Governmental Regulation

[Diesel_Bomber]

Absolutely not.

No more government involvement in our lives than there already is. Causing damage to a person's eyes is assault, whether it's done with fingers, a weapon, or a flashlight. Assault is already a crime. That is all the flashlight control we need.

Those of you who think a flashlight is going to be any use against an attacker had better do some more research. Blasting someone with night-adapted vision in the eyes with a bright light doesn't make them disappear. It might cause a moment or two of confusion for the attacker, and you had better have a plan to make use of that possible confusion. You should also have a backup plan in case it fails to bother the attacker at all.

 

[Hooked on Fenix]

As the government is subsidizing new l.e.d. technology to try to increase energy efficiency in homes and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I don't think they would ruin their investment by destroying the consumer market for l.e.d.s. While there may be a few that try to screw it up for the rest of us by doing something stupid, they can be arrested when what they do breaks an existing law when their act of stupidity actually hurts someone. Limiting how bright l.e.d. lights can be will cause more harm than good. Imagine how many lives would be lost if military, police, firefighters, and search and rescue crews were banned from using bright lights and were restricted to nothing brighter than a stock 2AA MiniMag. I think the first government official to try to regulate flashlight brightness would soon have a headache.

 

[RedLED]

My first thoughts on this were in the late 80's, when I got my first Surefire 6P.

I would not be surpised, and let me guess: LE and military will be exempt. (I will stop there, that is another topic.)

Maybe I should order the Surefire Beast soon! Dan had one at Plaza Cutlery in California, just down the road from Surefire Hdqs., a few years back. They got it out for me to see, and I almost took it, but it was over $4,000.00!

Still I would love it just for the reaction I would get from my neighbors. They are still not used to my SF M6, and I think they would really hate me with that.

If I ever learned of a ban of any kind on lights, I would buy the Beast in a second!

Still it is a very cool light.

 

[RedLED]

As the government is subsidizing new l.e.d. technology to try to increase energy efficiency in homes and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I don't think they would ruin their investment by destroying the consumer market for l.e.d.s. While there may be a few that try to screw it up for the rest of us by doing something stupid, they can be arrested when what they do breaks an existing law when their act of stupidity actually hurts someone. Limiting how bright l.e.d. lights can be will cause more harm than good. Imagine how many lives would be lost if military, police, firefighters, and search and rescue crews were banned from using bright lights and were restricted to nothing brighter than a stock 2AA MiniMag. I think the first government official to try to regulate flashlight brightness would soon have a headache.

LE and Military are never exempt anymore. I remember in the 70's' Radar Detectors were legal in California, and it was moot as LE could not use radar, as it was considered a speed trap in those days.

The military is one thing due to their mission, but I have always felt LE should not be allowed to have things that citizens are not allowed. Lights bars being the exception.

Some of the equipment they have is scary, and I hear this from my many friends in LE, they Don't like some of it either. The opinions I have on this were as a result of people in the LE community who feel they have too much sometimes. These are good Cop's I have known for years.

I think a flashlight would certainly be classified as a non-lethal weapon, so I am not too worried. However, if some Fed/Agent, was injured, the ban would be in place overnight by some high level appointed employee in the Justice Dept. or, some US Attorney on a crusade.

 

[ElectronGuru]

Here is part of an essay I wrote last year about Society (big s). It was written with a US audience in mind. I'll relate it to flashlights at the bottom.


There is something more powerful than government. It goes by different names, 'the people', being one of the oldest. Its society. Society is a funny beast. Its as powerful as the number of people who make it up. Most of the time, it goes along quietly, not getting in anyone's business, because the exercise of its power is limited to how many people agree on a given thing. Normally, this number is quite small. So instead of a single powerful idea with a single powerful voice, its a million wimpy ideas, each with 20 voices.

But on those rare subjects when many people agree on a single thing at the same time, society comes out in force. One example is unnecessary human death. When society sees a bunch people dying and believes the deaths to be preventable, it gets mad. Politicians who care about people generally loose elections, so most politicians are more concerned with power. When society gets mad, politicians lose power and get kicked out of office, so they've got whole teams of dudes listening for anger and whole other teams of dudes ready to write laws society demands.

People die in car crashes every day (every second sometimes). Crash deaths that are considered non preventable are largely ignored. Ones that used to be non preventable (human error) but can be prevented with the addition of something (traffic light, air bags), get fixed. The rest continue to be ignored. If deaths go up, people get angry and the cause is found. When attention on a single cause goes up (deaths or the awareness of deaths), people get angry. Here's how this goes:

More and more people have cars. More and more people have cell phones. More and more people use cells phones in their cars. More and more people crash. More and more people get reported on the evening news as having crashed while using their cells phones. The more of these reports get aired the angrier society gets, the more afraid politicians get, the more likely there are to be laws against this behavior. If increasing numbers of people are deemed to have been killed while using cell phones (preventable), laws will be passed limiting this behavior.

Society is just people, deciding what is and is not acceptable. Laws are just what politicians do to gain power and keep society happy at the same time.


IMO, two things need to happen before regulation of flashlights becomes an issue. 1) technology has to advance to the point that 1000+ lumen lights are cheap and easy enough to become popular. 2) events like those described above need to scare Society. Relating this to the car crash example would be wide reports of kids in the back seats of cars blinding drivers of passing cars - who then loose control of their cars and crash (preventable deaths).

 

[cheapbastard]

And if we're worried about little bitty flashlights hurting people's eyes, why don't we address the real problem: the SUN!

I agree the sun is a greater threat. The government should focus on eliminating the solar threat.

 

[jtr1962]

There is something more powerful than government. It goes by different names, 'the people', being one of the oldest. Its society. Society is a funny beast. Its as powerful as the number of people who make it up. Most of the time, it goes along quietly, not getting in anyone's business, because the exercise of its power is limited to how many people agree on a given thing. Normally, this number is quite small. So instead of a single powerful idea with a single powerful voice, its a million wimpy ideas, each with 20 voices.

But on those rare subjects when many people agree on a single thing at the same time, society comes out in force. One example is unnecessary human death. When society sees a bunch people dying and believes the deaths to be preventable, it gets mad. Politicians who care about people generally loose elections, so most politicians are more concerned with power. When society gets mad, politicians lose power and get kicked out of office, so they've got whole teams of dudes listening for anger and whole other teams of dudes ready to write laws society demands.

People die in car crashes every day (every second sometimes). Crash deaths that are considered non preventable are largely ignored. Ones that used to be non preventable (human error) but can be prevented with the addition of something (traffic light, air bags), get fixed. The rest continue to be ignored. If deaths go up, people get angry and the cause is found. When attention on a single cause goes up (deaths or the awareness of deaths), people get angry. Here's how this goes:

More and more people have cars. More and more people have cell phones. More and more people use cells phones in their cars. More and more people crash. More and more people get reported on the evening news as having crashed while using their cells phones. The more of these reports get aired the angrier society gets, the more afraid politicians get, the more likely there are to be laws against this behavior. If increasing numbers of people are deemed to have been killed while using cell phones (preventable), laws will be passed limiting this behavior.

Society is just people, deciding what is and is not acceptable. Laws are just what politicians do to gain power and keep society happy at the same time.

Great essay, and sadly this is what it has come to. People are under the collective delusion that laws can prevent bad things from happening by punishing people before they cause any harm. The prevailing mentality is if doing something might be harmful sometimes, mainly due to a small number of people lacking proper training or maturity, then let's just make this something illegal for the entire population, even for those who have a track record of causing no harm. This is wrong on so many levels. First off, it's primarily the majority who can do said action without causing harm who end up being punished. Second, it violates one of the most fundamental principles upon which our society of laws is based-namely that the law can only sanction a person who has caused actual injury or death or property damage. Third, it adds yet another law for our already overwhelmed judicial system to deal with, when just enforcing the existing laws against injury or death is sufficient.

Not only is the idea of making generally harmless acts illegal on shaky legal ground, but the end result usually fails to have any significant outcome as far as reducing whatever the law was designed to reduce. Those who caused most of the problems, mainly the irresponsible or immature, are those least likely to no longer engage in said activity just because it's now illegal. Sure, they may get caught, but chances are it'll be one time out of 50. Hardly enough to have any significant effect on the "problem". Meanwhile, those who did this activity with no issues must now face a hard choice of risking sanctions or giving up doing something they enjoy. They end up being the ones most hurt by the new law. The idiots will continue to do just as they did before. The tragic part is you could have accomplished the same end result, or better, by just enforcing existing laws. If idiots doing this activity hurt people, well, there are laws against causing injury. Even better, law enforcement can now concentrate on just those will cause injuries, rather than being on the lookout for every instance of this activity ( and at the same time making enemies of law-abiding citizens by ticketing them for something they can do without causing problems. Eventually, most of the idiots will be doing time for their behavoir, and thus no longer able to cause injury. With any luck, the prison sentence will make them rethink hurting others when they get out.

The premise behind all these preventative laws is the concept that all citizens must be treated at the level of the lowest common denominator. If everyone can't do some activity safely, then nobody can. Any society catering to the least common denominator both deserves to, and will inevitably, fail simply by virtue of expecting less from people, instead of more. People as a rule will behave exactly how they are treated. Treat adults like children, that's what you end up with. All one need do is look around to see the truth in this statement. Best example is adults texting while driving. Something this stupid shouldn't even need to have a law against it made. It should be common sense that your desire to text is outweighed by the need to keep from killing others with your automobile. However, thanks to years of having the law decide what they can and can't do, these people simply lack the judgement to determine which things are demonstrably harmful, and which aren't. In their minds, if something isn't against the law, then they think it automatically means it's safe. Expect a lot more of the same unless things change.

 

[blasterman]

I've more of an issue with people thinking a 200lumen LED can do retina damage at several hundred feet. At the least, the government should be mandating stronger science education standards..... Until we start seeing XP-Gs that can deliver all their radiant energy to a size smaller than the 7mm pupil size at night.

I don't think we have optics that good yet A 5mw laser pointer can do far more retina damage than a couple hundred lumen LED.

Overly bright car headlamps (HID) are a far bigger issue, and we actually have laws on the books for those, but they aren't enforced.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Fantastic post, JTR. Should be required reading for all school students, at least once a week.

 

[Badbeams3]

I guess there would/could be a point at which a flashlight becomes a danger. In the wrong hands. Just hope the bar is set really high...way higher than 200 lumen.

Or there`s going to be a fight...probably why they won`t let us buy tanks

 

[Patriot]

My point was not to advocate for anything. I also see no reason for this to devolve into a political debate regarding the power and scope of any level of government.

I think it is safe to say that few if any on this forum want any restrictions on this hobby, me included.

I think the topic has taken a normal and predictable path based on the thread title and original post. I'm not sure how the power and scope of government regulation can be avoided given this type "kick off." Since flashlights aren't currently a serious detriment to vision in actual circumstance the topic becomes essentially hypothetical. Discussion naturally defaults to anticipation about increased federal control based off of the federal government's insidious track record. In any case, it's an interesting thread with some excellent posts, including jtr1962's.

The point was simply to step back and consider what could happen with the continual advancement in technology that further increases the brightness of flashlights. Combine this with posts about the desire for 2000+ lumen pocket flashlights and the seemingly cavalier attitude about blasting this level of brightness at any unknown sound, or choose any other relatively similar post. Now assume that eye damage is possible at some level of output.

I sort of liken this notion to the idea that race car drivers cause accidents on our public streets simply because they may posses the skills or tools to go fast. First, we're a fairly small community of enthusiasts not unlike race car drivers and second, I'm not sure that the best description of the average CPFer is that of a cavalier light blaster who magically forgets their manors because they posses a device. Sure, some will lack good manors and or common sense but these types will suffer the same behavioral deficiencies whether using a flashlight or a mirror held in the sunshine.

The format of the light, in this case a hypothetical "2000L pocket light" is actually irrelevant, other than to propose that it's easily carry-able and therefore always at hand. We currently have 5000+ lumen HID lights and although not pocket-able we're not witness to occurrences of blindings even amongst the CPF crowd. Even if we had 10K lumen pocketlights available to us I'm still not convinced this would cause an issue. To my understanding, a powerful camera flash is much brighter and more intense than the sustained output of the best flashlights yet we don't seem to get upset about camera flashes despite their proliferation. Likewise we don't get nervous about make-up mirrors even though reflected sunlight is far more intense and concentrated than the brightest hand-held light. Again, it's an interesting and thought provoking topic but I think the suggested negative possibilities associated with bright flashlights is probably being overstated.

 

[JeffInChi]

What gives the government, any government, the right or ability to limit the output of my lights? It's a question I've head to ask. No governing body, no matter what they think, can truly understand each persons individual needs, thoughts, and reactions, no matter what type of regulation they proceed with.


As with many other issues, it all comes down to personal responsibility. It is my personal responsibility to choose equipment that suits my needs and wants, and then to use it responsibly. Yes, there will always be that person who ignores this need for personal responsibility, and thus suffers the consequences, or causes others to suffer.

But does that mean that because of a few minor incidents (that, truthfully, I've never heard of such an incident), that a governing body should assume that it has the best interests of it's people in mind by seizing more power? No, never.

It seems like an irrelevant thing to most people, hey, it's a flashlight, who cares. Well to that, I answer, I care. It is the principal of the matter. It is a group of people willing to give up a personal freedom, and thus a personal responsibility, because of apathy and sub-subservience.


To this I must also add... Why do you care? Yes, I understand that there is a level of empathy exhibited between most humans, but still, why would you wish to limit the choices and freedoms of another? Because of your safety, or the "safety" of an imagined other? What other reasons?
Many manufacturers have these, and other warnings, because their legal department seeks to limit the amount of lawsuits that can be caused by their products. But as with other things, is the lawyer fully educated in all aspects of the product they're trying to protect? Perhaps, but more likely they are trying to limit the amount of future problems they will face based on general information and popular (mis)conceptions.

All I have to say is.........

Who is John Galt? :thumbsup:

Long live Ayn Rand!

 

[Mags]

Thats it. You've uncovered my future endeavor. Illegal flashlight trafficking.

 

[John_Galt]

Thats it. You've uncovered my future endeavor. Illegal flashlight trafficking.

PM inbound about possible high current driver and or SST90 LED purchases... If you're interested, LOL!

 

[5horns]

This is my first post, I hope I'm doing it correctly.

I was talking about my newfound passion on the train this morning and that ugly topic of governmental regulation came up. I decided to check it out and found this thread. Thank you all for your input; I am now "enlightened" in another area.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

You know what I miss?


An environment where where the "reasonable man" standard nurtures the growth of all things in the garden.


The sky is falling.

 

[jeeves]

Welcome, 5Horns.


I realize this is technically still necro-posting but at least it's on topic.
Does such regulation exist in which LED have to be labeled with a warning similar to laser diodes? I think it's in the EU but my memory fails me.