I looked at this article. I read the bit about the highpowered lights where they said that they were testing lights for commuting, not mountain bike riding etc.
It seems to me that while the urban trails are unlit and that commuting is shifted from roads to trails, the need for high quality bright illuminating lights is increased and that the flashing mode is not the most important. Even in the urban environment on the roads, the flashing mode is a poor relation to a decent steady beam that actually will illuminate a pot hole sufficiently in advance so that you can avoid it. This is a safety issue.
I think that they got it wrong on that one.
Secondly I am bemused by some of their assessments. For example:The top two rear lights. Tioga Dual Eyes and S-Sun Eaglefly. The S-Sun costs 28% less, scores higher on visibility, equal 10 on Waterproofness , is 1% poorer on over all rating yet is scored as 20% poorer value for money.
If these reports are to be of any use to anybody, then they need to have a rigorous precision in their presentation. Equally important is that they are relevant to the needs of cyclists. If necessary, segment the cyclists. I know that the bare minimum was the initial thrust for these tests, to try and get cyclists on the city roads at night to use decent lights, but I think that we have moved beyond that. Maybe that goal still has an important place, but now there are additional important issues that need addressing. I can assure you that parts of Gardiners Creek trail are very black when there is no moon, and I am sure that there are many other trails that are similar, though they are all much used by commuters. These users can use good advice and good lights.
My third concern is the rather dismissive view taken of the dynamo lighting issue.
The bike share lights use dynamos. Is there a problem there? The article notes the impact and compliance with the German standard StVZO as though this was /is a bad thing and detracts from the performance of these lights.
Having met high beam/bright lights while riding at night, I welcome shielding of an unnecessary flood. We do not need to illuminate the tree tops, or blind the oncomers. We want to see where we are going and alert others to our presence. In my view, the beam presented by some of these dynamo lights is exemplary.
In summary, I am disappointed by the article in RideOn. It is light weight, superficial, unscientific and unhelpful.