know, write it in this thread and I'll see what I can find out. I won't have internet on the 19th as I don't have a mobile with internet.

    Part of the programme:
    10.30: Tour through the test lab with explanation about testing and measurments of the lightbeam

    13.00: Background information on measurements and the 'making of' of the Philips SafeRide LED BikeLight (I think they mean the whole series, not the LBL)
    14.00: Discussion


    I asked whether I could make pics for my website, I haven't got a yes/no yet but I'll take my camera just in case.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Hi wwhs,

    Boy - what an interesting opportunity! Here's my list (gleaned mainly from discussions I've read at CPF) of questions/issues I'd like to be put to the engineers etc at Philips. Concerns dynamo model only!

    1. Mount - please improve, get rid of apparent stress risers and establish some sort of standard with other light makers.
    2. Please improve tail light contact on dynamo model (ie; get rid of trailing wires)
    3. Please improve the mechanical feedback from dynamo docel's switch (ie; I want something that 'clicks')
    4. Please provide a version of the dynamo model that uses the latest and most powerful of leds suitable for dynamo use.

    Thanks,

    Savvas.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Hello swhs

    I would really like to see
    1. a 18650-battery version of the light (with the possibility of replacing the cells).
    2. It should use the most powerful LEDs -I presume Philips won't use Cree LEDs?
    3. Most important: They should sell the reflector - so we could build a light with all our wishes!!!

    Gute Reise!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    I would really like to see
    1. a voltage regulated input for an external-battery, ie the possibility to connetct, lets say, 6 V - 12V external batteries.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by mrradlos View Post
    Hello swhs

    I would really like to see
    1. a 18650-battery version of the light (with the possibility of replacing the cells).
    2. It should use the most powerful LEDs -I presume Philips won't use Cree LEDs?
    3. Most important: They should sell the reflector - so we could build a light with all our wishes!!!

    Gute Reise!
    My guess at Philips response to these queries:
    1. costs too much to sell a version for both NiMH and Lithium batteries. The added cost of a second set of tools for the injection molded plastic is probably $20,000 to $50,000 (USD), so you'd have to sell a lot to recover the cost. Plus, you now have another product to design packaging, a manual, etc., for. You'd have to sell a lot to make it worthwhile, and I'm guessing that not many people are already using 18650's .

    2. Since the current design is using Philips' Luxeon LEDs, I think it's safe to say that you'll never see Cree LEDs installed.

    3. Philips isn't interested in selling small plastic parts for $5 each when they can sell a light for $189 (according to Amazon). Well, not unless they could sell 100,000 of the reflectors, perhaps. It's just a lot of trouble to sell and stock a bunch of small parts.

    To be honest, I really haven't been tracking this thread, but now that I see that the light costs $189USD, I'm a bit shocked! On the plus side, it makes me feel a lot better about my current project: retrofitting a Cree XR-E and Ledil Rocket SS into an old Cateye Micro II!

    Steve K.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
    To be honest, I really haven't been tracking this thread, but now that I see that the light costs $189USD, I'm a bit shocked! On the plus side, it makes me feel a lot better about my current project: retrofitting a Cree XR-E and Ledil Rocket SS into an old Cateye Micro II!

    Steve K.
    Steve, there were just 4 posts in this thread! I think you should try to read all 4 :-)

    But seriously, there's no way you are ever going to come close to the LBL with a a single XR-E retrofit.

    Other replies:
    > 1. a voltage regulated input for an external-battery, ie the possibility to connetct, lets say, 6 V - 12V external batteries.

    See the e-bike and pedelec versions. These are OEM-only but may become available for loose sale. Long ago (2010) I already suggested they should do this. I will get an e-bike version for testing, hopefully soon (these things take quite some time from 'we'll send one' to 'postman rings'...).


    Using other LEDs: Philips make their own LEDs, so they're never going to use Cree LEDs. The rebels/altilons are not that far behind the XM-L (esp. with measured samples instead of datasheets) but most importantly, the emitting surface is smaller. The altilon is best and I'd like to see the 4 side-by-side altilon used... This would give dual LBL power on the road. I ran with a LBL + SLD-on LBL driver at the same time and it's quite impressive (though to be honest completely unnecessary). It is very hard to make a good cutoff optic with high lux rating (important for throw) with the XP-G never mind the XM-L. The optics firm doing the work for Supernova failed miserably trying to do this with the XP-G, and even with XP-E where it is StVZO compliant, the lux rating is very low. You notice this as it seems your lamp doesn't shine far in situations with stray light such as from car headlamps.

    There is a DIY lamp from someone experimenting on a German recumbent forum that I want to test, using XM-L, the beam seems even better than the LBL, but it's really big. Using an optic from a Xenon headlamp for quads. At least the size of the B&M Big bang. Too big for normal bikes.

    Oh, I've changed my plan, I'm going the 18th and will have a look around Aachen, so I'll be in time for the start

  7. #7
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    Steve, there were just 4 posts in this thread! I think you should try to read all 4 :-)

    But seriously, there's no way you are ever going to come close to the LBL with a a single XR-E retrofit.
    My brain meant to say that I haven't been following the other threads on this light...

    but.. it would be nice to be able to buy optics/reflectors that are equivalent to the Philips light and make your own. A symmetric optic like the Ledil Rocket is definitely a compromise for road riding. Still, I'm using this arrangement for my dynamo light, and it's not bad. For now, I'll just wait for someone to hand me their dead Philips or equivalent light, and I'll retrofit some current LEDs into it.

    Steve K.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    There is a DIY lamp from someone experimenting on a German recumbent forum that I want to test, using XM-L, the beam seems even better than the LBL, but it's really big. Using an optic from a Xenon headlamp for quads. At least the size of the B&M Big bang. Too big for normal bikes.
    Link? Pictures?

    thanks,
    Savvas

  9. #9

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    Other replies:
    > 1. a voltage regulated input for an external-battery, ie the possibility to connetct, lets say, 6 V - 12V external batteries.

    See the e-bike and pedelec versions. These are OEM-only but may become available for loose sale. Long ago (2010) I already suggested they should do this. I will get an e-bike version for testing, hopefully soon (these things take quite some time from 'we'll send one' to 'postman rings'...).
    The e-bike light sounds really interesting, could you please ask Philips about the availability to the public for the e-bike light?
    (If you read this before your meeting)

  10. #10

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
    it would be nice to be able to buy optics/reflectors that are equivalent to the Philips light and make your own. A symmetric optic like the Ledil Rocket is definitely a compromise for road riding. Still, I'm using this arrangement for my dynamo light, and it's not bad. For now, I'll just wait for someone to hand me their dead Philips or equivalent light, and I'll retrofit some current LEDs into it.
    You could buy a donor-light and retrofit modern LEDs, this would be a good donor:
    XC-997B from DX
    http://www.dealextreme.com/p/xc-997b...-4-x-aa-108640

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by HakanC View Post
    You could buy a donor-light and retrofit modern LEDs, this would be a good donor:
    XC-997B from DX
    http://www.dealextreme.com/p/xc-997b...-4-x-aa-108640
    If the beam was of sufficient quality, it might be a good choice. Is there any info out there to say that it compares favorably with the Philips or other highly regarded lights? There's also the question of whether the rest of the design is adequate. My first concern would be whether it had sufficient heatsinking, or any heatsinking at all. The quality of the mounting hardware would also be a concern.
    If the beam was good enough, it might be worth keeping the reflector and LED mounting fixture and scrap the rest.

    regards,
    Steve K.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Steve:
    It was only a suggestion.
    But I agree that you would need more then one XC-997B to get a light beam of sufficient quality, mainly width.

    Have you seen this thread :
    http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...-L-road-lights
    Perhaps this reflector from DX could be used for a similar light:
    http://www.dealextreme.com/p/53mm-30...emitters-18841

  13. #13
    Flashaholic panicmechanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by Savvas View Post
    Link? Pictures?
    Here you go. He's constantly fiddling on the design, also uses different halogen/xenon lights to mod, open or enclosed optics. The beam gets best in the latest samples, so be sure to read to the end. The comparison pictures are shot with similar wattage, not the maximum power for the XM-L, in order to compare better with PBL and Busch&Mueller.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    I built a street light myself - probably even bigger than the german light. But it has the benefit of yellow sidelight and light going back to the moving knees (well visible from further away). I think there is still too much light going up though ...

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by HakanC View Post
    Steve:
    It was only a suggestion.
    But I agree that you would need more then one XC-997B to get a light beam of sufficient quality, mainly width.

    Have you seen this thread :
    http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...-L-road-lights
    Perhaps this reflector from DX could be used for a similar light:
    http://www.dealextreme.com/p/53mm-30...emitters-18841
    I did participate in the thread that you mention, and the idea of mounting a led sideways in a repurposed incandescent housing dates back a number of years to work done by Olaf Schultz and company. I've got an old BiSY headlamp sitting around that was intended for this purpose.

    Still, it's not easy to do well. With the BiSY (and the work done by Olaf), you need to use both the reflector and the optics to get the beam pattern that was obtained as an incandescent light.
    And, of course, you have to start out with a light that has a good beam pattern to begin with. I've got old Lumtecs and old
    Cateye battery lights that I would never bother to convert to LED (while utilizing their original reflector & optics) because their beams were poor.

    I do think that the more recent LED lights that utilize just reflectors to create a good beam pattern are on the right path. These don't emit any light directly from the LED; instead, it is all handled and directed by the reflector first. As the emitters get smaller, the reflectors can also get smaller, which is a good thing.

    Personally, I'm not in a rush to use a single LED and reflector, but that's just because I finally got my multi-LED light running with the variable power and the standlight features.
    I need to get some use out of it before I try to figure out how to do the same thing with a single LED.

    Steve K.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
    I've got old Lumtecs and old Cateye battery lights that I would never bother to convert to LED (while utilizing their original reflector & optics) because their beams were poor.

    Steve K.
    I copied mfj197 and must say that gives the best beam pattern I have seen from a simple reflector! Just go ahead and try it out!
    An aspheric lens is quite good as well!

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* Steve K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peoria, IL
    Posts
    2,016

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by mrradlos View Post
    I copied mfj197 and must say that gives the best beam pattern I have seen from a simple reflector! Just go ahead and try it out!
    An aspheric lens is quite good as well!
    But is it as good as a well designed beam such as the Philips light that is under discussion, or some of the other lights held in high regard (Edelux? one of the Cyo lights?)? A reflector that allows a significant amount of light to simply radiate forward won't do a good job of controlling the beam pattern. It might be good enough, as I've had fairly good results with lights that had a very tight hot spot from the reflector, and used the spill light to light the portion of the road between the hot spot and the bike.

    I guess my point is that if you don't already have a decent light, then adopting a symmetric optic or a basic reflector may be good enough. If you already have a light that is good enough (as in my case), then waiting for a very good reflector/optic is the preferred choice.

    Steve K.

  18. #18
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Back on topic (please make a different topic for experimental lamps...):

    I'm back from Germany, did some shopping for muesli and tea too ;-)

    The first I noticed getting to Aachen which immediately showed the difference between the Netherlands and Germany was the DB euregiobahn train for the last section, not only could I hear what was being announced (extremely difficult in NL) due to better pronounciation and I think a better sound system, but they also say "Ausstieg in Fahrtrichtung links" (or "rechts") to indicate which side you need to get out (a guessing game in NL) and to make sure you know what left/right is, "in Fahrtrichtung" (in the direction of travelling). Deutsch Gruendlichkeit, I like it :-)

    Those present were from DE and NL, English was spoken to make sure everyone understood each other, but in the latter part with technical discussion and suggestions it was almost entirely in German (after last night I'm still thinking in German ;-))

    The meeting was with people from magazines in particular, and a trade business mag. and more.

    The meeting was held in the measurement lab for the car and bicycle lamps. I've got pictures of everything, and need to write it all up. We also got a tour of the HID production line and explanation how they were made was quite interesting.

    So, that's it for now, probably later today I will have an extensive description with pictures etc.

    Wouter

  19. #19

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo discussion day 19 January

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve K View Post
    But is it as good as a well designed beam such as the Philips light that is under discussion, or some of the other lights held in high regard (Edelux? one of the Cyo lights?)? A reflector that allows a significant amount of light to simply radiate forward won't do a good job of controlling the beam pattern. It might be good enough, as I've had fairly good results with lights that had a very tight hot spot from the reflector, and used the spill light to light the portion of the road between the hot spot and the bike.

    I guess my point is that if you don't already have a decent light, then adopting a symmetric optic or a basic reflector may be good enough. If you already have a light that is good enough (as in my case), then waiting for a very good reflector/optic is the preferred choice.

    Steve K.
    I replaced my Bosch+Müller Lumotec Lyt with the self build. I have the Fly on a other bicycle. A round reflector or TIR-optic can't do what half a cat-eye reflector or a big, fat aspheric lense do!

    I wanted to buy the Philips Saferide (dynamo version), but then found someone that made that little driver for a DIY-light. Of course the cut off with the Saferide is probably even better than what we can do. It would be nice to see a dynamo version with three or four LEDs or two LEDs with double the current.
    Last edited by mrradlos; 01-20-2012 at 03:41 AM.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post

    I'm back from Germany, did some shopping for muesli and tea too ;-)

    Those present were from DE and NL, English was spoken to make sure everyone understood each other, but in the latter part with technical discussion and suggestions it was almost entirely in German (after last night I'm still thinking in German ;-))

    Wouter
    I'm looking forward to your pictures and description. If you write it in German all better for me ... ... and if you want to buy proper Müesli you have to come here next time ...

  21. #21
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by mrradlos View Post
    I'm looking forward to your pictures and description. If you write it in German all better for me ... ... and if you want to buy proper Müesli you have to come here next time ...
    Updates here:

    http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tes...ngsdag_en.html

    I'm still working on it sorting out pictures and writing down everything.

    Btw., I usually don't get any feedback about suggestions I send (to various manufacturers) about my ideas on how to improve their products (esp. Saddles, bike computers, lighting of course). From most I never hear anything. The exceptions are Sunup and Philips. This day was organised after I sent my post-eurobike email with lots of suggestions to make a 'perfect' headlamp. The marketing people then decided to organise this day, to get feedback from various people on how to improve the product, make it more appealing and see what they would like to see changed. This is a cool attitude, and the testcenter Philips set up where you can loan a headlamp for a day is also cool, similar to what I do with leather saddles and headlamps (I let people ride on saddles and loan them if say a 10 km ride is not enough, with lights I can ride with customers and show the differences). Talking with the technical people really made me think they have the same no-nonsense approach as I have. Such as the claim of 'at least 270lm' of the LBL. Which is true and Philips was one of the first to give measured values. But also the way to compare headlamps. I use a switchbox to ride with 3-4 headlamps at the same time and switch between headlamps while riding. This is the only proper way to compare lightbeams, and when I said this, the engineer said he did exactly the same thing. Cool

    My conclusion: It's going to take a while for products to improve, this is caused by lots of things, as a big large-volume company you can't quickly change your designs, this is something obvious in the DIY MTB lamps as well where all the commercial lights trail the DIY lights. But I'm very curious how the lamps will improve, and the way Philips are taking feedback seriously, is very cool.

    Wouter

    For mrradlos:
    PS. Muesli in der Schweiz: Also, ein bisschen weit weg fuer einen Ausflug mit dem Fahrrad oder um 'mal mit dem Zug zu gehen', aber ich bin sicherlich interessiert zu sehen was die Schweiz zu bieten hat Das ist einer der Reizen von reisen in andere Laender: Das unbekannte entdecken...
    PPS. Ein Bericht auf Deutsch koennte ich machen, aber uebersetzen kostet sehr viel Zeit, also, zuerst auf English, dan werde ich mal sehen ob ich das mache.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Very interesting.
    Thank you for sharing with us.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Is it possible that they might release an 80 lux version of their dynamo lamp?

    Thanks,
    Toshi

  24. #24

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post

    http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tes...ngsdag_en.html

    Thank you for sharing your impressions!

    For mrradlos:
    Also, ein bisschen weit weg fuer einen Ausflug mit dem Fahrrad ...
    Just follow the river rhine, it's very nice to cycle along. I've done it once the other way round -down to the Netherlands - takes a few days though ...

  25. #25

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    In http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tes...ngsdag_en.html
    you write: the pedelec lamp will be offered loose for sale from March

    Do you have any more information about the pedelec-light?

  26. #26
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by HakanC View Post
    In http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tes...ngsdag_en.html
    you write: the pedelec lamp will be offered loose for sale from March

    Do you have any more information about the pedelec-light?
    Well, I have one, but I fried it. Or it was defective. Not sure. A big shame as the first time I briefly tried it it seemed the wallshot was better than that of the Saferide 60/SLD with LBL driver.

    I don't see a change in reflector, perhaps due to optimized placement of LEDs? Or just variation in lamps? The 2 SLDs I have are similar, another I tested was also similar, this pedelec lamp seemed to have a little wider beam and sharper cutoff.

    Well, I can only cut this one open and hope the LEDs are not fried, to find out, until I can get another pedelec lamp.

    The pedelec lamp runs on 5-48V, is essentially a souped up version of the Saferide 60 and has no button on top. On my Saferide 60 modification page you can see the beamshape of a SLD running at LBL power, which is not bad at all, better than I expected although I prefer the LBL's beam. I don't think the pedelec version will reach that brightness if it's only a SLD at higher power, as the SLD is 60 lux, and it is probably 95 lux or so at 0.70A (with LBL driver), but Philips claims 80 lux for the pedelec lamp.

    So, I cannot say much yet about it yet, I can only give some hints as to possible performance from what I saw.

    The e-bike version is quite different, needing to conform not to StVZO but ECE r113. I found that regulation online, or at least an older version + some updates so will analyse that later.

    It seems the LBL will remain the best one as the e-bike version almost certainly hasn't got the reach of the LBL (50 lux), but its beam is very wide, even, with really sharp cutoff. Opening would be a problem again, are the LEDs running at full power? If not at 1A this would be a great headlamp.

    Talking with the Philips engineer, he mentioned some decisions are also based on keeping distinct performance families, so perhaps that's also why they don't position the e-bike version as competition to that (or alternate version running the LEDs at max power which they probably aren't doing for an e-bike as you don't want to drain batteries which are also used for moving!

  27. #27
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    196

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    Very interesting report, nice that they seemed to listen to you.

    I really like that you suggested neutral white + a sawed-off LBL80 to them. I will finally buy some if they get their act together and heed your advice without deliberately micro-stepping the necessary improvements (as Philips is often accused of doing, see wake-up lights).

    There are two issues I disagree with:
    One, I feel that the marketing idea of distinct performance families does not make sense before one has made oneself widely known as the obvious choice. Philips' bicycle lights unit has not yet gotten there, we are already annoyed by the product names, and generally, the informed public has grown suspicious of any mega-corp's long-term commitment to niche markets. So I suggest they have their planned obsolescence and performance family planning staff take a back seat for a while, and simply focus on improving their products and distribution.

    Two, while I disapprove of using only head-mounted lights in traffic, your approach to interpreting German StVO code seems questionable. Your personal definition of searchlights includes person-mounted flashlights, while disregarding the specific content in paragraph 52 of StVZO which relates to searchlights only in the context of powered-vehicle lights, while disregarding the bicycle-specific paragraph 67, and while disregarding the non-application of the current StVZO vis-a-vis pedestrians and non-regulated forms of transportation. Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.

  28. #28
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcturus View Post
    Very interesting report, nice that they seemed to listen to you.

    I really like that you suggested neutral white + a sawed-off LBL80 to them. I will finally buy some if they get their act together and heed your advice without deliberately micro-stepping the necessary improvements (as Philips is often accused of doing, see wake-up lights).

    There are two issues I disagree with:
    One, I feel that the marketing idea of distinct performance families does not make sense before one has made oneself widely known as the obvious choice. Philips' bicycle lights unit has not yet gotten there, we are already annoyed by the product names, and generally, the informed public has grown suspicious of any mega-corp's long-term commitment to niche markets. So I suggest they have their planned obsolescence and performance family planning staff take a back seat for a while, and simply focus on improving their products and distribution.
    So you mean you disagree with Philips, not with me?

    I don't like how they go about keeping performance families apart, but I understand their position. If you're going to bring out another lamp that is much better than the others but cheaper, you will obviously kill of the more expensive lamp. As always, it's a case of making money and not killing off of your own markets. This is similar to cameras, where lots of low priced models are restricted on purpose, otherwise the high end models would not sell.

    This means some people do not get the camera they want (such as myself), because you cannot find very compact/lightweight cameras that have good screens (AMOLED!) and full manual controls. I would like a camera like that and the Samsung ST70 (1/2.33 sensor) is barely worse in daily use than my EX1 (larger 1.1.7 sensor). So I'd like a ST70 with AMOLED, full manual controls but such cameras don't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcturus View Post
    Two, while I disapprove of using only head-mounted lights in traffic, your approach to interpreting German StVO code seems questionable. Your personal definition of searchlights includes person-mounted flashlights, while disregarding the specific content in paragraph 52 of StVZO which relates to searchlights only in the context of powered-vehicle lights, while disregarding the bicycle-specific paragraph 67, and while disregarding the non-application of the current StVZO vis-a-vis pedestrians and non-regulated forms of transportation. Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.
    I'm not disregarding anything I think.

    1. Circular symmetric beams mounted on the bike are not acceptable as per StVZO.
    2. Therefore you need to find a way to allow it, some mention of other lights. You can't say a light mounted on a helmet is acceptable because it is not mentioned in StVZO/StVO.

    First of all It just doesn't work that way with adding things that change the appearance of a vehicle at night (adding headlamps, taillamps, etc. ) and esp. for symmetric beams. With lights you can only use things are are explicitly mentioned as acceptable.

    The only way for vehicles seems to be as a Suchscheinwerfer, and lets be honest, this is what torches, flashlights are. You usually use them to search for things in the house, in the garden. It doesn't really matter though, because what is obvious is that a non-vehicle mounted light, or vehicle mounted light without cutoff that you can aim is a searchlight (not many cars have them I suppose, some old cars in the USA seemed to have them, I saw that in some old movies).

    The vehicle mounted searchlight is in par. 52 section 2 and it's only for vehicles with licence plate, so if searchlights are not allowed on a bike, which they are not, then that only leaves room for non-vehicle mounted and thus non-StVZO. So you get to StVO which mentions searchlights. This ALSO governs the use of the vehicle mounted searchlights. So it doesn't really matter if the searchlight is vehicle mounted or not for actual use.

    3. So it seems clear to me from all the rules that helmet lamps are only allowed as searchlights. If you think that only applies to vehicle mounted searchlight, I disagree. But also, if you think helmet mounted lamps are not searchlights I think you need to give a proper argument and also, the only conclusion then, is really that it's not allowed at all (to use it).

    So my view from all the rules which make it clear that you can only use what is explicitly allowed, is this:
    - Helmet lights can only be found in 1 category in StVO: Searchlights. These may not be used to illuminate the road.
    - If you don't think a helmet light is a search light, then in that case use is not allowed because it's not mentioned as a allowable extra.

    If you want to argue about pedestrians, then again, if those are walking with symmetric beams on a helmet, that is a searchlight, may not be used for long and may not shine on the road. Same common-sense thinking applies here: Anything that can blind traffic on the road is obviously not allowed. All the rules make this clear, saying 'well, it's not mentioned' is not going to fly.

    A cyclist is not a pedestrian and there the rules are stronger. Even if not explicitly said so it's pretty clear that the searchlight rule totally kills off any excuse for using a helmet lamp. This is obvious because claiming you aim elsewhere, not in the eyes of opposing traffic, is NOT going to work. What if you need to look on the road e.g. to evade something, then blind opposing traffic while doing that who then run into what you're trying to avoid (like an unlit tank on the road, I read a fun story about that where a driver was found guilty of dangerous driving while trying to avoid an unlit (broken down I presume) tank on a German road. Ludicrous!)

    There is a reason for not allowing symmetric beams and StVO par 17 perfectly complements the StVZO to actually regulate all light types. If you want to argue a symmetric helmet beam light is not a searchlight and thus allowed before a German court when you caused an accident, good luck! You're going to need it!

    And about "Not applying the accepted set of methods used in jurisprudence, your interpretation fails to convince me.": I don't know what you mean by that. If you are a lawyer then you need to explain this otherwise, you need to give arguments and you have none. You only mentioned that I didn't mention certain things, but these are irrelevant, I thought that was obvious as explained above. The rules in StVZO/StVO are quite clear in what they want to achieve, and it mentions searchlights. Trying to get a lamp on a helmet as acceptable is not going to worrk and it's pretty clear why, as I explained.

    But if you still disagree, then give me your arguments. ("your interpretation fails to convince me" is not an argument, it's copout for not doing analysis yourself. You may not intend it that way, esp. as you gave the StVZO paragraphs etc., but it looks a bit that way and I've seen it often enough where people cannot find counter arguments, then give some vague "your arguments are not good". Well, in all cases my arguments were good... So, the ball is in your court )
    Last edited by swhs; 05-08-2012 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Clarification :)

  29. #29
    Flashaholic Marcturus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    230V~
    Posts
    196

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by swhs View Post
    Well, in all cases my arguments were good... So, the ball is in your court )
    Well, I provided the hints I wanted to provide, and out of all the readers and bots, only one objected to my stunning display of logic. On fringe topics like this one, it's easy to fall prey to informal peer-review simply because extremely few other individuals are both able to comprehend AND interested enough to care in detail. If you wish to receive scholarly advice about your arguments in relation to the prevailing legal opinion, feel free to consult professionals who provide this service, Philips Automotive ought to be able to help you out with a contact.

  30. #30
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    105

    Default Re: Philips Saferide demo + discussion day 19 January: Preliminary information

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcturus View Post
    Well, I provided the hints I wanted to provide, and out of all the readers and bots, only one objected to my stunning display of logic. On fringe topics like this one, it's easy to fall prey to informal peer-review simply because extremely few other individuals are both able to comprehend AND interested enough to care in detail. If you wish to receive scholarly advice about your arguments in relation to the prevailing legal opinion, feel free to consult professionals who provide this service, Philips Automotive ought to be able to help you out with a contact.
    I'm not interested in hints... I want proper arguments.

    This is the problem: You can't get information from professionals for free. I'm not going to pay for advice: 1. Why would I do that? 2. Why would I need to? The law is supposed to be clear to everyone, though it often isn't but usually in technical stuff or convoluted systems that consist of a bunch of fairly ad hoc rules. But the latter is not the case here except for some regulations such as power used by a dynamo headlamp, but even that has clear reasons. For the first see the nonsense in StVZO/TA about how to aim the headlamp which makes no sense whatsoever, however, you can simply disregard that, aim the cutoff below the horizon which obviously is meant you should do, then opposing traffic will get into the less than 2 lux zone, so that should be ok. So you by common sense you still come to the righ conclusion. And you just know you can't aim a lmap into the eyes of opposiing traffic even though that stupid section in StVZO can be interpreted as such.

    Here too: Symmetric beam lamps on helmets are in no way allowed because enough is written in the StVZO/TA to make clear what and why things are allowed, then trying go around it in a way which goes against everything StVZO/TA is meant to achieve will NOT work. This is what law explanations/law cases are about: Making clear or deciding how to interpret. Well, I don't need legal advice for that. That you think helmet lamps are ok because they are not mentioned as being a searchlight, as I said, good luck, and you will need it, as it goes against what the rules stand for.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •