October 24, 2011

Comments (7)

Comment Feed

LBL Entry Lebel System 24

LED By LITE announces an entry level LBL System 24

As requested by you, the cyclist, we are offering an entry level LBL System. We will produce an LBL System 24 for MSRP $80 US. Get yours today for an exclusive $60 US. An LBL System 24 will include:

24 total LEDs: 6 LEDs in each of four LBL Straps.

Power source: AA battery pack (batteries not included)

Blinking modes

Wire Harness

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Brandon Smith more than 3 years ago


In cycling world, no good deed goes unpunished. Hang in there.

Zalbatross more than 3 years ago

I like normal bike lighting!!

Spencer, perhaps there is a misunderstanding! I am all for normal and generally legally-required lighting that - in my view - does not put others at a disadvantage. Reflectors are not enough on their own. I also support lighting with hi-powered modes for rural situations (i.e. where there is no street lighting and when there is no lovely full moon and clear skies...)

Todd Edelman more than 3 years ago

Ok Stay a Ninja an fight it out


You got to be kidding me. You are searching to try to find an argument on this and for what point? You don't make sense! Everyone should be a Ninja and stay in the dark and shadows?

I think the more a person can add equipment that can help them fit into traffic safely the better.

This system is awesome for that. You are stretching to make an argument and for what purpose? I think you must be a competitor to this company and are selling reflectors. Well you are now obsolete and out of business.

And whats this hyp about legal Illumination? Have you seen these LED By LITEs in action or only from the blinding pictures? Enlighten us on what is legal and whats Illegal? (Pun intended)

With your attitude I am worried your days of riding on the road are numbered.

Remember Todd your best safety equipment is using your head.

Spencer more than 3 years ago

Only pedestrians should be Ninjas

Mr. Fidler:
1 - "Ninja cyclists" are endangered by legally lit cyclists, but - within the current traffic paradigm - this is irrelevant because cyclists need front lights at least for pedestrians and other cyclists and rear lights and all reflectors so that drivers can see what they are doing and do not have to brake or swerve suddenly, which could endanger this driver and others beside the cyclist.

2 - Drivers become wired to look out for larger moving objects AND brighter ones. First responders, road workers and so on wear hi-viz as they might be in a spot totally unexpected, i.e. they are not traffic when working. Similarly, it might be reasonable for a jogger to wear hi-viz if they are running the road, or really just for crossing streets since they will be moving faster than the pedestrians.

3 - The brain gets conditioned to the brightest thing. The pupils close, or anti-dilate, in reaction to bright objects. This can obscure less bright things in immediate proximity. (As I understand it, jet fighter pilots are still told to approach a target with the sun behind them.)

4 - I don't think I said it will stop everyone from signalling. What I said was that normal, legal, unlit signalling loses out to this, IF it can be seen properly (at some distance both lights on the seat stays or fork blades seem to merge into one - you can see this in the video - and so then a cyclist will have false confidence that they can be seen.)

5 - Pannier bags cover up the lights! This makes them useless for many commuters and all cycle tourists.

6 - These might be legal only because they are not mentioned/by omission -- it depends on the location. If a driver sees the signals properly will they think it is a motorcycle or scooter? That could create a problem, but it is mitigated if the cyclist is using pedal reflectors and is pedalling.

7 - This typically "American" "rugged individualist" approach - and I am from the USA, by the way - will not get a lot of people cycling and will not make the roads safe for children. Sure, long-term solutions take time to build but every time an inventor works on something like this we lose one clever person who could be contributing to the safety collective.

8 - We can't make people think and act like the Dutch but we can build bicycle infrastructure like the Dutch. This is the most successful solution for lots of bikes and few crashes.

Todd Edelman more than 3 years ago

That is like suggesting that Ninja cyclists are edangered by those of us who use lights and signals.

So, what Mr. Edelman is asserting is that each and every improvement in lighting (and reflective and/or high visibility components/clothing) has actually endangered cyclists (pedestrians, etc) due to drivers becoming conditioned to only acknowledge brighter and brighter lights/clothes?


Drivers become conditioned to use size, distance and speed as frames of visual reference when navigating traffic. Over time they bcome "wired" to look out for larger moving objects like other motor vehicles: cars, vans, trucks, for example. This is why they so often fail to immediately register pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

That is why us, the little, difficult to discern cyclists of the world benefit from good lighting and hi-viz accessories.

What a brighter bicycle lighting system won't do is program or condition drivers to ignore everything else on the road. For that to happen the majority of the world's cyclists will have to fall in line and all begin using the same system overnight and that won't happen. I probably pass 30+ cyclists on my bike commute and I doubt more than five are using the same lighting system.

Mr. Edelman's argument is akin to asserting that the use of hi-viz clothing by a select few (cyclists, joggers, road workers, first responders) puts all pedestrians in neutral toned clothing at risk of death or injury by hi-viz conditioned drivers.

Again, rubbish.

Safely navigating traffic is every road user's responsibility. It's up to drivers and cyclists to both pay attention and respect all parties using the road, regardless of lighting. I would never suggest that lighting alone will keep one safe in traffic but I really can see no reasonable or logical argument against improved lighting systems.

If a brighter light gives cyclists a safety advantage by creating a visual frame of reference that cannot be ignored then it has succeeded in preventing death or injury.
That being said every cyclist should ride like they're invisible to traffic and proceed with due caution.
The argument that the LED by Light system will stop cyclists from signalling? Well, sadly, I've noticed that the majority of cyclists I encounter often don't signal so that isn't much of an argument against the LED by Light. In fact, a system like that might even get a few cyclists to start signaling.

I don't see how that could be a bad thing.

Blaine Fidler more than 3 years ago

Oy vey, here we go again....

Hyper-illumination and Narcissism, Redux

These are too bright and their well-meant but dangerous signal-function creates a kind of safety gulf between people who have it and people who do not. My view is that everything a cyclist does to significantly increase their illumination above the minimum legal requirement both 1 - Makes other cyclists - and pedestrians - less visible in comparison, and 2- Gets motor vehicle operators used to this level of illumination to the point where they don't look for less lit up - but still legal - cyclists, who may LEGALLY signal only using their arms. In sum, wearing this makes others less safe.

I wish we could stop being narcissistic about safety, and that Momentum would stop - pun intended - blindly endorsing this hoo-ha. (If you want a technical editor for safety, I would be happy to talk!)

This cult of high lux is a disease and a distraction from really solutions for safety.

Todd Edelman more than 3 years ago