- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Flare RBontrager announces new rear light - specifically designed for daytime use
Bontrager has released a new light, engineered from scratch to provide groundbreaking daylight visibility to counteract the 80 per cent of cycle collisions that occur during daylight hours.
The Flare R is visible from up to two kilometers away in the daytime. The USB-rechargeable, 36g Flare R is a powerful 65 Lumen CREE LED, which is brighter than a car's tail light.
In the EU, daytime running lights have been compulsory on new cars since 2011. Bike lights are only required in the UK after dark.
The company claims that Bontrager's electronics development team studied flash patterns designed to catch the eye of drivers in passing vehicles, optimizing Flare R for maximum visibility in both flash pattern and intensity.
Bontrager, based in Wisconsin where the days are often long and grey. said in a statement:
“Studies on accidents resulting in the fatality of a cyclist show that in 40% of all bicycle vs. car accidents, the victim was struck from behind.
“Bontrager engineers began developing Flare R to combat these staggering statistics, with the ultimate goal of increasing confidence and safety with a lightweight, sleek, compact product that is relevant to every type of cyclist, from recreational to racer.”
Bontrager's Brand Manager & Marketing Director Michael Browne said: "We're cyclists and we share the same concerns and experiences as all riders.
"We're in a unique position to create something that can benefit all cyclists, and that's why we've spent such considerable R&D resources on Flare R. This is a light that should be on every bike, every ride. A helmet is a great thing, but not getting hit by a car is even better."
The Flare R alerts the rider to its battery status. When Flare R reaches a 25% battery life, the LED on the top of the light's on/off switch changes from green to red, allowing the rider to dial down the intensity if needed.
When the battery is run to 5% of its charge, Flare R automatically puts itself into low battery protection auto flash mode by kicking the Lumens down a few notches, providing the cyclist an additional 1-2 hours of run time.
A full charge takes 2.5 hours to complete.
Flare R flashes in four distinct patterns, two for daylight-riding and two designed for nighttime usage.
Day Flash mode will utilize all 65 Lumens in a strategically placed random flash pattern designed to draw a motorist’s eyes. Fully charged run time is 5.75 hours.
Day Steady mode uses 25 Lumens of steady illumination and is great for group rides. Fully charged run time is 4.25 hours.
Night Flash mode uses an irregular flash pattern punctuated by short pops of increased intensity. Fully charged run time is 23 hours.
Night Steady mode provides 5 Lumens of steady light great for consistent nighttime visibility. Fully charged run time is 21 hours.
The light has a US MSRP of $59.99 (£40) and is available to buy here. We look forward to testing one.
Latest Comments
- Another_MAMIL 6 hours 1 min ago
Who spends £55 on a bucket hat? You'd have to be a PNS to waste that much money on a bucket hat—it's not normal.
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 10 min ago
It's Haigh in the long coat.
- HoarseMann 10 hours 40 min ago
Not quite the same scenario, but has some similarities......
- HoarseMann 10 hours 58 min ago
“It all happened so fast,” the bus driver said in his statement. “To my horror I saw a male laid on his back with a mobile phone on his chest and...
- wtjs 11 hours 44 min ago
no one cares enough to fix it...
- wtjs 11 hours 52 min ago
I won't be getting anything on Friday...
- I love my bike 13 hours 46 min ago
It's in the land of the sidewalk, for better or worse, that driving 'right of way' does exist. . . and many other things they can keep as well!
- IanGlasgow 14 hours 57 min ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
- Supervet 15 hours 43 min ago
I have started holding my breath for 5 x 30 seconds, that increases EPO, rebreathers not required....
Add new comment
46 comments
“Studies on accidents resulting in the fatality of a cyclist show that in 40% of all bicycle vs. car accidents, the victim was struck from behind.
“Bontrager engineers began developing Flare R to combat these staggering statistics..."
Source:
http://road.cc/content/news/147573-bontrager-anounces-new-rear-light-spe...
So the rear enders are all due to a lack of visibility? Rather than, as I said before, punishment or careless passes going wrong? And you take the interpretation of those statistics, by a bicycle accessory company, at face value? Who just happen to be marketing a new light? Jesus wept...
So what's the point you're trying to make? They shouldn't be trying to design a solution to the problem of cyclists being rear-ended because accidents at junctions are a much bigger problem? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.
It seems very clear to me what the poster is saying.
They are saying that we don't know that cyclists get rear-ended because they aren't visible enough, rather than because drivers just don't care, see the cyclist but pass too close and hit them anyway, or just aren't looking (maybe the sun is in their eyes or their unborn baby kicked? Or maybe they were busy texting?).
No. That's not what they're saying.
Read the first post again. I think they're trying to say that a rear light won't help in accidents that occur at junctions. But like I aleady said, that's so obvious that theres really no point in making the point.
Read the first post again. My first comment wasn't all about junctions;
"4. Cars passing too close to cyclists out of pure spite/impatience/frustration (delete as appropriate)."
My over-riding point is that being rear-ended by a car due to lack of visibility in daytime is an infinitely smaller danger than the very real dangers that cause the vast majority of collisions. It also places more responsibility on cyclists on trying to prevent bad driving that imperils them. Perhaps drivers should be more attentive or (crucially) less spiteful/impatient?
What next, asking pedestrians to wear full body armour in case they get knocked down? "Ah, you see I may have ran a red light and plowed straight into them but if they were wearing full body armour their injuries wouldn't be so bad. They are partially to blame..."
At least Kadinski bothered to read the article...
I really don't follow your point. Where in what you just quoted does it show that "all these rear-enders were caused by lack of visibility"? All it says is 'in 40%...victim was struck from behind'. You aren't saying that's the same thing are you? Because that would be silly. Am I missing something here?
Don't know, don't care. If you have an issue with the statistics, take it up with Bontrager - they're the ones throwing a wad of cash and a team of people into solving the problem of cyclists being hit from behind. Maybe - during all their research and development - they didn't even think of that.
Huh? I don't have 'an issue with the statistics' I have an issue with your interpretation of them. It seems you can't actually justify that interpretation. Not much more to say, though I wonder why you bothered posting something you can't actually defend.
To spell it out - you are the one arguing that cyclists are hit from behind due to lack of visibility. The evidence seems to go against that. As you can't back it up, I assume you just invented it. How much a company spend on trying to make more profits has nothing to do with that.
No, that's not my argument. I said Bontrager developed the light for the 40% of cycling accidents that are rear-enders. Its what they say - right there in the article above. It does seem very high to me and others but thats irrelevant really. My argument is that they have developed the light to fix what they perceive to be an issue. Its more pointing out a fact than an argument really.
But that's not what you said.
What you said was that the 40% figure in the article in itself answered the previous poster's questioning whether these collisions were due to cyclists lacking visibility. Go back and look at your post. I'm saying that doesn't logically follow, unless you also add in the assumption that rear-end collisions are entirely due to the cyclist lacking visibility.
You now seem to have changed your argument, so I assume you accept your original post was logically flawed?
No, for like the 5th time. My argument is and always has been that they developed the light to fix the issue of 40% of accidents that are rear-enders. Thats what they said anyway. Like I say, not really an argument, just pointing out a fact really. You're obviously hankering for a fight about the validity of the stats, maybe you'd have better luck giving Bontrager PR a call?
Exactly what 'evidence' goes against it?
Well, do I have to link to the stories of motorists hitting people from behind due to the sun in their eyes or being distracted by the kicking of their unborn child? Or to point to the frequency of texting while driving?
Or point out that we've had a century of increasing visibility aids that has gone hand in hand with a massive reduction in people feeling safe to cycle or even to walk on country roads?
Conversely, as you are the one making the positive claim - that all (or a clear majority of) the rear-end collisions are due to the cyclist lacking visibility - can I ask where your evidence for that is? The burden of proof is on you. If you want to state that, you need to back it up.
We could just wait and see - make these lights compulsory and see if there's a huge drop in the incidence of rear-end collisions. I suspect that motorists will just say 'thanks very much' and take the increased visibility as an opportunity to pay still less attention to the road and drive faster, leaving vulnerable road-users no better off than before. That tends to fit with what we know of psychology and with what has happened with other visibility aids.
I have made no claims. You demand others back up with evidence but don't bother to do so yourself. Quite tedious reading.
Pages