BMW Luxury Touring Community banner

21 - 40 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
Whether I'm riding or I'm driving a car it truly irritates me that some motorcyclists believe their daylight "conspicuity" justifies searing the eyeballs of all oncoming drivers and blasting rearview mirrors with blinding candlepower. That a few states' laws actually permit it is amazing to me.
A VERY BIG plus 1 to that. Amen brother!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I've had Clearwater Darlas on 2 bikes, mounted low on forks and running yellow covers during the day and never had an issue. Reside in IL, but ridden in IA, WI, MI, KY, IN, OH and maybe a couple other states and never had an issue. Maybe because they are mounted low helps as foglights vs higher than might be considered off-road lights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
CLEARWATER customer service to the rescue.

I called CLEARWATER yesterday and got the following reply:

"Hello Fred,

I just got off the phone with the OK DPS.
The Trooper I spoke with said the officer who stopped you probably shouldn’t have. This is why you received a warning and not a ticket.
The OK vehicle code he quoted to me is:
Title 47
Chapter 12
Section 602

Please check the level of your lights to make sure they are not pointing up.

Thank you,

Kurt Asplindh"

As it turns out the "selective yellow" lens cover is a proprietary safety color that Clearwater uses. They have posted an article about it on their Facebook page. It's worth reading. I don't know if the "selective yellow" covers are legal in CA or not, but Clearwater has just retrofitted on number of LEO BMW's from different cities in CA with the Darlas. You can contact them directly for more information.

Again, big thumbs up to CLEARWATER customer service and thank you for all the forum replies. I'm going to verify my mounting and re-install the yellow lens covers. Now I've got the backup I hoped for. They work, big time, and that's what I care about the most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
It seems to me that vehicular "foglights" are by definition designed to be mounted low to the ground with a beam that's sharply cut horizontally, below the sightline of oncoming drivers. Any other "forward-facing" lights with a scattered/dazzling beam should be illegal except as highbeams and only at night.

Whether I'm riding or I'm driving a car it truly irritates me that some motorcyclists believe their daylight "conspicuity" justifies searing the eyeballs of all oncoming drivers and blasting rearview mirrors with blinding candlepower. That a few states' laws actually permit it is amazing to me.
Preach brutha!

Don't even get me started on those Gold Wingers (and others) and their headlight modulators. How some people have so little consideration for others just makes me crazy.


That's one perspective.

Another would be that, if the motorcycle lights are irritating you that mean you have clearly noticed the bike (either oncoming or behind you) and the less likely that you either pull out infront or simply run over as it has happened in many cases.

That you don't want to disturb or create a discomfort for cagers is very noble of you. However, if you would care to research how many cagers are oblivious of oncoming bikes and bikes on their blind side when they switch lanes, you will find, maybe, a different set of priorities on you lighting philosophy.

I got yellow-Darla driving lights. Every great once in a while someone will flash their high beams at me--I flash mine back at them as a token of appreciation for noticing me...and let it go at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
That's one perspective.

Another would be that, if the motorcycle lights are irritating you that mean you have clearly noticed the bike (either oncoming or behind you) and the less likely that you either pull out infront or simply run over as it has happened in many cases.

That you don't want to disturb or create a discomfort for cagers is very noble of you. However, if you would care to research how many cagers are oblivious of oncoming bikes and bikes on their blind side when they switch lanes, you will find, maybe, a different set of priorities on you lighting philosophy.

I got yellow-Darla driving lights. Every great once in a while someone will flash their high beams at me--I flash mine back at them as a token of appreciation for noticing me...and let it go at that.
I wholeheartedly agree...

...except for when I'm stuck in traffic and that bike has been tailing me for thirty minutes with those damned lights flashing non-stop in my rear view. All I'm saying is that consideration of others is important.

PS - I've noticed that once I adopted day-glo clothing and a white helmet I almost never (I wanted to say "never" but you never know, today might be the day) get cut off anymore. There are ways to achieve the same end that do not require glaring/flashing/obnoxious lighting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
That's one perspective.
... Every great once in a while someone will flash their high beams at me--I flash mine back at them as a token of appreciation for noticing me...and let it go at that.
"Letting it go at that" is one perspective, but being obnoxious isn't necessary to being noticed (Loud-pipe bikers being the exception).

Getting flashed is evidence that you're being more than noticed, and of course your flashing back isn't a token of appreciation but a big fat FU to anybody who's blinded by your beams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
Counting on multiple lights and extremely bright lights is dangerous, people do not see emergency vehicles with all their lights flashing. Always drive as though no one sees you, being a defensive driver means allowing for not being seen or just plain selfish drivers who do whatever they want without considering others. I have had people look right at me and change lanes into me expecting because I am on the bike I will somehow makes space.

It's crazy but even a lot of people drive cars with high beams on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pappy53

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
My choice then: According to your perspective is: Obnoxious visibility.


...though I would contend with you on the FU high beams feedback you are assuming.

First of all, its happened maybe twice this year so far, and at night (early am to work drive). The high beam back is says "I don't have my high beams on" and there is nothing I can do about the driving light which are fixed.

The very few times I have gotten flashed with an oncoming high beam, it could have also been cause the oncoming thought I had the high beams on...I admit, not likely cause the RT low beams are pretty lame.

regardless: I am going with 'safety' of my chasisless vehicle and opt for obnoxious but visible.

I ride on the right side of my right lane so I presume my yellow Darlas are not worthy of a proton-intensity war as you suggest.

If you wanna go on a crusade, try to eliminate those neon-LED lights now on cars, but particularly on raised trucks which accentuate the likeness of an oncoming high beam. That 'll give you a worthier cause than promote a proton-war...which by the way, will it be a particle fight or a wave fight? I presume a 'particle war' since there will be human observers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
...promote a proton-war...which by the way, will it be a particle fight or a wave fight? I presume a 'particle war' since there will be human observers.
Well, if it's a proton war it's most definitely a particle (though particle/wave duality still applies). If you mean a PHOTON war, then it's generally accepted that it would be a wave since any particle is excluded from moving at the speed of light. :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
Well, if it's a proton war it's most definitely a particle (though particle/wave duality still applies). If you mean a PHOTON war, then it's generally accepted that it would be a wave since any particle is excluded from moving at the speed of light. :grin:
Pappy, thanks for clarifying my spuff on the 'PHOTON' not proton war as it would be even more difficult to fling pieces of Atoms at each other. I suspect given the farkle-aftermarket nowadays it would be easier to mount a Hadron Collider-like gadget on a bike and fling photons at each other to gain the ultimate obnoxious brightness

However, the particle/wave components of light is not quite resolved.

https://global.canon/en/technology/s_labo/light/001/11.html

Lighting and reflective taping is still a great way to make your motorcycle noticeable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree...

...except for when I'm stuck in traffic and that bike has been tailing me for thirty minutes with those damned lights flashing non-stop in my rear view. All I'm saying is that consideration of others is important.

PS - I've noticed that once I adopted day-glo clothing and a white helmet I almost never (I wanted to say "never" but you never know, today might be the day) get cut off anymore. There are ways to achieve the same end that do not require glaring/flashing/obnoxious lighting.
I tens to disagree. Depending on the bike I usually don't see the helmet and jacket until I am just approaching or have just passed the bike. Coming from behind I see the white and yellow sooner. However The multiple lights get my attention from a longer distance. Fairings and windshields tend to block the rider.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
CLEARWATER customer service to the rescue.

I called CLEARWATER yesterday and got the following reply:

"Hello Fred,

I just got off the phone with the OK DPS.
The Trooper I spoke with said the officer who stopped you probably shouldn’t have. This is why you received a warning and not a ticket.
The OK vehicle code he quoted to me is:
Title 47
Chapter 12
Section 602

Please check the level of your lights to make sure they are not pointing up.

Thank you,

Kurt Asplindh"

As it turns out the "selective yellow" lens cover is a proprietary safety color that Clearwater uses. They have posted an article about it on their Facebook page. It's worth reading. I don't know if the "selective yellow" covers are legal in CA or not, but Clearwater has just retrofitted on number of LEO BMW's from different cities in CA with the Darlas. You can contact them directly for more information.

Again, big thumbs up to CLEARWATER customer service and thank you for all the forum replies. I'm going to verify my mounting and re-install the yellow lens covers. Now I've got the backup I hoped for. They work, big time, and that's what I care about the most.
I thought I posted this last night - sorry if there is a dup somewhere I can't find.

With all due respect, relying on second-hand interpretations from police officers is often a recipe for frustration. A basic reading of the statute cited says that your lights are still illegal.

The exact statute cited above says:

Universal Citation: 47 OK Stat § 47-12-602 (2014)
A. Every motorcycle shall be equipped with at least one headlamp emitting a white light which shall comply with the applicable requirements and limitations of Section 12-203 of this title and of Sections 12-224, 12-225, 12-227 and 12-228 of this title.

B. Every headlamp upon every motorcycle shall be located at a height of not more than fifty-four (54) inches nor less than twenty-two (22) inches to be measured as set forth in subsection B of Section 12-202 of this title.
If you've mounted Darlas low on the fork like most people I guarantee you are below 22" (which is the height of the fairing and cowl around the radiator on my RT). AND by your own admission they were not "emitting white light." Sorry to say, but I think the cop that wrote the warning was absolutely spot on: yellow lights below 22" are NOT headlights. They are fog lights and fog lights can not be on in Oklahoma when it's not foggy. Not saying I'd change mine - but at least own it. You believe conspicuity is important and that yellow lights help. It may cost you a citation every once in a while. Small price to pay for safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
As a separate matter, there's been a lot of discussion of obnoxious lights, flashers, and bright clothing in this thread. One theme that seems to be running through it is the idea of "conspicuity" as a binary thing: either someone sees you totally or doesn't see you at all. Recent research and several educated hypotheses say that the actual problem is much different than that.

It seems that when drivers in accidents with motorcyclists say "I didn't see him," that's not always what they mean. What they seem to mean much of the time is either, "I didn't see him in time," or "I didn't realize he was that close/moving that fast." People believe this is due to a combination of biology and cognitive biases. Ryan F9 covers a lot of this very well in this video:

The idea of using yellow lights or a "triangle of light" is due in large part to this French paper published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention in 2013: https://smarter-usa.org/wp-content/...-on-the-Visual-Conspicuity-of-Motorcycles.pdf. The recommend the non-standard light conditions as a way to mitigate these risks.

The sum of these recommendations is that we're most often not fighting, "They didn't see me at all." What we are fighting is that the rapid visual assessment of an intersection or situation by a driver allows a motorcycle to be lumped in with other cars and its trajectory evaluated by a driver's experience with assessing the velocity of automobiles. The smaller size of motorcyclists means that the brain tends to assume they are farther away than they actually are compared to a car - just like the "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" warning on convex mirrors on cars. So drivers almost always see you - they still pull out in front of you because they thought that you were farther away and they had more time than they actually did.

The object then - and the basic conclusion of the paper cited above is that motorcyclists are best served by looking different than cars, to hopefully cause a driver quickly evaluating a scene to perceive something so different that the brain pauses and re-evaluates the situation causing an appropriate assessment of a motorcycle's speed, distance, and trajectory. To do this we need to wear different colors than what most cars are, and have lights in different configurations. In most cases this is going to put is in conflict with either fashion sense (like my yellow Darien and neon helmet) or the law that wants all vehicles to conform to common codes. In short, the whole point is to have something different and possibly annoying to cause people to evaluate us correctly.

In the end though, the brain is a funny thing. There is a concept called selective attention that has been demonstrated over and over again. Basically, if someone is concentrating on a specific task enough, they become unable to evaluate information that falls outside of the expected parameters or inputs of that task. And there just aren't enough motorcycles to make us a part of most driver's normal expectations on the road. The original experiment involved asking participants to watch a video and count how many times people in one color shirt passed a basketball. During the video, a man in a gorilla suit strolls slowly through the scene. Most people never recalled seeing the gorilla. See the website here: The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Even more depressing is that when a similar experiment was repeated with professional radiologists asked to evaluate medical images, most of them didn't see a picture of a man in a gorilla suit right in the image: https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ists-can-miss-a-gorilla-hiding-in-plain-sight. I take this to mean that the most attentive drivers might actually "not see me at all" because they are so focused on the cars they expect to see.

So, in the end, it seems that lighting and colors aren't enough. No amount of yellow and million-candlepower lights is going to work any better at overcoming selective attention than a man in a gorilla suit is. Looking different should help the people that see us but don't evaluate us correctly. Assuming people don't see us at all, not through inattention but through quirks of human biology and cognition, might keep us alive too. One is not a substitute for the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wethead and SpinDog

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,227 Posts
. A basic reading of the statute cited says that your lights are still illegal.

The exact statute cited above says:
Why does it mean the lights are illegal?

The owner DOES indeed have one headlight at the correct height.

The other lights are not headlights, they are day running lights. Surely they are fall under a different set of rules to the 'Headlight'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
If you've mounted Darlas low on the fork like most people I guarantee you are below 22" (which is the height of the fairing and cowl around the radiator on my RT). AND by your own admission they were not "emitting white light." Sorry to say, but I think the cop that wrote the warning was absolutely spot on: yellow lights below 22" are NOT headlights. They are fog lights and fog lights can not be on in Oklahoma when it's not foggy. Not saying I'd change mine - but at least own it. You believe conspicuity is important and that yellow lights help. It may cost you a citation every once in a while. Small price to pay for safety.
They're not fog lights, they're aux lights. And the yellow light comes from removable plastic covers. If you fear being stopped by a leo, just remove them while in OK. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Why does it mean the lights are illegal?

The owner DOES indeed have one headlight at the correct height.

The other lights are not headlights, they are day running lights. Surely they are fall under a different set of rules to the 'Headlight'?
I agree ... earlier in the thread I mentioned a part of OK statutes that covers auxiliary and fog lights. It basically says fog lights can't be used during the day, which was what the original warning is for. That was my point about relying on a second-hand interpretation from Clearwater via a different police officer. Only a judge is going to figure this one out :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
As a separate matter, there's been a lot of discussion of obnoxious lights, flashers, and bright clothing in this thread. One theme that seems to be running through it is the idea of "conspicuity" as a binary thing: either someone sees you totally or doesn't see you at all. Recent research and several educated hypotheses say that the actual problem is much different than that.

It seems that when drivers in accidents with motorcyclists say "I didn't see him," that's not always what they mean. What they seem to mean much of the time is either, "I didn't see him in time," or "I didn't realize he was that close/moving that fast." People believe this is due to a combination of biology and cognitive biases. Ryan F9 covers a lot of this very well in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0&t=261s

The idea of using yellow lights or a "triangle of light" is due in large part to this French paper published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention in 2013: https://smarter-usa.org/wp-content/...-on-the-Visual-Conspicuity-of-Motorcycles.pdf. The recommend the non-standard light conditions as a way to mitigate these risks.

The sum of these recommendations is that we're most often not fighting, "They didn't see me at all." What we are fighting is that the rapid visual assessment of an intersection or situation by a driver allows a motorcycle to be lumped in with other cars and its trajectory evaluated by a driver's experience with assessing the velocity of automobiles. The smaller size of motorcyclists means that the brain tends to assume they are farther away than they actually are compared to a car - just like the "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" warning on convex mirrors on cars. So drivers almost always see you - they still pull out in front of you because they thought that you were farther away and they had more time than they actually did.

The object then - and the basic conclusion of the paper cited above is that motorcyclists are best served by looking different than cars, to hopefully cause a driver quickly evaluating a scene to perceive something so different that the brain pauses and re-evaluates the situation causing an appropriate assessment of a motorcycle's speed, distance, and trajectory. To do this we need to wear different colors than what most cars are, and have lights in different configurations. In most cases this is going to put is in conflict with either fashion sense (like my yellow Darien and neon helmet) or the law that wants all vehicles to conform to common codes. In short, the whole point is to have something different and possibly annoying to cause people to evaluate us correctly.

In the end though, the brain is a funny thing. There is a concept called selective attention that has been demonstrated over and over again. Basically, if someone is concentrating on a specific task enough, they become unable to evaluate information that falls outside of the expected parameters or inputs of that task. And there just aren't enough motorcycles to make us a part of most driver's normal expectations on the road. The original experiment involved asking participants to watch a video and count how many times people in one color shirt passed a basketball. During the video, a man in a gorilla suit strolls slowly through the scene. Most people never recalled seeing the gorilla. See the website here: The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Even more depressing is that when a similar experiment was repeated with professional radiologists asked to evaluate medical images, most of them didn't see a picture of a man in a gorilla suit right in the image: https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ists-can-miss-a-gorilla-hiding-in-plain-sight. I take this to mean that the most attentive drivers might actually "not see me at all" because they are so focused on the cars they expect to see.

So, in the end, it seems that lighting and colors aren't enough. No amount of yellow and million-candlepower lights is going to work any better at overcoming selective attention than a man in a gorilla suit is. Looking different should help the people that see us but don't evaluate us correctly. Assuming people don't see us at all, not through inattention but through quirks of human biology and cognition, might keep us alive too. One is not a substitute for the other.


Along with this great post, I recall an article written by a savvy biker on the Wing forum: he claimed it was the responsibility of the biker to understand that typically, a bikers speed, reactions, and movements will be a great deal quicker than that of cagers. Therefore, it behooves us to allow a safety margin of time and space for the expected slower reactions of a cager...IMHO: that expectation would be outside of people driving drunk, on drugs or spaced out on a cell phone; in which case I think these types of cagers should be killed, or locked up in their garaged cars for ever (for those states that abolished the death penalty).

A sign posted on a Southern Highway comes to mind here: KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD AND YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR APPS. … between the opiods, the legalization of pot, alcohol and cell phones, its a jungle out there!! as motorcyclists, we are in the bottom of the food chain of a predatory environment of vehicular nutcases. Lights, reflective tapes, weird color helmets...anything that helps, I say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
827 Posts
Then again: Stupid is as stupid does

No amount of precautionary safety measure would help these moron gentlemen:

 
21 - 40 of 55 Posts
Top