Hazards of night cycling

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 25 Sep 2007 02:05:38
From: Greens
Subject: Hazards of night cycling

At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once before.
Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or my
obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.

It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with new
batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch in
diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and to
my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in better
light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder not
too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the traffic
lanes rather than hit the barrel.

I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.

How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider have
trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head down
to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet. Going
downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do evasive
manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might have
gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low light
LED.

Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for roads
on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot holes
and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier to
see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the effects
of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.

The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
disaster.

Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience and
conclusion.

Date: 01 Oct 2007 15:40:22
From: almost_fast@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 3:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> But how do they sell
> the lights? Look in the catalogs. They tell you this light is one of the
> brightest LED's available from the geniuses at Cateye. I called Performance
> up and the technician told me those cheap lights are "safety lights".
> They're there for you to be seen not to see. This isn't clearly spelled out
> in the ads. The idea that giving you false confidence in a cheap light is
> "safety" is perverse. If anything they're luring you into a dangerous
> practice so they can make a few measly bucks that they do on cheap lights.

I thought of this when I saw Planet Bike's light selector web page.
They might have it about right: they show pictures of what the light
beams look like!

"Sometimes you need a light to see the lay of the land and sometimes
you need a light to been seen...pick a light and we'll show you the
view." http://www.planetbike.com/page/learn/lightfinder

Date: 01 Oct 2007 16:47:01
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

almost_fast@yahoo.com wrote:

> "Sometimes you need a light to see the lay of the land and sometimes
> you need a light to been seen...pick a light and we'll show you the
> view." http://www.planetbike.com/page/learn/lightfinder

Yes, that's quite a nice way they've done their site.

Unfortunately, some of the lights they have in the lightfinder are no
longer sold by them, i.e. the 5000x which was quite a good deal and
bright enough for a relatively brisk pace. That's the lowest I'd go in
their product line-up on their lightfinder. There might be a few of
these still around in stores, but it's not being made anymore. The LED
lights of equivalent illumination to the 5000x tend to be much more
expensive.

Date: 29 Sep 2007 20:03:58
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 12:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:

[snip]

This inflation calculator claims that lamp oil that cost $5 per gallon
in 1895 would cost $112.36 in 2006:

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

Given the current outrageous prices for whale oil, that may be a low
estimate.

Anyway, the following timely seasonal advice concerning bicycle lamps
should settle the lighting question on RBT, once and for all:

"TOURING ON A BICYCLE; Some Hints for Wheelmen Who Are to Take Autumn
Trips"

. . . Both lamp and bell should be part of the accoutrement of every
tourist, not solely because the ordinances of some towns require both,
but for the reason that when making your way along a country road at
night the bell may sometimes be indispensable as a substitute for a
lamp. The best of lamps yet made will not remain lighted when the wind
is frisky and sometimes when breezes blow and you are riding into a
stygian blackness a collision with some sleepy countryman may be
avoided by keeping your bell continually sounding.

The question of carrying fresh oil is a bothersome one. Those lamps
which burn pure kerosene can easily be refilled anywhere, but there
are only a few of this kind made, and as they are the most expensive a
comparatively small number is in use. As many riders not familiar with
household economy do not know the difference between kerosene lamps
and those for which a special oil is needed, and consequently get into
trouble trying to use kerosene when they should not, it may be well to
interpolate the information that only lamps so constructed as to
provide for a central draf will burn pure kerosene.

There are only a couple of this kind on the market, and an examination
of the lamp will quickly show whether there is a central air draft
from the bottom or a loose and performated cap about the wick sleeve.
If not, the lamp requires a special oil. The lamp oil sold in bicycle
stores is first rate, but it is sold at the rate of $5 a gallon, and
the smaller cans of it are inconvenient for packing, so that, on the
whole, it will be easier and just as cheap to buy oil as you need it
when touring. Only it must be borne in mind that it does not do to mix
oils, nor to refill with a new kind, even after emptying the
reservoir, unless you clean the tank thoroughly and put in a new wick,
or at least squeeze out and wipe dry the old wick. An extra wick,
therefore, is a good thing to have handy.

As to the kind of oil for renewing lamps, a mixture of two-thirds
kerosene and one-third sperm oil is excellent, and it is something
that can be obtained in the most primitive village. Every drug store
keeps the sperm oil, and grocers have the other. A mixture of one-
third cottonseed oil and two-thirds kerosene is favored by some, but
the highly carbonaceous character of the cottonseed extract causes a
thick crust to form on the wick. It can be rubbed off with the match
stick when lighting, but this mixture is very little cheaper than the
other, and the preference is not clear.

For one about to start on a trip, the wise plan would be to fill the
lamp with one or the other of these mixtures and stick to it.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B0DEFDB113DE433A25752C0A9669D94649ED7CF

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 30 Sep 2007 07:32:22
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This inflation calculator claims that lamp oil that cost $5 per gallon
> in 1895 would cost $112.36 in 2006:
>
> http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

A close reading of the article indicates that $5 was an exorbitant price
and came in inconvenient packaging. That is why the article continued to
explain other things that could be done.

Then as now, slap the word bicycle or marine or medical on something
common, and price jumps.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 21:24:40
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>
> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>
> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>
> Just put some basic information on the package:
>
> Power source:
>
> Run time:
>
> Illumination Level:
>
> Suitability:
>
> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"

Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:

"Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
expensive
stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap,
this
is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "

Date: 28 Sep 2007 08:56:21
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Andy M-S" <marchantshapiro@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Andy M-S wrote:
>> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>>
>> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
>> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
>> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>>
>> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
>> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
>> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>>
>> Just put some basic information on the package:
>>
>> Power source:
>>
>> Run time:
>>
>> Illumination Level:
>>
>> Suitability:
>>
>> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
>> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>
> Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>
> "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
> expensive
> stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap,
> this
> is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>
>

When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs to be
an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy practical
things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status buyers.
I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five times
as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't affect my
performance much I can show it off to other bikers.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:05:36
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 2:58 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>
> news:13fnpoip2qp2720@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > SMS wrote:
> >> Greens wrote:
>
> >>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
> >>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
> >>> working for the life of the car.
>
> >> You're new here, huh?
>
> >>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
> >>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
> >>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
> >>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
> >>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
> >>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and
> >>> they look at bikes as a toy.
>
> >> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
> >> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
> >> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
> >> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
> >> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
> >> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
> >> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you
> >> a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin accessories
> >> actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation requiring adequate
> >> lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on
> >> the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>
> >> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> >> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> >> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> >> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> >> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
> >> inflation have also fallen.
>
> >> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> >> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
> >> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
> >> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
> >> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
> >> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.
>
> > Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
> > health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
> > price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
> > bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
> > 'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to that
> > average bike and see how many bikes sell.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> >www.yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> You really think that charging an extra fifty dollars for a bike is going to
> stop anybody from buying bicycles in the USA? I don't think so. Fifty bucks
> is a tank of gas. It's no big deal.

It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?

Date: 27 Sep 2007 14:09:14
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Andy M-S wrote:

> It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?

The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.

Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.

Just put some basic information on the package:

Power source:

Run time:

Illumination Level:

Suitability:

REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
"http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"

Date: 27 Sep 2007 18:14:04
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 12:31 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
> >>> vey wrote:
> >>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
> >>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
> >>>> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
> >>>> you like to see UL approve lights?
> >> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> No, I don't.
> >>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
> >>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
> >>> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
> >>> lights end up at $50. Or more.
> > vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> >> yet?
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > Bicycle brakes?
>
> Brakes do have a standard. The year before that standard, a Famous
> Consumer Rag tested three speed bikes, Columbia, Snyder, Murray, Huffy
> and a Raleigh. The Raleigh was rated 'unacceptable' as the brakes were
> deemed overly responsive _in comparison_ to the others. (!)
>
> All those XMart bikes meet US government CPSC braking standards.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Scary.

OK...bicycle bells? Horns? (Especially helmet) mirrors?There can't
be a standard for those! I know reflectors are covered by the CPSC...

You know, there aren't that many bits of safety equipment *on* a
bicycle!

Date: 27 Sep 2007 13:12:11
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:27:47 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
>
>>> vey wrote:
>>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government,
>>>> yet their standards are more stringent than any government standard.
>>>> Would you like to see UL approve lights?
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> No, I don't.
>>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And
>>> you can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

The CPSC regulates brakes, pedals, handlebars, stems, tires, wheels, hubs,
forks, frames, seats and reflectors:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/16cfr1512_04.html

By your reasoning, the minimum cost of a Wal-Mart bike would be at least
$500.

The CPSC also regulates helmets, yet you can get a basic helmet at
Wal-Mart for $15.

>
> vey wrote:
>> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
>> yet?
>
> uh, bicycle lights? Range $4.95 to about $800 now....

Lots of bicycle lights are already built to government standards, just not
US standards. Most generator lighting systems, for instance, are built to
pass muster with German regulators.

On the other hand, manufacturers sometimes sell a substandard
version of their products in the US market (or so I understand having
spent some time lurking on the bikecurrent mailing list). Cateye battery
lights sold in the European market, for instance, sometimes have better
electronics so that the intensity of the light stays fairly constant over
the lifetime of the battery. If you want to test your hypothesis about
costs, that might be a good place to look.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:25:34
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 11:15 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > Hmmm...Impressive. Too bad they chose the FF Micro. I tried one, and
> > it pales (any all puns intentional) compared to a Lumotec.
>
> I've seen the FF Micro. Very impressive light, especially the optics,
> given the low price.

I've used both and compared the MicroFF to a Lumotec Round. At $15
(retail), the Lumotec Round *is* the price/performance leader--there's
no comparison. The MicroFF looks very cool, but just can't match the
Lumotec for delivered light. Not to mention the Lumotec's built-in
reflector.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:51:51
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 10:32 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> vey wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
> >> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
> >> when not used. Contacts corrode.
>
> > C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean
> > cars shouldn't come with headlights?
>
> "_Getting_?" That threshold was passed years ago.
>
> What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
> the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
> the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
> so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.
>
> Look at the Joule hub used by Dahon.
> "http://www.speedmatrixdepot.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_i...".
> A $30 retail price for the hub _and_ a Hella FF Micro Halogen
> lightlight. This means that it has a manufacturing cost of somewhere
> around $5-7.
>
> A few manufacturers are starting to include a hub dynamo in some bicycles.

Hmmm...Impressive. Too bad they chose the FF Micro. I tried one, and
it pales (any all puns intentional) compared to a Lumotec. And of
course, both pale compared to a 3W LED that costs $15 in retail parts--
case, rectifier, LED and lens, switch...a little more for a capacitor
if you want a standlight).

Equipping all bikes with a hub gen and light might be an excellent
idea...except that there are lots and lots of bikes that are sold at
various *Mart stores, and the manufacturers/retailers of those bikes
would fight any lighting mandate tooth and nail--and they're big, so
that virtually guarantees failure. Also fighting would "high
performance" riders and manufacturers of bikes for same, for whom a
gram shaved is worth $$$.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 09:15:25
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Andy M-S wrote:

> Hmmm...Impressive. Too bad they chose the FF Micro. I tried one, and
> it pales (any all puns intentional) compared to a Lumotec.

I've seen the FF Micro. Very impressive light, especially the optics,
given the low price.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:20:35
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 8:17 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>
> > It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
> > night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
>
> In the case of the light I bought, that would be zero MPH since it
> didn't light up anything. And it was zero. I walked my bike until I got
> under a street lamp and could see, then rode a bit and walked some more.
>
> When I got home, I took it off and shined it around a room. The walls
> showed up perfectly, but the beam was so diffused, it didn't do anything
> for the floor. So even if I had tried it out at the LBS I bought it at,
> I wouldn't have known any better.

How many miles of riding did you do before you realized you couldn't
see??

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 20:39:30
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 27, 8:17 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>>
>>> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
>>> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
>> In the case of the light I bought, that would be zero MPH since it
>> didn't light up anything. And it was zero. I walked my bike until I got
>> under a street lamp and could see, then rode a bit and walked some more.
>>
>> When I got home, I took it off and shined it around a room. The walls
>> showed up perfectly, but the beam was so diffused, it didn't do anything
>> for the floor. So even if I had tried it out at the LBS I bought it at,
>> I wouldn't have known any better.
>
> How many miles of riding did you do before you realized you couldn't
> see??
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>

As soon as I got into a dark area, I stopped. Then I walked until I got
near a streetlight and could see again.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:19:33
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 8:03 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
>
>
> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> yet?

How about the reflectorized strips on certain shoes and clothing?

The rubber bumpers Yuppie parents stick on the sharp edges of their
coffee tables?

The rubber padding suburban PTAs spread across the playgrounds?

The "safety flags" some people still stick on their bicycles?

I could go on. But yes, there are still a few products that the
professional Regulators have so far ignored.

Of course, we can't let that continue! Think of the children!!!!
<wring hands here >

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:50:21
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:49:24
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 5:50 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Andy M-S wrote:
> > Shimano Ultegra-level dynohubs are <$100, and you need a
> > front hub anyway, so knock off $30 (or so) that you'd be spending in
> > any evevnt and you're looking at $60-70 for a source of juice that
> > never needs to be plugged in.
>
> Don't forget the difference between a hub and a wheel.

I didn't forget. You need a hub to build a wheel. The other wheel
costs are the same, regardless of whether you use a normal hub or a
dynohub. So buy a wheel (or have one built) with a dynohub and you
spend $60-$70 for a long-term power source.

I had a wheel rebuilt (reusing only the old rim, new spokes and new
dynohub, obviously) for $115. I sold the old (Ultegra) hub for $25.
$80 investment for power--and that's including the rebuild.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:43:37
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 2:43 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Garry Lee" <gol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190872154.384133.168050@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I have a really powerful Cateye triple system. I only ride where I can
> > stop in time and if I can't see the road I stop.
>
> > "If you can't see the road stop the car" - Rosemary Smith, famous
> > former Irish Rally driver and winner of Monaco Rally.
>
> > Goes even more so for bikes.
>
> Get real. Maybe you think I should have walked seven miles back to my car.
> You can't stop every time a car goes by and you lose the road for a few
> seconds. Do you stop your car when a truck hits a puddle and floods your
> window with water an inch deep? Of course not. You slow and then the
> situtation clears up before you get to stop. Same thing with my ride. I was
> through it before I could stop.
>
> Stop being such an ass.

There are techniques to not being blinded by cars. Using a visor and
dipping your head as the car approaches, looking to the side of the
road, etc. One route I take to work has (alas) both directions of
bikes routed on the east side of the road, so when I head south, I
have cars passing 2-3' to my right and bikes 1'-2' to my left. I do
NOT like that situation, but rather than be blinded, I've learned how
to deal with the situation. *Drivers* are taught not to look at
oncoming headlights...cyclists should be able to do the same thing.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:40:31
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 27, 7:03 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
> >>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
>
> > vey wrote:
> >> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
> >> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
> >> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
> >> you like to see UL approve lights?
>
> > No, I don't.
> > For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
> > various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
> > can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
> > lights end up at $50. Or more.
>
> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> yet?

Bicycle brakes?

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:31:49
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

>>> vey wrote:
>>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
>>>> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
>>>> you like to see UL approve lights?

>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> No, I don't.
>>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
>>> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

> vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
>> yet?

Andy M-S wrote:
> Bicycle brakes?

Brakes do have a standard. The year before that standard, a Famous
Consumer Rag tested three speed bikes, Columbia, Snyder, Murray, Huffy
and a Raleigh. The Raleigh was rated 'unacceptable' as the brakes were
deemed overly responsive _in comparison_ to the others. (!)

All those XMart bikes meet US government CPSC braking standards.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 26 Sep 2007 22:49:14
From: Garry Lee
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

I have a really powerful Cateye triple system. I only ride where I can
stop in time and if I can't see the road I stop.

"If you can't see the road stop the car" - Rosemary Smith, famous
former Irish Rally driver and winner of Monaco Rally.

Goes even more so for bikes.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 03:43:08
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Garry Lee" <golaoi@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190872154.384133.168050@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>I have a really powerful Cateye triple system. I only ride where I can
> stop in time and if I can't see the road I stop.
>
> "If you can't see the road stop the car" - Rosemary Smith, famous
> former Irish Rally driver and winner of Monaco Rally.
>
> Goes even more so for bikes.
>

Get real. Maybe you think I should have walked seven miles back to my car.
You can't stop every time a car goes by and you lose the road for a few
seconds. Do you stop your car when a truck hits a puddle and floods your
window with water an inch deep? Of course not. You slow and then the
situtation clears up before you get to stop. Same thing with my ride. I was
through it before I could stop.

Stop being such an ass.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:38:49
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 7:36 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 5:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > > > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>
> > > > > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> > > > > organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > > > power dynamo lights "
>
> > > > > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> > > > > They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
> > > > > quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
> > > > > as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
> > > > professional society?
>
> > > I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
> > > lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
> > > knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
> > > in practice.
>
> > Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
> > intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
> > used HID from what I can tell.
>
> > > > It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
> > > > launch a web-site is an expert on something these days.
>
> > > Herr Scharf proves that! Indeed, he can claim to be an "expert" even
> > > though he apparently has only a dim understanding of the most
> > > fundamental unit of light, the lumen.
>
> > > As recently as last week, he was claiming that focusing a bulb more
> > > tightly increases its lumens output! (And, buried on his web page,
> > > there are still technical mistakes related to this.)
>
> > Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
> > me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
> > lots of light for $150? If you are telling me I can get lots of light
> > with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
> > of my old beater bikes to put it on.
>
> "As good?" Depends on how you're riding.
>
> I've got a Shimano Nexus ($77.50 at JensonUSA -http://preview.tinyurl.com/27lteo
> ) on my touring bike. Because of its tire clearance, it's the bike I
> ride in the depths of winter, either with Michelin Transworld City
> 700x35s that pick up gravel and are good on ice, or maybe my Innova
> Studs. My experience with the Shimano hub is that it puts out exactly
> the same amount of light as the SON, when using the same model of lamp
> (in my case, the B&M dLumotec Oval Senso Plus LED, $80 from Peter
> White, $76 without the auto-sensor - not necessary, but nice - both
> include a standlight).
>
> The difference comes in when you turn the light off. The SON has a
> noticeable reduction in resistance when the light is switched off,
> whereas the Shimano, it's less noticeable. IIRC, Sheldon Brown did
> some testing that demonstrated that they had similar resistance levels
> while powering the light, but the Shimanos maintained a higher level
> when off. Their later models were better in this regard than the
> earlier ones, but they're still higher-resistance than the SON, when
> switched off.
>
> Because it's usually dark both ways when I'm riding this bike, the
> increased resistance when the light is off makes no difference at all
> to me.
>
> So maybe just a hair over your $150 mark, for hub + lamp, but pretty
> close. Less expensive Halogens are available, but I prefer LEDs
> because they don't burn out and because at low speeds (below 3mph),
> they strobe at full brightness instead of dimming.

PS - that is the disc-compatible model.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:31:03
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 8:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
> > lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
> > knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
> > in practice.
>
> Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
> intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
> used HID from what I can tell.

No, and neither have I. But if your qualification for "expert" means
trying each new model of bike light whenever it hits the market, it
sounds like you're demanding some very well-funded "experts"!

> Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
> me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
> lots of light for $150?

Yes, certainly. You'll go from undetectable drag to barely detectable
drag, but the electrical characteristics are almost exactly the same.
But of course, whether you'll be satisfied with my definition of "lots
of light" is another matter.

I don't demand - and in fact, dislike - having 40% of my lumens wasted
by going up into trees, even though some people include those lumens
in their "lots of light." Likewise, I find that I don't do well
aiming an unfocused light low, with an overly-bright spot just in
front of the bike, so the stray lumens don't go as high. It's bad for
my night vision.

What seems to work best is a well-aimed beam that's nicely cut off
above road level, so to speak, so a lesser amount is wasted up into
trees and road signs. It's best if the brightest part of the beam is
just below that cutoff, so it shines further down the road. It's best
if the part that shines closer to the bike is a bit dimmer, so night
vision isn't washed out.

With that scheme, I get "lots of light" - i.e. better than most bike
headlamps, and plenty for my riding - with a Soubitez roller generator
that's over 20 years old. The lamp I use with it (or its twin) is
available for about $20. I normally use a battery powered taillight.
I sometimes use a 3 Watt bulb instead of a 2.4 Watt, but I don't
really see much difference, unless it's in the longevity.

> If you are telling me I can get lots of light
> with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
> of my old beater bikes to put it on.

It sounds to me like you should try a high-end Shimano hub unit - but
replace its headlamp with, say, a Lumotec (see http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/dymotec.asp)
But for less trouble, perhaps try a good bottle generator first.
They're noisier, but they'll allow you to roughly evaluate what the
lights are like.

> If you are telling me I don't
> need "that much" light, then we will just go round and round because I
> need as much light as I can get with my poor night vision and frequent
> riding in the rain (but not tonight because it is beautiful).

Well, I don't know your night vision, so I can't say. You're in
Portland, aren't you? If I were you, I'd get myself over to Citybikes
on Ankeny, and talk to them. Maybe they, or someone they know, can
arrange to let you try a bike with a decent generator set.

You may not like it. Some people really do have terrible night
vision. And really, it does take more mechanical and electrical skill
to install a generator (although that's a once-only operation). But I
guarantee, if you're satisfied with the light output, you'll love the
convenience. For me, it makes my bike a much more practical vehicle.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 04:32:04
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190863863.647974.82620@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 8:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
>> > lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
>> > knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
>> > in practice.
>>
>> Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
>> intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
>> used HID from what I can tell.
>
> No, and neither have I. But if your qualification for "expert" means
> trying each new model of bike light whenever it hits the market, it
> sounds like you're demanding some very well-funded "experts"!
>
>> Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
>> me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
>> lots of light for $150?
>
> Yes, certainly. You'll go from undetectable drag to barely detectable
> drag, but the electrical characteristics are almost exactly the same.
> But of course, whether you'll be satisfied with my definition of "lots
> of light" is another matter.
>
> I don't demand - and in fact, dislike - having 40% of my lumens wasted
> by going up into trees, even though some people include those lumens
> in their "lots of light." Likewise, I find that I don't do well
> aiming an unfocused light low, with an overly-bright spot just in
> front of the bike, so the stray lumens don't go as high. It's bad for
> my night vision.
>
> What seems to work best is a well-aimed beam that's nicely cut off
> above road level, so to speak, so a lesser amount is wasted up into
> trees and road signs. It's best if the brightest part of the beam is
> just below that cutoff, so it shines further down the road. It's best
> if the part that shines closer to the bike is a bit dimmer, so night
> vision isn't washed out.
>
> With that scheme, I get "lots of light" - i.e. better than most bike
> headlamps, and plenty for my riding - with a Soubitez roller generator
> that's over 20 years old. The lamp I use with it (or its twin) is
> available for about $20. I normally use a battery powered taillight.
> I sometimes use a 3 Watt bulb instead of a 2.4 Watt, but I don't
> really see much difference, unless it's in the longevity.
>
>> If you are telling me I can get lots of light
>> with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
>> of my old beater bikes to put it on.
>
> It sounds to me like you should try a high-end Shimano hub unit - but
> replace its headlamp with, say, a Lumotec (see
> http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/dymotec.asp)
> But for less trouble, perhaps try a good bottle generator first.
> They're noisier, but they'll allow you to roughly evaluate what the
> lights are like.
>
>> If you are telling me I don't
>> need "that much" light, then we will just go round and round because I
>> need as much light as I can get with my poor night vision and frequent
>> riding in the rain (but not tonight because it is beautiful).
>
> Well, I don't know your night vision, so I can't say. You're in
> Portland, aren't you? If I were you, I'd get myself over to Citybikes
> on Ankeny, and talk to them. Maybe they, or someone they know, can
> arrange to let you try a bike with a decent generator set.
>
> You may not like it. Some people really do have terrible night
> vision. And really, it does take more mechanical and electrical skill
> to install a generator (although that's a once-only operation). But I
> guarantee, if you're satisfied with the light output, you'll love the
> convenience. For me, it makes my bike a much more practical vehicle.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

have a look at this one from busch and Muller.
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/bigbang.asp

Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:02:01
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

I luv my SON

http://www.malleegum.com/bike/schmidtlight.html (project 4 isnt
written yet)

Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:38:08
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 4:02 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> > organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > power dynamo lights "
> > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> And my statement still stands. While their web site is low-key and
> non-offensive, there's a lot of information on it that is misleading
> while not outright untrue.

As opposed to yours?

You're so fulla crap.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 19:36:41
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 5:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>
> > > > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> > > > organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > > power dynamo lights "
>
> > > > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> > > > They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
> > > > quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
> > > > as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
> > > professional society?
>
> > I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
> > lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
> > knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
> > in practice.
>
> Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
> intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
> used HID from what I can tell.
>
> > > It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
> > > launch a web-site is an expert on something these days.
>
> > Herr Scharf proves that! Indeed, he can claim to be an "expert" even
> > though he apparently has only a dim understanding of the most
> > fundamental unit of light, the lumen.
>
> > As recently as last week, he was claiming that focusing a bulb more
> > tightly increases its lumens output! (And, buried on his web page,
> > there are still technical mistakes related to this.)
>
> Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
> me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
> lots of light for $150? If you are telling me I can get lots of light
> with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
> of my old beater bikes to put it on.

"As good?" Depends on how you're riding.

I've got a Shimano Nexus ($77.50 at JensonUSA - http://preview.tinyurl.com/27lteo
) on my touring bike. Because of its tire clearance, it's the bike I
ride in the depths of winter, either with Michelin Transworld City
700x35s that pick up gravel and are good on ice, or maybe my Innova
Studs. My experience with the Shimano hub is that it puts out exactly
the same amount of light as the SON, when using the same model of lamp
(in my case, the B&M dLumotec Oval Senso Plus LED, $80 from Peter
White, $76 without the auto-sensor - not necessary, but nice - both
include a standlight).

The difference comes in when you turn the light off. The SON has a
noticeable reduction in resistance when the light is switched off,
whereas the Shimano, it's less noticeable. IIRC, Sheldon Brown did
some testing that demonstrated that they had similar resistance levels
while powering the light, but the Shimanos maintained a higher level
when off. Their later models were better in this regard than the
earlier ones, but they're still higher-resistance than the SON, when
switched off.

Because it's usually dark both ways when I'm riding this bike, the
increased resistance when the light is off makes no difference at all
to me.

So maybe just a hair over your $150 mark, for hub + lamp, but pretty
close. Less expensive Halogens are available, but I prefer LEDs
because they don't burn out and because at low speeds (below 3mph),
they strobe at full brightness instead of dimming.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:32:25
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:33:39 -0700, Jay Beattie wrote:

> On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>>
>> > > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>>
>> > > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a
>> > > single organization, or lighting expert, promote low power dynamo
>> > > lights "
>>
>> > > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>>
>> > > They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting,
>> > > often quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle
>> > > press. And as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide
>> > > quoted text -
>>
>> > Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
>> > professional society?
>>
>> I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
>> lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
>> knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
>> in practice.
>
> Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
> intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
> used HID from what I can tell.
>
>> > It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
>> > launch a web-site is an expert on something these days.
>>
>> Herr Scharf proves that! Indeed, he can claim to be an "expert" even
>> though he apparently has only a dim understanding of the most
>> fundamental unit of light, the lumen.
>>
>> As recently as last week, he was claiming that focusing a bulb more
>> tightly increases its lumens output! (And, buried on his web page,
>> there are still technical mistakes related to this.)
>
> Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
> me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
> lots of light for $150? If you are telling me I can get lots of light
> with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
> of my old beater bikes to put it on. If you are telling me I don't need
> "that much" light, then we will just go round and round because I need
> as much light as I can get with my poor night vision and frequent riding
> in the rain (but not tonight because it is beautiful).
>
> And I am not ragging the Blayleys (which is a precious blending of two
> names -- so I am ragging them for that -- plus the deal with cats. Why
> does everyone have to share about their cats? I hate cats.) I respect
> all their miles -- each and every one -- but I have found that a lot of
> high mileage cyclists who can kick my ass up some local hill are no less
> likely than anyone else to have weird agenda items -- whether it be
> dynamo lights or leather saddles or canvas bags. The question is what is
> the right light for me and my riding habits and not what Mr. Ubermensch
> is riding on the PBP. My commute home is not six hours -- even if I
> crawled. The expert light web-sites, in my opinion, are the ones with
> light beam patterns, run times, bulb life, circuit diagrams for those
> people who wire their own protection. I would like to see specs about
> lumens and beam patterns -- and not "I really like dynamos, and I can
> ride them all night." I am not going to be riding all night any time
> soon except in my car on a family vacation. -- Jay Beattie.

Peter White posts beam patterns of most of the lights he sells on his
website. See, for instance:

www.peterwhitecycles.com/headlights.asp

which also links to this page:

www.fa-technik.adfc.de/Komponenten/Scheinwerfer/vergleich.htm

Here are some beamshots of the trinewt posted recently on a blog:

http://tinyurl.com/3xnxfl

If you want more technical information, you might want to look at the
bikecurrent mailing list. The participants seem to have a high level of
knowledge of electronics (to the extent I'm able to judge) and are
sometimes impatient with those who don't have the same level of knowledge,
but the archives are useful for finding reviews of lights:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/bikecurrent/read

Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:33:39
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 4:49 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>
> > > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> > > organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > power dynamo lights "
>
> > > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> > > They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
> > > quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
> > > as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
> > professional society?
>
> I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
> lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
> knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
> in practice.

Except they have not used the new Trinewt, which is the lightweight,
intensely bright LED system I would like to know about. They have not
used HID from what I can tell.

> > It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
> > launch a web-site is an expert on something these days.
>
> Herr Scharf proves that! Indeed, he can claim to be an "expert" even
> though he apparently has only a dim understanding of the most
> fundamental unit of light, the lumen.
>
> As recently as last week, he was claiming that focusing a bulb more
> tightly increases its lumens output! (And, buried on his web page,
> there are still technical mistakes related to this.)

Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good? Could I get
lots of light for $150? If you are telling me I can get lots of light
with a $150 investment, then I will build that wheel and resurrect one
of my old beater bikes to put it on. If you are telling me I don't
need "that much" light, then we will just go round and round because I
need as much light as I can get with my poor night vision and frequent
riding in the rain (but not tonight because it is beautiful).

And I am not ragging the Blayleys (which is a precious blending of two
names -- so I am ragging them for that -- plus the deal with cats.
Why does everyone have to share about their cats? I hate cats.) I
respect all their miles -- each and every one -- but I have found that
a lot of high mileage cyclists who can kick my ass up some local hill
are no less likely than anyone else to have weird agenda items --
whether it be dynamo lights or leather saddles or canvas bags. The
question is what is the right light for me and my riding habits and
not what Mr. Ubermensch is riding on the PBP. My commute home is not
six hours -- even if I crawled. The expert light web-sites, in my
opinion, are the ones with light beam patterns, run times, bulb life,
circuit diagrams for those people who wire their own protection. I
would like to see specs about lumens and beam patterns -- and not "I
really like dynamos, and I can ride them all night." I am not going to
be riding all night any time soon except in my car on a family
vacation. -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 02:00:49
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:1190853219.566904.325990@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> Without getting into any issues you may have with SMS, are you telling
> me that the non-SON, one-third price units are as good?

The shimano hubs are pretty much as good as the SON ones - tiny difference
in drag, not as pretty, probably not as nice bearings. Make sure you avoid
the 2.4W ones though.

> Could I get lots of light for $150?

Depends on what "lots of light" is. It's going to be less than a HID system,
for example. I suspect you may need to try one.

cheers,
clive

Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:10:08
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:49:26
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>
> > I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> > organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > power dynamo lights "
>
> > I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> > They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
> > quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
> > as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
> professional society?

I suggest you read about their experience, both in cycling and with
lighting systems. I can't vouch for the depth of their technical
knowledge, but they can tell you a lot about how specific systems work
in practice.

>
> It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
> launch a web-site is an expert on something these days.

Herr Scharf proves that! Indeed, he can claim to be an "expert" even
though he apparently has only a dim understanding of the most
fundamental unit of light, the lumen.

As recently as last week, he was claiming that focusing a bulb more
tightly increases its lumens output! (And, buried on his web page,
there are still technical mistakes related to this.)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:39:09
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 5:35 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
> It's true that the wiring problems they describe are vastly overblown.
> You can have wiring issues with dynamo lights as well, and these
> problems have often been mentioned in this group.

"Often"? I recall only one mention of a dynamo problem that needed
diagnosis. Perhaps you can post links to five or six of the other
reports of problems?

Or did you simply mean _you_ "often" mention hypothetical problems?

The truth is, since dynamo wires are fixed in place and essentially
never disconnected, the wires and connections are far more reliable
than the moveable, frequently-unplugged wires and connections of
typical rechargeable setups.

Ask yourself: Which wires in your house give more problems - the
fixed, never disturbed wires within your walls, or the unplugged-daily
wires powering your toaster or coffee pot?

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:27:44
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 5:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htm to you before.
>
> > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?

You lost track of the conversation, Jay. Hank's citation was in
response to another of Scharf's daft claims that "I have not seen a
single organization, or lighting expert, promote low power dynamo
lights..."

Hank pointed out that there are lighting experts whose recommendations
Scharf has seen. Or at least, should have seen, because he's been
pointed to their sites before. So the Blayleys were given as a
counterexample - sufficient to disprove Scharf's claim.

Perhaps Scharf's "out" is that he doesn't consider them "experts"
despite their decades of intense use of lights of every type in
commuting and extreme randonneuring. Scharf's usual definition of
"expert" is "someone who agrees with Scharf."

> I noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on.

It's possible they could have. And of course, they could have simply
purchased a new battery pack. But it seems clear to me that they
moved on because of other dissatisfactions, as well. That's certainly
the path I took.

> I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> of lights and associated wiring) is daunting...

Hmm. You're well on your way to qualifying as one of Scharf's
"experts," because you agree with him - especially on things that are
demonstrably false, like his oft-stated gross overestimate of dynamo
system costs!

IIRC, even the most expensive models of the best-in-the-world SON
don't reach $300. And there are Shimano hub units (and others) at
less than a third that price. Then there are bottle dynamos and
roller dynamos, and at least one belt-driven dynamo. All those are
even cheaper. See http://www.yellowjersey.org/dynamos.html for a few
examples.

> It also is not very
> useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc.

Again, that's why I carry a coin-sized LED flashlight. My last one
cost about $3, IIRC.

> On the other hand,
> it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> this as a very tough and personal choice for many people.

But people should make the choice based on true information, not
nonsense like "generators are too expensive; they cost $300" or "you
can't safely ride in traffic with a generator light" or "you can't
safely ride on dark roads with a generator light" or the like.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:04:11
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 3:23 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
>
> But, if someone spends $30 on a light, they are suddenly supposed to
> become an expert at optics? And miraculously "know" that the light isn't
> fit for a particular purpose?

Ditto wheelsets, cranksets, seats, handlebars, not to mention kitchen
knives, electric drills, shoes...

Why, I recently heard about a crazy guy who summited Mount St. Helens
wearing flip flops instead of hiking boots! He got terrible, terrible
blisters! Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!!

Why, oh why, does our government allow the travesty of unregulated
shoe sales???

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:21:43
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190847851.367964.72990@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 3:23 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>
>> But, if someone spends $30 on a light, they are suddenly supposed to
>> become an expert at optics? And miraculously "know" that the light isn't
>> fit for a particular purpose?
>
> Ditto wheelsets, cranksets, seats, handlebars, not to mention kitchen
> knives, electric drills, shoes...
>
> Why, I recently heard about a crazy guy who summited Mount St. Helens
> wearing flip flops instead of hiking boots! He got terrible, terrible
> blisters! Oh, the horror! Oh, the humanity!!
>
> Why, oh why, does our government allow the travesty of unregulated
> shoe sales???
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

You laugh. I've got wide feet. I have a heluva time getting running shoes
that fit. I have thought that they should be forced to make shoes to fit all
people instead of just making the shoes that will fit most people. What are
people with big feet supposed to do, go barefoot? Tight shoes can make
certain activities almost impossible and they can lead to permanent foot
problems.

Nike just launched a special line of shoes for the big feet of native
americans. did you know that native americans have huge feet? Apparantly
they do. Oddly, they don't give a damn about ordinary, fat americans, but
for native americans with hereditarily caused*, obesity problems, they came
up with this special line. Don't know if they'll call it the Tonto line or
what...

*we killed their buffalo and ruined their hunter gatherer lifestyle and now
this once proud race has become a bunch of fat drunks. that's not cool man.
we've gotta do something.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:04:02
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

NO!
as a bohemian with time to burn on a low level asian import, I want to
say the cycle free market does a pretty good job producing quality
components for a few bucks outlay.
Even if yawl wanna get bent on zero mass, the components and quality
are relatively inexpensive for the effort.
Except for the french, off course.
manufactures selling crap to morons who buy the stuff and come to
believe the cycle market rots are soon weeded out by more
knowledgeable types
more resin?

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:58:50
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 1:40 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
>
>
> When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
> the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that all
> bikes are equipped with quality lighting...

... rather vague standard, that! What's "quality lighting"?

> whether they're going to be used at night or not.

The obvious reason this is not done is because the vast majority of
people don't want it to be done. Consumers who don't ever plan on
riding at night don't want to pay for lights they'll never use. Bike
shops don't want the price of bikes increased by the cost of the
lights.

And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
when not used. Contacts corrode.

The only way to make this work would be to mandate a generator set on
every bike sold. But then poor Steven M. Scharf would descend even
further into his strange abyss!

> For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
> tolerated among many of the cyclists here.

By golly, we need a dictator to impose your ideas on the crazy,
cheapskate, individualist members of the cycling community! We need
someone like Stalin, who wouldn't be afraid of outlawing... um,
exactly what you did when you bought your bike light...um...

Say, are you _sure_ you've thought this through? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 09:10:31
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
Consumers who don't ever plan on
> riding at night don't want to pay for lights they'll never use. Bike
> shops don't want the price of bikes increased by the cost of the
> lights.

Why is it a law that bikes must have reflectors when sold and especially
a white reflector on the front if there is supposed to be no riding at
night?

You know why. The bike manufacturer's control the governmental agency
that requires them to be there.
>
> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
> when not used. Contacts corrode.

C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean
cars shouldn't come with headlights?

Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:32:16
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

vey wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
>> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
>> when not used. Contacts corrode.
>
> C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean
> cars shouldn't come with headlights?

"_Getting_?" That threshold was passed years ago.

What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.

Look at the Joule hub used by Dahon.
"http://www.speedmatrixdepot.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=46".
A $30 retail price for the hub _and_ a Hella FF Micro Halogen
lightlight. This means that it has a manufacturing cost of somewhere
around $5-7.

A few manufacturers are starting to include a hub dynamo in some bicycles.

Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:35:37
From: Andreas Oehler
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:32:16 -0700, SMS:

>
>What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
>the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
>the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
>so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.

Thats wrong. More than 50% of the bikes sold in germany come with a hub
generator today. An increasing part also comes with a LED headlight
already. Bike manufacturers buy hub dynamos for less than 10 Euro and LED
headlamps (like the Basta Pilot Steady) for about the same. Such bikes (7
speed hub gears, fenders, lights, usable brakes) come at around 200 Euro
here.

Andreas

Date: 27 Sep 2007 13:16:16
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
>>> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
>>> when not used. Contacts corrode.

> vey wrote:
>> C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean
>> cars shouldn't come with headlights?

SMS wrote:
> "_Getting_?" That threshold was passed years ago.
> What makes sense is a hub dynamo and good LED headlight. If included at
> the point of manufacture they'd add only a few dollars to the price of
> the bike. What makes hub dynamos and good dynamo-compatible LED lights
> so costly is that they're a low-volume specialty item.
> Look at the Joule hub used by Dahon.
> "http://www.speedmatrixdepot.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2&products_id=46".
> A $30 retail price for the hub _and_ a Hella FF Micro Halogen
> lightlight. This means that it has a manufacturing cost of somewhere
> around $5-7.
> A few manufacturers are starting to include a hub dynamo in some bicycles.

Yeah, since the 1920s at least.
Hint: the models with lighting systems cost more, hence sell in much
smaller numbers.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:46:49
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46fbccad$0$27206$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> A few manufacturers are starting to include a hub dynamo in some bicycles.

Do keep up at the back there. Hub 'mos have been around for years, and were
standard equipment on some bikes. With the decline of the bike for utility
cycling here and where you are, they fell out of favour, but they're
definitely back now. In places where utility riding is more commonplace
(think mainland Europe) they're well in there - the fact that shimano
support the market, with hubs with hub brake support as well as more normal
ones, indicates the market is definitely beyond "starting".

clive.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:44:56
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190847530.770453.48880@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 1:40 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
>> the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that
>> all
>> bikes are equipped with quality lighting...
>
> ... rather vague standard, that! What's "quality lighting"?
>
>> whether they're going to be used at night or not.
>
> The obvious reason this is not done is because the vast majority of
> people don't want it to be done. Consumers who don't ever plan on
> riding at night don't want to pay for lights they'll never use. Bike
> shops don't want the price of bikes increased by the cost of the
> lights.
>
> And besides, if you did (say) install a permanent headlight on every
> bike, it would stop working in very short order. Batteries die even
> when not used. Contacts corrode.

You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
working for the life of the car. Of course batteries wear out and bikes
don't have generators, but you also forget that batteries last for years
these days. If they're not used, they have a shelf life of 3 years. If they
are used, cyclists will buy more. LED lights last hundreds of hours.
Rechargeable lights can be recharged in fifteen minutes and also last many
hours.

Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The $400
lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for the kid's
bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk sends their
kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no lights? Look in their
garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a snowmobile. They've got
the money. They just don't see the value and they look at bikes as a toy.

>
> The only way to make this work would be to mandate a generator set on
> every bike sold. But then poor Steven M. Scharf would descend even
> further into his strange abyss!
>
>> For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
>> tolerated among many of the cyclists here.
>
> By golly, we need a dictator to impose your ideas on the crazy,
> cheapskate, individualist members of the cycling community! We need
> someone like Stalin, who wouldn't be afraid of outlawing... um,
> exactly what you did when you bought your bike light...um...
>
> Say, are you _sure_ you've thought this through? ;-)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

What do your stats say about people, especially kids, riding bikes at night
without lights? Isn't that one of the number one ways to get hit by a car?
There's your selling point! Do you like your kids? Do you want them to live
to adulthood? Have you saved $30,000 for a down payment on their education?
Why the fuck can't you afford a hundred dollar light so they don't get
creamed in the street when they're 12?

Let me guess. You're going to say that statistically hardly any kids get
killed riding bikes at night. Not in numbers that matter. Cycling is healthy
and fun. It's good for kids and blah, blah, blah.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:46:00
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:YbCdnZS7XO_6qWbbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@adelphia.com...

> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
> working for the life of the car. Of course batteries wear out and bikes
> don't have generators, but you also forget that batteries last for years
> these days. If they're not used, they have a shelf life of 3 years. If
> they are used, cyclists will buy more. LED lights last hundreds of hours.
> Rechargeable lights can be recharged in fifteen minutes and also last many
> hours.
>
> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The $400
> lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for the
> kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk sends
> their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no lights? Look
> in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a snowmobile.
> They've got the money. They just don't see the value and they look at
> bikes as a toy.

Check out the rules in Germany. All utility-type bikes (don't know the exact
rules - they do manage to exclude MTBs and racing bikes) must be fitted with
lights, and they must be of a certain standard - and possibly need to be
dynamos too. But that's a country where the bike isn't seen as a toy.

OTOH the lamp you were using possibly meets the standards in place.

clive

Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:29:54
From: Andreas Oehler
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:46:00 +0100, Clive George:

>
>
>Check out the rules in Germany. All utility-type bikes (don't know the exact
>rules - they do manage to exclude MTBs and racing bikes) must be fitted with
>lights, and they must be of a certain standard - and possibly need to be
>dynamos too. But that's a country where the bike isn't seen as a toy.
>
>OTOH the lamp you were using possibly meets the standards in place.

No. The Cateye EL300 is far from what's required in Germany. With fresh
batteries the EL300 reaches a maximum brightness of 4 lux in 10m distance
- quickly dropping to 2 lux. Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
10 lux. Cateye sold a special version - the EL300G with an efficient
switching regulator instead of the simple resistor inside the EL300 - but
still it is not allowed to be sold anymore.

If someone decides to use a EL300 as his only light, he has to go
appropate slow (not much more than walking speed). The EL300G is a nice
torch at home...

Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

Date: 29 Sep 2007 18:03:13
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Andreas Oehler wrote:
Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
> 10 lux.
>
> Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

10 lux isn't very much. It should be considered a minimum, but I think
it is enough for a dark street. As I read the translated StVZO, that
minimum light must be there, but a more powerful battery light can be
added? Or perhaps the light can be exchanged for a stronger dynamo
powered one?

That's what I read.

Date: 30 Sep 2007 19:03:20
From: Andreas Oehler
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:03:13 -0400, vey:

>Andreas Oehler wrote:
>Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
>> 10 lux.
>>
>> Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself
>
>10 lux isn't very much. It should be considered a minimum,

This is what the german StVZO says about lamps which are allowed to be
sold as bike lights. Bikes with older, less powerful lights are not
required to upgrade.

> but I think
>it is enough for a dark street.

Most cycling happens on well lit city streets. A "be seen by" light would
be enough there IMHO, because drivers always have to be aware of unlit
pedestrians anyway.

> As I read the translated StVZO, that
>minimum light must be there, but a more powerful battery light can be
>added?

Usual bikes are only allowed to have a dyanamo powered headlamp (as well
as a dynamo powered rear lamp). It is allowed to add a additional battery
powered rear lamp, but not a battery powered head lamp. But this is the
strict reading of the StVZO - noone will get into trouble if he uses a
second "legal" battery lamp. Only light road-racing bikes are allowed to
use battery lamps only - but you are required to also have them with you
during the day.

All headlamps have to meet minimum requirements for a good light
distribution (similar requirement like are used for motor-vehicle low
beams). Most forreign "powerful" battery lights won't fulfil this
requirements - especially because they have no sharp cut-off at the upper
end of the light field to prevent uncomming traffic from being blinded.

> Or perhaps the light can be exchanged for a stronger dynamo
>powered one?

Of course. The best dynamo light reaches up to 40 lux in 10m distance -
this is about what "20Watt" narrow-beam battery powered halogen lights
will deliver...

Andreas

Date: 30 Sep 2007 21:02:44
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:03:20 +0200, Andreas Oehler
<andreas.oehler@gmx.de > wrote:

[German StVZO]

>Only light road-racing bikes are allowed to
>use battery lamps only

Yes.

>- but you are required to also have them with you
>during the day.

I only realised that when I read it again a few days ago. From my
observations in Germany, I get the impression that most road-bike
users think that they don't need to have the lights with them at all
during the day.

Date: 29 Sep 2007 16:40:33
From: Shelly Shoreboss NoItAll
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Andreas Oehler" <andreas.oehler@gmx.de > wrote in message
news:47075fac.953781034@n.nabendynamo.de...
> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:46:00 +0100, Clive George:
>
>>
>>
>>Check out the rules in Germany. All utility-type bikes (don't know the
>>exact
>>rules - they do manage to exclude MTBs and racing bikes) must be fitted
>>with
>>lights, and they must be of a certain standard - and possibly need to be
>>dynamos too. But that's a country where the bike isn't seen as a toy.
>>
>>OTOH the lamp you were using possibly meets the standards in place.
>
> No. The Cateye EL300 is far from what's required in Germany. With fresh
> batteries the EL300 reaches a maximum brightness of 4 lux in 10m distance
> - quickly dropping to 2 lux. Minimum brightness requirement in germany is
> 10 lux. Cateye sold a special version - the EL300G with an efficient
> switching regulator instead of the simple resistor inside the EL300 - but
> still it is not allowed to be sold anymore.
>
> If someone decides to use a EL300 as his only light, he has to go
> appropate slow (not much more than walking speed). The EL300G is a nice
> torch at home...
>
> Andreas - using a hub generator and a modified LED-lamp myself

Thanks for clearing that up.

This is a bit off topic, but since you're German perhaps you can verify
something for me. I heard that all dogs in Germany over 40 pounds must wear
muzzles. Is this true?

Date: 29 Sep 2007 14:54:51
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:40:33 -0400, "Shelly Shoreboss NoItAll"
<prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:

[snip]

>This is a bit off topic, but since you're German perhaps you can verify
>something for me. I heard that all dogs in Germany over 40 pounds must wear
>muzzles. Is this true?

Dear Shelly,

Kinda-sorta:

http://www.ledogstop.com/ledogstop/LAW.html#GERMANY

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:54:25
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
> working for the life of the car.

You're new here, huh?

> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The $400
> lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for the kid's
> bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk sends their
> kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no lights? Look in their
> garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a snowmobile. They've got
> the money. They just don't see the value and they look at bikes as a toy.

Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives
you a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin
accessories actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation
requiring adequate lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at
Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.

You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted
for inflation have also fallen.

OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH,
without decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing
to ride at night, which requires the effort of buying and installing
lights. OTOH, some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even
by riders that do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 16:20:23
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46fb6f70$0$14147$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Greens wrote:
>
>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>> working for the life of the car.
>
> You're new here, huh?
>
>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and they
>> look at bikes as a toy.
>
> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the bicycles
> to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An after-market
> accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs about $10 when
> included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing process. Even a 3W
> dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the manufacturing cost by
> more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked in. Attending the Taipei
> International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you a new appreciation for
> just how inexpensive many high margin accessories actually cost. But as
> long as their is no legislation requiring adequate lights, it's much
> cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I
> favor such legislation.
>
> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
> inflation have also fallen.
>
> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

I think you've used up your month's allotment of "OTOH's".

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:32:18
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

>> Greens wrote:
>>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>>> working for the life of the car.
>> You're new here, huh?
>>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and they
>>> look at bikes as a toy.

> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the bicycles
>> to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An after-market
>> accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs about $10 when
>> included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing process. Even a 3W
>> dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the manufacturing cost by
>> more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked in. Attending the Taipei
>> International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you a new appreciation for
>> just how inexpensive many high margin accessories actually cost. But as
>> long as their is no legislation requiring adequate lights, it's much
>> cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I
>> favor such legislation.
>>
>> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
>> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
>> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
>> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
>> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
>> inflation have also fallen.
>>
>> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
>> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
>> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
>> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
>> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
>> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

Greens wrote:
> I think you've used up your month's allotment of "OTOH's".

Truman said he sought a one-armed economist, one who would not say...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:24:29
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

SMS wrote:
> Greens wrote:
>
>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>> working for the life of the car.
>
> You're new here, huh?
>
>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money
>> for the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of
>> jerk sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with
>> no lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV
>> and a snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value
>> and they look at bikes as a toy.
>
> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives
> you a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin
> accessories actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation
> requiring adequate lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at
> Night" sticker on the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>
> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted
> for inflation have also fallen.
>
> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH,
> without decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing
> to ride at night, which requires the effort of buying and installing
> lights. OTOH, some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even
> by riders that do ride a different type of bicycle at night.

Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to
that average bike and see how many bikes sell.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 15:58:43
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13fnpoip2qp2720@corp.supernews.com...
> SMS wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>
>>> You make it sound like everything is impossible and or ridiculous. Car
>>> manufacturers have made cars that ship with working lights. They stay
>>> working for the life of the car.
>>
>> You're new here, huh?
>>
>>> Once all bikes use lights, the economies of scale come into play. The
>>> $400 lights can come down to $100 or less. If that's too much money for
>>> the kid's bike, maybe the kid shouldn't have a bike. What kind of jerk
>>> sends their kids out to play on darkened streets on a bike with no
>>> lights? Look in their garages and you'll probably find a $6000 ATV and a
>>> snowmobile. They've got the money. They just don't see the value and
>>> they look at bikes as a toy.
>>
>> Actually, what needs to happen to drive the costs down is for the
>> bicycles to be sold with adequate lights from the factory. An
>> after-market accessory that costs $200 at a bicycle store probably costs
>> about $10 when included on the bicycle as part of the manufacturing
>> process. Even a 3W dynamo and a decent LED light would not raise the
>> manufacturing cost by more than $10 once the economies of scale kicked
>> in. Attending the Taipei International Cycle Show and Interbike gives you
>> a new appreciation for just how inexpensive many high margin accessories
>> actually cost. But as long as their is no legislation requiring adequate
>> lights, it's much cheaper to stick a "Do Not Ride at Night" sticker on
>> the frame. Not that I favor such legislation.
>>
>> You have to laugh when you see the dire predictions regarding the amount
>> by which various automobile safety and emissions equipment were going to
>> increase the price of vehicles. Once economies of scale kicked in, the
>> cost of stuff like seat belts, airbags, catalytic converters, safety
>> glass, anti-lock brakes etc., plummeted, and new car prices, adjusted for
>> inflation have also fallen.
>>
>> OTOH, since most people have no intention of riding their bicycle at
>> night, it's unfair to burden them with even that extra $10. OTOH, without
>> decent lights included, they'll probably never even be willing to ride at
>> night, which requires the effort of buying and installing lights. OTOH,
>> some types of bicycles would rarely be used at night even by riders that
>> do ride a different type of bicycle at night.
>
> Its' an argument some find seductive at first. As with mandated-items in
> health coverage, aggressive zoning laws, etc, the simple effect is to
> price large numbers of people out of the market altogether. The average
> bike sold in USA is, what, $95 or $110? Mandated standards will drive up
> 'basic' unit cost just as any other mandate. Yeah, add another $50 to that
> average bike and see how many bikes sell.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

You really think that charging an extra fifty dollars for a bike is going to
stop anybody from buying bicycles in the USA? I don't think so. Fifty bucks
is a tank of gas. It's no big deal.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:53:04
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

In article <YbCdnZS7XO_6qWbbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net > wrote:

> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1190847530.770453.48880@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 26, 1:40 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>

> What do your stats say about people, especially kids, riding bikes at night
> without lights? Isn't that one of the number one ways to get hit by a car?
> There's your selling point! Do you like your kids? Do you want them to live
> to adulthood? Have you saved $30,000 for a down payment on their education?
> Why the fuck can't you afford a hundred dollar light so they don't get
> creamed in the street when they're 12?

How many $100 lights would it take to save even one child? To answer,
start with this: how many children, on average per year, are killed
after dark in the US?

Now, name a lifesaving project that would be more cost-effective. I
daresay there would be thousands, starting with ORT for third-world
countries, making a stop at subsidized vaccinations in the US, and
passing onward to, oh, banning motor vehicles from a 3-block radius from
all schools, since that's where most kids get killed as pedestrians.

In other words, I think your cause is a bad use of your time.

> Let me guess. You're going to say that statistically hardly any kids get
> killed riding bikes at night. Not in numbers that matter. Cycling is healthy
> and fun. It's good for kids and blah, blah, blah.

Shortly after I left elementary school, a young girl who went to the
same school managed to accidentally strangle to death when she slipped
while climbing a tree and her scarf got caught.

Shall we ban scarves? Trees? Unlit scarves? Or is the danger from
scarf-tree interactions perhaps not worth fretting about, since the
danger is rare and the solutions are unwieldy?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:49:53
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 1:11 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
>
> It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
> lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
> pattern, battery life, etc.

It _is_ reasonable to expect that a person who bought a headlight
should be able to tell how well it illuminates once they've tried it
on a night ride, though.

> Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
> own standards.

Sure. Just like the bike industry standards for spoke life, and for
tire puncture resistance, and for tire wet traction, and seat comfort,
and frame suppleness...

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:35:56
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190846993.966426.203290@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 1:11 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
>> lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
>> pattern, battery life, etc.
>
> It _is_ reasonable to expect that a person who bought a headlight
> should be able to tell how well it illuminates once they've tried it
> on a night ride, though.

It's taken me awhile to see the drawbacks. I still fret over the cost of the
expensive lights. They're ten times the price of cheap lights. That's why it
would be best if the price were to come down to mass marketing. If that
can't happen, I don't know. Maybe I just have to avoid certain roads. I'll
have to check them out in advance or drive the whole thing real slow. It'll
be maddening.

>
>> Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
>> own standards.
>
> Sure. Just like the bike industry standards for spoke life, and for
> tire puncture resistance, and for tire wet traction, and seat comfort,
> and frame suppleness...
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
>

Why are bike tires such shit? You don't want to be fixing flats at night. I
can't remember the last time I had a flat on my car. Why do we allow such
crappy tires on bicycles?

Just bought a kevlar tire after three flats in a week.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:49:42
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 3:08 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > > > lighting system.
>
> > > > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > > > a little less clear.
>
> > > > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > > > website before:
>
> > > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > > > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> > > noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> > > bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> > > would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> > > one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> > > -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> > > same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!
>
> > > I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> > > of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> > > now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> > > buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> > > useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> > > fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> > > it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> > > your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> > > this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
> > > Beattie.
>
> > $300 is a straw man
>
> And not even the right amount. I paid $235 for one at an LBS last
> month.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have a front disc. My quote is per Peter White (with $10 shipping):

"SON20S and SON28S For Disc Brake

Schmidt SON hub for disc brake, 32 or 36 hole

Use only on forks with "Lawyer Lips"!
If you don't understand this, call me and ask!
$ 289.00"

-- Jay Beattie.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:44:21
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 2:52 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > > lighting system.
>
> > > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > > a little less clear.
>
> > > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > > website before:
>
> > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?
>
> I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> power dynamo lights "
>
> I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.
>
> They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
> quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
> as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.- Hide quoted text -

Experts on all-condition commuting cycling? Is there like a
professional society?

It seems that anyone with a computer and the minimum competence to
launch a web-site is an expert on something these days. And it is
always a couple with cats -- or an individual devoted to riding his
bike for five years around the world. Or some Bohemian of one sort or
another with time to burn. Why is it not a person with a family, a
busy profession and a regular house that eats meat? Anyway, I have
been commuting for -- well, since fifth grade (1967) in all types of
weather -- mainly rain for the last 20 years. You can quote me: "the
very best light for commuting is a 1972 6 D-cell Rayovac flashlight
taped to the bars." I'll launch a web-site praising my Rayovac as
well as my other, quirky must-have equipment for commuting. Use block
chain and track cogs from 1952 and wood rims because they do not heat
up on descents! Wood fenders, too -- just because! -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:39:00
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

I LIKE RIDING AT NIGHT BECUASE I CAN RIDE ACROOS THE INETRSTATE OR
THRU EVRY INTERSECTION INTON AGAINST THE LIGHTS AND NOBODY SEEZ ME.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:25:41
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190846340.612343.31450@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I LIKE RIDING AT NIGHT BECUASE I CAN RIDE ACROOS THE INETRSTATE OR
> THRU EVRY INTERSECTION INTON AGAINST THE LIGHTS AND NOBODY SEEZ ME.
>

LOLLERZ BRO. I NO WUT U MEEN!

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:08:10
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 4:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > > lighting system.
>
> > > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > > a little less clear.
>
> > > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > > website before:
>
> > >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyoubefore.
>
> > > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> > And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> > noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> > bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> > would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> > one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> > -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> > same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!
>
> > I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> > of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> > now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> > buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> > useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> > fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> > it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> > your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> > this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
> > Beattie.
>
> $300 is a straw man

And not even the right amount. I paid $235 for one at an LBS last
month.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:52:14
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 2:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > lighting system.
>
> > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > a little less clear.
>
> > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > website before:
>
> >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyou before.
>
> > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because?

I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
organization, or lighting expert, promote low
power dynamo lights "

I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.

They are widely recognized experts on all-conditions commuting, often
quoted on the subject (including lighting) by the bicycle press. And
as Steve conceded, he's familiar with their work.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:02:08
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Hank Wirtz wrote:

> I didn't say they were arbiters. Steve said "I have not seen a single
> organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> power dynamo lights "

> I pointed out that the Blayleys promote dynamo lighting.

And my statement still stands. While their web site is low-key and
non-offensive, there's a lot of information on it that is misleading
while not outright untrue.

I do like the fact that they finally realized that they needed a good
light like the SolidLight. They acknowledge the benefits of the beam
pattern, and the good standlight, as well as the advantage of not having
to having bulb degradation, which is a real problem when you're starting
from so low to begin with.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:24:31
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 4:05 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > In my opinion.
>
> > > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > > lighting system.
>
> > > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > > a little less clear.
>
> > You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> > website before:
>
> >http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmtoyou before.
>
> > What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> > "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>
> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!
>
> I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
> Beattie.

$300 is a straw man--only SON hubs cost that much, and unless
everything on your bike is Dura Ace/Record, that seems kind of
pointless. Shimano Ultegra-level dynohubs are <$100, and you need a
front hub anyway, so knock off $30 (or so) that you'd be spending in
any evevnt and you're looking at $60-70 for a source of juice that
never needs to be plugged in. Add a light head for as little as $15
(if you know what you're doing) to as much as $100 (if you don't).
Granted, per bike. Still, that should make the choice a good deal
easier.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:50:02
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Andy M-S wrote:
> Shimano Ultegra-level dynohubs are <$100, and you need a
> front hub anyway, so knock off $30 (or so) that you'd be spending in
> any evevnt and you're looking at $60-70 for a source of juice that
> never needs to be plugged in.

Don't forget the difference between a hub and a wheel.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:05:51
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 12:09 pm, Hank Wirtz <h...@wirtznet.net > wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > In my opinion.
>
> > I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> > tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> > choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> > that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> > That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> > lighting system.
>
> > You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> > are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> > informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> > organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> > same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> > I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> > power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> > a little less clear.
>
> You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> website before:
>
> http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htmto you before.
>
> What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"- Hide quoted text -
>

And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
-- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!

I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
this as a very tough and personal choice for many people. -- Jay
Beattie.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:35:02
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Jay Beattie wrote:

> And they are the arbiters of all lighting decisions because? I
> noticed the section discribing the box of NightRider lights and the
> bad wiring and how the batteries have gone dead. For die-hards, you
> would think they could have fixed the wiring and ordered a dozen (plus
> one) sub-c batteries and built a new battery pack. It's easy, really
> -- and pretty cheap. That's a simple light to work on. I've kept the
> same light going for 15 years -- but I'm going brighter this year!

It's true that the wiring problems they describe are vastly overblown.
You can have wiring issues with dynamo lights as well, and these
problems have often been mentioned in this group. You have a wiring
problem you fix it, it's not rocket science. On the systems I build for
my own and friend's use, I'm very careful to build with very reliable
wiring and connectors (all molded connectors, all connections both
mechanically and electrically secure, wires, strain-relieved, and
soldered joints covered with two layers of heat shrink).

One attraction of the lights like the Fenix Cree flashlight is that
there is _no_ wiring, it's self-contained. Still, you do need to
remember to take along a couple of spare AA batteries.

In the end (on page 4) they do end up with the best dynamo light
available, and that same company makes battery powered versions as well.

> I might try a dynamo one day, but the nearly $300 hub price (exclusive
> of lights and associated wiring) is daunting, particularly since I can
> now take my light and move it from one bike to another rather than
> buying a bunch of spendy dynamo hubs/lights, etc. It also is not very
> useful when you need a light and your bike is not moving, like when
> fixing a flat in the dark or walking a trail, etc. On the other hand,
> it sucks when you forget to charge your batteries and you have to pick
> your way home in the dark -- or with a back up LED light. I could see
> this as a very tough and personal choice for many people.

Remember, they have six wheels with the Schmidt hub! They were going to
do wheel swapping between bikes but soon realized that it wasn't practical.

I don't think it's as tough of a choice as you make it out to be. A lot
of it is dominated by cost, there aren't a lot of people that are going
to be buying the Schmidt hub, a new wheel, and the Lumotec or SolidLight
lamps. If cost weren't a consideration I would but a Schmidt hub and
SolidLight on every bicycle I own.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:00:58
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 10:42 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190814985.946967.322640@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
> >> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about how
> >> the
> >> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes
> >> me
> >> want to hide.
>
> > As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> > your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> > and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> > it.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
> are worthy.
>
> Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
> ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
> that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
> is issued?
>
> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Wasn't it you that wanted to ban cars on some streets? That sounds
verymuch like something Stalin did do...

Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights to protect the
poor, unsuspecting public, who don't have the ability to evaluate a
product and use it intelligently. Absolutely, get the government
involved, that'll solve the problem(YIKES!!)...

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:29:46
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1190836858.857668.182780@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 10:42 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190814985.946967.322640@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
>> >> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about
>> >> how
>> >> the
>> >> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly
>> >> makes
>> >> me
>> >> want to hide.
>>
>> > As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
>> > your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
>> > and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
>> > it.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you
>> feel
>> are worthy.
>>
>> Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
>> ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
>> that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling
>> license
>> is issued?
>>
>> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How
>> odd
>> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
>> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
>> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be
>> more
>> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
>> control all speech and maybe even thought.
>
> Wasn't it you that wanted to ban cars on some streets? That sounds
> verymuch like something Stalin did do...
>
> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights to protect the
> poor, unsuspecting public, who don't have the ability to evaluate a
> product and use it intelligently. Absolutely, get the government
> involved, that'll solve the problem(YIKES!!)...
>

Take the fences down off all the neighborhood pools. It impinges on our
freedoms. FUCK THE TODDLERS! LET THEM STUMBLE IN AND DROWN. At least they'll
drown free... men.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:46:35
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
you like to see UL approve lights?

Date: 26 Sep 2007 23:55:21
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

vey wrote:
> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
> you like to see UL approve lights?

No, I don't.
For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
lights end up at $50. Or more.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:03:41
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

A Muzi wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
>
> vey wrote:
>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
>> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
>> you like to see UL approve lights?
>
> No, I don't.
> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
> lights end up at $50. Or more.

Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
yet?

Date: 27 Sep 2007 12:27:47
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>>>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights

>> vey wrote:
>>> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
>>> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government,
>>> yet their standards are more stringent than any government standard.
>>> Would you like to see UL approve lights?

> A Muzi wrote:
>> No, I don't.
>> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
>> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And
>> you can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
>> lights end up at $50. Or more.

vey wrote:
> Have you come up with that safety device that is made with no standards
> yet?

uh, bicycle lights? Range $4.95 to about $800 now....
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 02:06:33
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

A Muzi wrote:

> No, I don't.
> For us, it's important to be able to offer a few dozen products at
> various price ranges. Making all lights $50 and up seems silly. And you
> can bet, if there's a standard, the associated costs will make $15
> lights end up at $50. Or more.

Actually, standards tend to drive prices down. The tiny per unit cost is
amortized over large quantities, and the unit quantities go way up
resulting in economies of scale.

Standards also provide legal protection for retailers. I.e. a store
selling a non-UL approved electrical product in the U.S. opens
themselves to all sorts of problems should the product malfunction and
cause injury, death, or property damage. As a result, most large stores
won't sell non-UL or CSA approved electrical products (some counties in
the U.S. require at least one of these approvals for electrical products).

When you sell a light like the Cateye EL 300 do you warn the customer,
in writing, that it's really not suitable for riding in darkness or at
high rates of speed, and make them sign a release? I don't know if all
bicycle stores require signed releases on new bicycle sales, but I've
seen it at Performance (you acknowledge that you've read the manual and
that they've shown you the various safety pieces and they've shown you
how to work the brakes, etc.).

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:53:10
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

vey wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>
>> Now you want the government to regulate bicycle lights
>
> Think hard. I want you to try and tell me what other safety device
> doesn't have any standards applied to it. UL isn't the government, yet
> their standards are more stringent than any government standard. Would
> you like to see UL approve lights?

UL creates safety standards, but not really performance standards. I
think that an industry organization that set standards is more appropriate.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:09:39
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > In my opinion.
>
> I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
> tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
> choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
> that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>
> That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
> lighting system.
>
> You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
> are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
> informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
> organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
> same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>
> I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
> power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
> a little less clear.

You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
website before:

http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htm to you before.

What's the first thing they have to say?

"Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:35:28
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In my opinion.
>> I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
>> tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
>> choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
>> that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.
>>
>> That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
>> lighting system.
>>
>> You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
>> are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
>> informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
>> organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
>> same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.
>>
>> I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
>> power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
>> a little less clear.
>
> You choose not to see. I know I've pointed out Blalock & Bayley's
> website before:
>
> http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/index.htm to you before.
>
> What's the first thing they have to say?
>
> "Readers Digest Condensed Version: Get a Schmidt Dynohub!"
>

I've quoted their page several times.

"http://www.blayleys.com/articles/lights/page4.htm"

Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:50:32
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 12:42 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> > your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> > and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> > it.
>
> The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
> are worthy.
>
> Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
> ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
> that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
> is issued?

As usual, you misunderstand. I wasn't proposing you should be legally
forbidden to cycle. I was just stating that I believe you should
voluntarily give it up.

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Don't you know anything about Usenet? You were supposed to invoke
Hitler and the Nazis, not Stalin's Russia! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:18:37
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.

They should, IMVAIO, at least state the type of night cycling that the
light is appropriate for. There should be some sort of a standards
association that comes up with a rating system, i.e.

W-Suitable for well-lit roads at speeds up to 10 mph
M-Suitable for unlit roads at speeds up to 15 mph
S-Suitable for unlit roads at speeds up to 25 mph
O-Suitable for unlit off-road trails

You were going down a hill at 20 mph, in an area that apparently had no
street lights, with light that did almost nothing in terms of
illuminating the roads. You had a "be legal" light might be appropriate
for slow riding on well lit streets, where there is no need to
illuminate the road far ahead.

Look at the different types of cycling, and the different cycling
infrastructure when choosing a light.

In Amsterdam, where there is a big infrastructure of bicycle paths,
people use low power dynamo headlights and are just fine with them.

In well lit cities and suburbs where I live, a lot of commuters have
bought the Joe Breeze bicycles with hub dynamos and find them adequate
for most of their ride, and supplement them with a good battery powered
light when they have to go through unlit areas, especially on hills.

The area and speed you described would best be served by a high power
LED, halogen, or HID lighting system.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 14:26:00
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com > wrote:
> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
> > levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
> > at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
> > are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
> > ones are good enough,
>
> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT approved.

I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
'98 Euro-spec Fiat.

A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.

> >but that is because car driving is pretty
> > similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>
> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.

Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.

> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.

Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.

> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?

I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
don't want to make crap?

Joseph

Date: 26 Sep 2007 15:23:24
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:

> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.

It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike the DOT standards, they
exist and have existed since 1940. Prior to 1940, manufacturer's
operated pretty much like the bicycle light manufacturer's do now.
Caveat Emptor and if you crashed, well it must have been operator error.

Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
light was crap." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything else
you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some sort of
minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.

But, if someone spends $30 on a light, they are suddenly supposed to
become an expert at optics? And miraculously "know" that the light isn't
fit for a particular purpose? Do you know what the UL standards are for
half the things you use that are UL listed? Why not?

I'm not an expert at headlights, but I don't have to be. I buy a
replacement when one burns out, and even if I buy the cheapest one the
discount auto store has, I know that it won't be so dim I can't see.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:45:24
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"vey" <junker@ericvey.com > wrote in message
news:fdebd4$il4$1@news.datemas.de...

> Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
> light was crap." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
> extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
> headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything else
> you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some sort of
> minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.

Over here we've got standards for bike lights. SMS won't like them, but
that's his problem.

However it's not too difficult to do riding which requires more light than
the ones meeting the standards give - eg off-road. If somebody is riding
such that their light isn't good enough, it's their responsibility, not the
light manufacturer's.

cheers,
clive

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:37:15
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Clive George wrote:
> "vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
> news:fdebd4$il4$1@news.datemas.de...
>
>> Now, we have people saying here, "Well, you should have known that the
>> light was crap." Why? If someone sells a safety device, like a fire
>> extinguisher, or a poison gas detector, or a GFCI receptacle, car
>> headlight, or a circuit breaker, or a fuse, or just about anything
>> else you can think of that has to do with safety, it has to meet some
>> sort of minimum standard, that being it is fit for a particular purpose.
>
> Over here we've got standards for bike lights. SMS won't like them, but
> that's his problem.

LOL, it's not whether I like them or not, but the fact that they're
_minimum_ standards, not necessarily what makes sense.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:51:43
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:

> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.

Sealed beams are not all that common any more on new cars. Most
headlights now use replaceable bulbs, and you can buy bulbs of various
quality.

You're correct that the DOT specs are often crap. One of the biggest
annoyances is how they've failed to regulate daytime running lights,
even though they are well aware of the problems. Some vehicle
manufacturers use the high beam bulbs at reduced brightness as the DRLs.
It's very annoying to other drivers, and the DOT knows it. But they are
controlled by the vehicle manufacturers and hence do nothing.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:40:25
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190816760.924627.107400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
>> > levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>> > at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>> > are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>> > ones are good enough,
>>
>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>> approved.
>
> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>
> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.
>
>
>> >but that is because car driving is pretty
>> > similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>
>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>
> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>
>
>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>
> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>
>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>
> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
> don't want to make crap?
>
> Joseph
>
>
When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that all
bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be used at
night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because the
owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on the
road.

For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law doesn't
see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident. They
happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
America.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 21:03:47
From: Jim Behning
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:40:25 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net >
wrote:

>
><joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1190816760.924627.107400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
>>> > levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>>> > at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>>> > are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>>> > ones are good enough,
>>>
>>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
>>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>>> approved.
>>
>> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
>> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
>> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
>> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
>> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
>> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
>> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
>> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
>> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
>> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
>> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>>
>> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
>> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
>> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
>> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.
>>
>>
>>> >but that is because car driving is pretty
>>> > similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>>
>>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
>>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>>
>> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
>> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
>> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
>> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
>> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>>
>>
>>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>>
>> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>>
>>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>>
>> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
>> don't want to make crap?
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
>the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that all
>bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be used at
>night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because the
>owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
>attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on the
>road.
>
>For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
>tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law doesn't
>see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident. They
>happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
>America.
>
>
I have a bike that I ride that generally I go about 13 mph on average.
Sometimes I go 3 mph sometimes I go 40. Not too much the 40. On
another bike I average 19-20 on most rides unless I am feeling frisky
and I am going better than 20. That same bike I might do 40 down some
hills. If I am in the mountains I might go 50+ down the hills in
daylight under good dry conditions. Now when I am bombing down the
hills at 50 I make a stupid assumption that the roads are in good
shape and there is no obstacle in the road. If I fail to slow down to
avoid the obstacle do I sue the brake manufacturer because I could not
stop soon enough? No, it my tough luck failing to judge the
conditions.

Back to the bike riding lights discussion. I race my mountain bike at
speeds from slow to faster than 20 mph at night with no moon. I go as
fast as I can see. Well if I am strong enough and skilled enough. If I
am riding with my 15 year old Nightsun lights I might be able to go
pretty darn fast. If I am riding with a Light and Motion HID I can
bomb around even faster as the lights are brighter. Generally my
pucker factor is such that I do not outride a good HID system. The
Nightsun I can sometimes outride. I have tried to ride with a $20
Cateye. Well that light is good on a full moon night if I am going
slow. I do not think I would use it for urban commuting as it is not a
be seen light. The Nightsun with a 10 watt and a 20 watt bulb is
bright enough for the commuting roads I know at speeds up to about 40.
If I was on unknown roads I doubt I would want to blast down at the
same speed. Now you want a light manufacturer to make a light bright
enough for mountain bike night racers or fast road riders. And you do
not want to spend $200-400 for that lights bright enough to go that
fast.

You can buy a $12,000 car that can go 80 mph or $50-100,000 car that
can go 180 mph. Both may have DOT approved headlights. I suspect the
car with the 180 top speed has better headlights but probably not real
great for canyon driving at 150 mph. Even DOT headlights may not
provide optimum lighting in many conditions. I know that Ecode lights
in my car would be a huge improvement. The Ecodes have been better in
every car I have installed them in since I first tried them in 1978.
How come we have DOT code when Ecode is superior. Superior defined as
tight beam, better lit in front of the car and longer range in both
low and high beam.

You assume that many bicyles are riden at night. Why would you put
$200 light on a $150 bike? Even on a $1,000 bike. That is like saying
that all cars should come with a Bose sound system. If it comes with a
radio it has to be high fidelity? Ok, maybe Bose it not some ultimate
sound system but they generally sound a bit better than the cheap
system some cars come with. How can you enjoy Vivaldi or Bach or John
Williams or whoever you like?

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:07:53
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:40:25 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1190816760.924627.107400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying
>>>> > quailty
>>>> > levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>>>> > at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>>>> > are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>>>> > ones are good enough,
>>>>
>>>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight
>>>> performance
>>>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>>>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>>>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>>>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>>>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>>>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>>>> approved.
>>>
>>> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
>>> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
>>> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
>>> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
>>> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
>>> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
>>> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
>>> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
>>> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
>>> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
>>> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>>>
>>> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
>>> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
>>> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
>>> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.
>>>
>>>
>>>> >but that is because car driving is pretty
>>>> > similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>>>
>>>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of
>>>> surfaces
>>>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>>>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>>>
>>> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
>>> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
>>> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
>>> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
>>> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>>>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>>>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>>>
>>> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>>>
>>>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>>>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>>>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>>>
>>> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
>>> don't want to make crap?
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>>
>>>
>>When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
>>the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that
>>all
>>bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be used
>>at
>>night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because the
>>owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
>>attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on the
>>road.
>>
>>For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
>>tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law doesn't
>>see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident.
>>They
>>happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
>>America.
>>
>>
> I have a bike that I ride that generally I go about 13 mph on average.
> Sometimes I go 3 mph sometimes I go 40. Not too much the 40. On
> another bike I average 19-20 on most rides unless I am feeling frisky
> and I am going better than 20. That same bike I might do 40 down some
> hills. If I am in the mountains I might go 50+ down the hills in
> daylight under good dry conditions. Now when I am bombing down the
> hills at 50 I make a stupid assumption that the roads are in good
> shape and there is no obstacle in the road. If I fail to slow down to
> avoid the obstacle do I sue the brake manufacturer because I could not
> stop soon enough? No, it my tough luck failing to judge the
> conditions.
>
> Back to the bike riding lights discussion. I race my mountain bike at
> speeds from slow to faster than 20 mph at night with no moon. I go as
> fast as I can see. Well if I am strong enough and skilled enough. If I
> am riding with my 15 year old Nightsun lights I might be able to go
> pretty darn fast. If I am riding with a Light and Motion HID I can
> bomb around even faster as the lights are brighter. Generally my
> pucker factor is such that I do not outride a good HID system. The
> Nightsun I can sometimes outride. I have tried to ride with a $20
> Cateye. Well that light is good on a full moon night if I am going
> slow. I do not think I would use it for urban commuting as it is not a
> be seen light. The Nightsun with a 10 watt and a 20 watt bulb is
> bright enough for the commuting roads I know at speeds up to about 40.
> If I was on unknown roads I doubt I would want to blast down at the
> same speed. Now you want a light manufacturer to make a light bright
> enough for mountain bike night racers or fast road riders. And you do
> not want to spend $200-400 for that lights bright enough to go that
> fast.
>
> You can buy a $12,000 car that can go 80 mph or $50-100,000 car that
> can go 180 mph. Both may have DOT approved headlights. I suspect the
> car with the 180 top speed has better headlights but probably not real
> great for canyon driving at 150 mph. Even DOT headlights may not
> provide optimum lighting in many conditions. I know that Ecode lights
> in my car would be a huge improvement. The Ecodes have been better in
> every car I have installed them in since I first tried them in 1978.
> How come we have DOT code when Ecode is superior. Superior defined as
> tight beam, better lit in front of the car and longer range in both
> low and high beam.
>
> You assume that many bicyles are riden at night. Why would you put
> $200 light on a $150 bike? Even on a $1,000 bike. That is like saying
> that all cars should come with a Bose sound system. If it comes with a
> radio it has to be high fidelity? Ok, maybe Bose it not some ultimate
> sound system but they generally sound a bit better than the cheap
> system some cars come with. How can you enjoy Vivaldi or Bach or John
> Williams or whoever you like?

I drive a Reva. It's a $2000 electric car from India.
It'll do 60 downhill with a tailwind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6tazwjO9c
LOL! It's a joke!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_cc_aI6Tsg

Okay! First, you compare stereo systems to safety. Yes. I want some bare
minimum of quality with a stereo, but I'll accept lower quality because it's
just music. Safety is more important. The air bag in a car costs more than a
decent mountain bike with a good light. Why would you let your family
members go out into the street full of heavy moving metal with no lights? Do
you really believe your kids aren't going to become pre adolescents who hang
out on the streets on their bikes?

Stop and think. What would happen if only one kid had a headlight and tail
light? The other kids would make fun of him! Make them all buy lights and
they can't poke fun anymore. Bust their balls if they don't use the lights
at night and pretty soon they'll use the damn lights or lose their bikes.

I see the issue of price has come up. You're worried that it will double the
price of bicycle and that will disuade people from buying bikes for their
kids and themselves. That extra hundred bucks will just be too much. How
about the cost of caring for a kid in a wheelchair for life? How does that
compare? And really does a hundred dollar investment disuade anyone when
it's for something that can last ten years or more? How does that break
down? Ten dollars a year. Ouch! Too much money. I don't have ten dollars a
year for safety. FuCkING HITLER! Stay out of my wallet you communist nazi!

Summer might be a hundred days or so. It comes out to.... TEN CENTS A
DAY!@!!!

You go 50mph down a hill and compare it to me going downhill at 20? I'd say
you have taken on some risk, but then again if they dig a hole and don't
mark it, you might have a case if it's a public maintained road. 50 is
different than 20. It's 2.5 times as much speed. Crappy comparison.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 00:45:13
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:
> "Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:40:25 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1190816760.924627.107400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>>>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying
>>>>>> quailty
>>>>>> levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>>>>>> at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>>>>>> are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>>>>>> ones are good enough,
>>>>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight
>>>>> performance
>>>>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>>>>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>>>>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>>>>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>>>>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>>>>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>>>>> approved.
>>>> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
>>>> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
>>>> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
>>>> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
>>>> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
>>>> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
>>>> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
>>>> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
>>>> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
>>>> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
>>>> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>>>>
>>>> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
>>>> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
>>>> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
>>>> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> but that is because car driving is pretty
>>>>>> similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>>>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of
>>>>> surfaces
>>>>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>>>>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>>>> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
>>>> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
>>>> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
>>>> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
>>>> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>>>>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>>>>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>>>> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>>>>
>>>>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>>>>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>>>>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>>>> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
>>>> don't want to make crap?
>>>>
>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>>
>>> When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume that
>>> the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so that
>>> all
>>> bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be used
>>> at
>>> night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because the
>>> owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
>>> attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on the
>>> road.
>>>
>>> For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment is
>>> tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law doesn't
>>> see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident.
>>> They
>>> happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
>>> America.
>>>
>>>
>> I have a bike that I ride that generally I go about 13 mph on average.
>> Sometimes I go 3 mph sometimes I go 40. Not too much the 40. On
>> another bike I average 19-20 on most rides unless I am feeling frisky
>> and I am going better than 20. That same bike I might do 40 down some
>> hills. If I am in the mountains I might go 50+ down the hills in
>> daylight under good dry conditions. Now when I am bombing down the
>> hills at 50 I make a stupid assumption that the roads are in good
>> shape and there is no obstacle in the road. If I fail to slow down to
>> avoid the obstacle do I sue the brake manufacturer because I could not
>> stop soon enough? No, it my tough luck failing to judge the
>> conditions.
>>
>> Back to the bike riding lights discussion. I race my mountain bike at
>> speeds from slow to faster than 20 mph at night with no moon. I go as
>> fast as I can see. Well if I am strong enough and skilled enough. If I
>> am riding with my 15 year old Nightsun lights I might be able to go
>> pretty darn fast. If I am riding with a Light and Motion HID I can
>> bomb around even faster as the lights are brighter. Generally my
>> pucker factor is such that I do not outride a good HID system. The
>> Nightsun I can sometimes outride. I have tried to ride with a $20
>> Cateye. Well that light is good on a full moon night if I am going
>> slow. I do not think I would use it for urban commuting as it is not a
>> be seen light. The Nightsun with a 10 watt and a 20 watt bulb is
>> bright enough for the commuting roads I know at speeds up to about 40.
>> If I was on unknown roads I doubt I would want to blast down at the
>> same speed. Now you want a light manufacturer to make a light bright
>> enough for mountain bike night racers or fast road riders. And you do
>> not want to spend $200-400 for that lights bright enough to go that
>> fast.
>>
>> You can buy a $12,000 car that can go 80 mph or $50-100,000 car that
>> can go 180 mph. Both may have DOT approved headlights. I suspect the
>> car with the 180 top speed has better headlights but probably not real
>> great for canyon driving at 150 mph. Even DOT headlights may not
>> provide optimum lighting in many conditions. I know that Ecode lights
>> in my car would be a huge improvement. The Ecodes have been better in
>> every car I have installed them in since I first tried them in 1978.
>> How come we have DOT code when Ecode is superior. Superior defined as
>> tight beam, better lit in front of the car and longer range in both
>> low and high beam.
>>
>> You assume that many bicyles are riden at night. Why would you put
>> $200 light on a $150 bike? Even on a $1,000 bike. That is like saying
>> that all cars should come with a Bose sound system. If it comes with a
>> radio it has to be high fidelity? Ok, maybe Bose it not some ultimate
>> sound system but they generally sound a bit better than the cheap
>> system some cars come with. How can you enjoy Vivaldi or Bach or John
>> Williams or whoever you like?
>
> I drive a Reva. It's a $2000 electric car from India.
> It'll do 60 downhill with a tailwind.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6tazwjO9c
> LOL! It's a joke!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_cc_aI6Tsg
>
> Okay! First, you compare stereo systems to safety. Yes. I want some bare
> minimum of quality with a stereo, but I'll accept lower quality because it's
> just music. Safety is more important. The air bag in a car costs more than a
> decent mountain bike with a good light. Why would you let your family
> members go out into the street full of heavy moving metal with no lights? Do
> you really believe your kids aren't going to become pre adolescents who hang
> out on the streets on their bikes?
>
> Stop and think. What would happen if only one kid had a headlight and tail
> light? The other kids would make fun of him! Make them all buy lights and
> they can't poke fun anymore. Bust their balls if they don't use the lights
> at night and pretty soon they'll use the damn lights or lose their bikes.
>
> I see the issue of price has come up. You're worried that it will double the
> price of bicycle and that will disuade people from buying bikes for their
> kids and themselves. That extra hundred bucks will just be too much. How
> about the cost of caring for a kid in a wheelchair for life? How does that
> compare? And really does a hundred dollar investment disuade anyone when
> it's for something that can last ten years or more? How does that break
> down? Ten dollars a year. Ouch! Too much money. I don't have ten dollars a
> year for safety. FuCkING HITLER! Stay out of my wallet you communist nazi!
>
> Summer might be a hundred days or so. It comes out to.... TEN CENTS A
> DAY!@!!!
>
> You go 50mph down a hill and compare it to me going downhill at 20? I'd say
> you have taken on some risk, but then again if they dig a hole and don't
> mark it, you might have a case if it's a public maintained road. 50 is
> different than 20. It's 2.5 times as much speed. Crappy comparison.

Hilarious!
Thanks for writing 'Hitler'. Are we done with this now?

"Oh, but it's for the _children_ !" is the lowest possible
lack-of-argument when there's nothing good to be said.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 03:50:55
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13fmgpeeodkl4d@corp.supernews.com...
> Greens wrote:
>> "Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in
>> message news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:40:25 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <joseph.santaniello@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1190816760.924627.107400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>>>>> joseph.santanie...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying
>>>>>>> quailty
>>>>>>> levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but
>>>>>>> sold
>>>>>>> at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>>>>>>> are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the
>>>>>>> cheap
>>>>>>> ones are good enough,
>>>>>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>>>>>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>>>>>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>>>>>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>>>>>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>>>>>> approved.
>>>>> I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,
>>>>> etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.
>>>>> Reflector and lens design as well as bulb type are what make a light
>>>>> good or not. I was thinking about bare bulbs. When I lived in the US I
>>>>> got Euro-spec lights (reflectors, lenses, as well as high wattage
>>>>> bulbs) on (almost) all my cars. The focus is much tighter and the
>>>>> projection much further. They are more of an irritant to other drivers
>>>>> if they are out of alignment, but I'm the sort of guy who is careful
>>>>> about that sort of thing. On a recent trip to California I recall the
>>>>> lights on my borrowed US-spec 2007 BMW X3 as much worse than my cheap
>>>>> '98 Euro-spec Fiat.
>>>>>
>>>>> A modern US spec car (say a 2002 Jetta) does not use sealed beam
>>>>> lights. The lenses and reflectors are designed to meet US DOT
>>>>> regulations. If you take a trip to a Pep-Boys there are all manner of
>>>>> bulbs available to put in. Some are for sure crap, other not so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> but that is because car driving is pretty
>>>>>>> similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>>>>>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of
>>>>>> surfaces
>>>>>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights.
>>>>>> Somehow,
>>>>>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>>>>> Cars operate in a very well defined and known speed range. Most cars
>>>>> drive from 0-30mph in town, 40-50 when things are a bit more open, and
>>>>> 60-80 on the highway. There aren't many cars that don't get used in
>>>>> all those ranges. Bikes are different. Some never see speeds higher
>>>>> than 8mph! The needs of cyclists are much more varied IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>>>>>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>>>>>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>>>>> Sealed beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>>>>>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>>>>> I don't know. Because it is a difficult product to do well and they
>>>>> don't want to make crap?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> When it comes to safety features, I prefer that manufacturers assume
>>>> that
>>>> the bicycle is going to be used in the most demanding conditions so
>>>> that all
>>>> bikes are equipped with quality lighting whether they're going to be
>>>> used at
>>>> night or not. Can you imagine cars being sold with no lights because
>>>> the
>>>> owner thought he wasn't going to use it at night? The one cheapskate's
>>>> attempt at saving a few dollars can affect the safety of everyone on
>>>> the
>>>> road.
>>>>
>>>> For some unknown reason, being a cheapskate and scrimping on equipment
>>>> is
>>>> tolerated among many of the cyclists here. It's no wonder the law
>>>> doesn't
>>>> see you as reasonable, law abiding citizens when you have an accident.
>>>> They
>>>> happily put the blame for accidents on the individual cyclist here in
>>>> America.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I have a bike that I ride that generally I go about 13 mph on average.
>>> Sometimes I go 3 mph sometimes I go 40. Not too much the 40. On
>>> another bike I average 19-20 on most rides unless I am feeling frisky
>>> and I am going better than 20. That same bike I might do 40 down some
>>> hills. If I am in the mountains I might go 50+ down the hills in
>>> daylight under good dry conditions. Now when I am bombing down the
>>> hills at 50 I make a stupid assumption that the roads are in good
>>> shape and there is no obstacle in the road. If I fail to slow down to
>>> avoid the obstacle do I sue the brake manufacturer because I could not
>>> stop soon enough? No, it my tough luck failing to judge the
>>> conditions.
>>>
>>> Back to the bike riding lights discussion. I race my mountain bike at
>>> speeds from slow to faster than 20 mph at night with no moon. I go as
>>> fast as I can see. Well if I am strong enough and skilled enough. If I
>>> am riding with my 15 year old Nightsun lights I might be able to go
>>> pretty darn fast. If I am riding with a Light and Motion HID I can
>>> bomb around even faster as the lights are brighter. Generally my
>>> pucker factor is such that I do not outride a good HID system. The
>>> Nightsun I can sometimes outride. I have tried to ride with a $20
>>> Cateye. Well that light is good on a full moon night if I am going
>>> slow. I do not think I would use it for urban commuting as it is not a
>>> be seen light. The Nightsun with a 10 watt and a 20 watt bulb is
>>> bright enough for the commuting roads I know at speeds up to about 40.
>>> If I was on unknown roads I doubt I would want to blast down at the
>>> same speed. Now you want a light manufacturer to make a light bright
>>> enough for mountain bike night racers or fast road riders. And you do
>>> not want to spend $200-400 for that lights bright enough to go that
>>> fast.
>>>
>>> You can buy a $12,000 car that can go 80 mph or $50-100,000 car that
>>> can go 180 mph. Both may have DOT approved headlights. I suspect the
>>> car with the 180 top speed has better headlights but probably not real
>>> great for canyon driving at 150 mph. Even DOT headlights may not
>>> provide optimum lighting in many conditions. I know that Ecode lights
>>> in my car would be a huge improvement. The Ecodes have been better in
>>> every car I have installed them in since I first tried them in 1978.
>>> How come we have DOT code when Ecode is superior. Superior defined as
>>> tight beam, better lit in front of the car and longer range in both
>>> low and high beam.
>>>
>>> You assume that many bicyles are riden at night. Why would you put
>>> $200 light on a $150 bike? Even on a $1,000 bike. That is like saying
>>> that all cars should come with a Bose sound system. If it comes with a
>>> radio it has to be high fidelity? Ok, maybe Bose it not some ultimate
>>> sound system but they generally sound a bit better than the cheap
>>> system some cars come with. How can you enjoy Vivaldi or Bach or John
>>> Williams or whoever you like?
>>
>> I drive a Reva. It's a $2000 electric car from India.
>> It'll do 60 downhill with a tailwind.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6tazwjO9c
>> LOL! It's a joke!
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_cc_aI6Tsg
>>
>> Okay! First, you compare stereo systems to safety. Yes. I want some bare
>> minimum of quality with a stereo, but I'll accept lower quality because
>> it's just music. Safety is more important. The air bag in a car costs
>> more than a decent mountain bike with a good light. Why would you let
>> your family members go out into the street full of heavy moving metal
>> with no lights? Do you really believe your kids aren't going to become
>> pre adolescents who hang out on the streets on their bikes?
>>
>> Stop and think. What would happen if only one kid had a headlight and
>> tail light? The other kids would make fun of him! Make them all buy
>> lights and they can't poke fun anymore. Bust their balls if they don't
>> use the lights at night and pretty soon they'll use the damn lights or
>> lose their bikes.
>>
>> I see the issue of price has come up. You're worried that it will double
>> the price of bicycle and that will disuade people from buying bikes for
>> their kids and themselves. That extra hundred bucks will just be too
>> much. How about the cost of caring for a kid in a wheelchair for life?
>> How does that compare? And really does a hundred dollar investment
>> disuade anyone when it's for something that can last ten years or more?
>> How does that break down? Ten dollars a year. Ouch! Too much money. I
>> don't have ten dollars a year for safety. FuCkING HITLER! Stay out of my
>> wallet you communist nazi!
>>
>> Summer might be a hundred days or so. It comes out to.... TEN CENTS A
>> DAY!@!!!
>>
>> You go 50mph down a hill and compare it to me going downhill at 20? I'd
>> say you have taken on some risk, but then again if they dig a hole and
>> don't mark it, you might have a case if it's a public maintained road. 50
>> is different than 20. It's 2.5 times as much speed. Crappy comparison.
>
> Hilarious!
> Thanks for writing 'Hitler'. Are we done with this now?
>
> "Oh, but it's for the _children_ !" is the lowest possible
> lack-of-argument when there's nothing good to be said.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

You're a little slow. I thought I made it clear we use the children to get
the cheaper mass market lights for everybody, especially myself.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 02:16:17
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com > wrote in message
news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...

> Even DOT headlights may not
> provide optimum lighting in many conditions.

Aren't DOT headlights in fact notoriously weak? Or have the rules caught up
since the 80s?

cheers,
clive

Date: 26 Sep 2007 18:51:19
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Clive George wrote:
> "Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in
> message news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...
>
>> Even DOT headlights may not
>> provide optimum lighting in many conditions.
>
> Aren't DOT headlights in fact notoriously weak? Or have the rules caught
> up since the 80s?

The rules are flawed. In some cases they're allowing headlights which
are far too bright, because they're using watts as the unit, which is
ridiculous with HID.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:14:31
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46fb0c45$0$27204$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Jim Behning" <jimbehning@doesthisblockpork.mindspring.com> wrote in
>> message news:vgulf3do8suakurrbqbrrattusuu5tu2bj@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Even DOT headlights may not
>>> provide optimum lighting in many conditions.
>>
>> Aren't DOT headlights in fact notoriously weak? Or have the rules caught
>> up since the 80s?
>
> The rules are flawed. In some cases they're allowing headlights which are
> far too bright, because they're using watts as the unit, which is
> ridiculous with HID.

Somewhat off topic but, I was out tonight using my headlight on a rough rail
trail. Suddenly a light was coming towards me. Another cyclist on the trail
and I think he was using the same light as me. We didn't stop and compare
though. So far I've never seen one of those expensive, high powered lights
in use. This is the first guy I've run into with a headlight. Most people
here, if they go out, they go out with no lights at all.

Later I was at the library and getting ready to mount up and leave and this
lady comes out and says of my taillight with 10 blinky LEDs, "I love your
light!" - Ladies love lights. I think it was a cateye 1000 set to lights
moving side to side. Very impressive!

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:31:02
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> Later I was at the library and getting ready to mount up and leave and this
> lady comes out and says of my taillight with 10 blinky LEDs, "I love your
> light!" - Ladies love lights. I think it was a cateye 1000 set to lights
> moving side to side. Very impressive!

The CatEye TL-LD1000 does seem to attract women.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:56:25
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
>
> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about how the
> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes me
> want to hide.

As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
it.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:42:04
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190814985.946967.322640@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
>> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about how
>> the
>> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes
>> me
>> want to hide.
>
> As I've said before, I really believe that's what you should do. As
> your posts continually show, cycling causes you great problems, worry
> and stress. I think you're among the small minority that can't handle
> it.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

The roads are made for citizens, Frank, not just the citizens that you feel
are worthy.

Cycling isn't for the few that meet your standards. Any of us can legally
ride a bike. It sounds like maybe you'd like some standards to be set. Is
that what you want, some minimum level of ability before a cycling license
is issued?

Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
control all speech and maybe even thought.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:06:47
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing.

Yes, setting an example is the way to promote cycling. After promoting
cycling in a recent Cub Scout meeting, as a way to reduce expenses, I
was somewhat embarrassed that I had driven to the meeting less than 1/2
mile away (I had a lot of materials to carry with me, but if I had a
trailer I could have carried them). Last night I hopefully set a better
example at a Pack committee meeting, by riding to the meeting at night
with a well lit bicycle (though helmet-less).

Personally, I _love_ night riding. I don't find it hazardous, but it's
because I've taken the necessary steps to reduce the hazards.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:00:22
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing. How odd
> that out of everyone, you're the most dedicated to silencing people who
> don't share your opinion. And you do it on a newsgroup which is a public
> forum that's supposed to be open to all opinion. Sounds like you'd be more
> at home in Stalin's Russia than on a modern newsgroup. There you could
> control all speech and maybe even thought.

Hey, everyone's entitled to Frank's opinion.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:52:10
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 7:25 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:59 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
> > > something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
> > > could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the hell
> > > is he doing on the road at night?
>
> > I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
> > see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
> > like the one you bought.
>
> > Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
> > series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
> > or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
> > take some responsibility.
>
> > Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
> > purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
> > purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
> > for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
> > have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.
>
> > Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
> > it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
> > return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?
>
> > Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
> > visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
> > really foolish.
>
> > Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
> > cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
> > especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
> > bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
> > notice anything" speaks volumes.
>
> > Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
> > hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
> > product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
> > responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Well said Frank.....

Agreed. I was going to write something, but I think Frank hit the
nail pretty much on the head.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 05:25:06
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 9:59 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
> > something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
> > could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the hell
> > is he doing on the road at night?
>
> I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
> see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
> like the one you bought.
>
> Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
> series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
> or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
> take some responsibility.
>
> Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
> purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
> purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
> for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
> have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.
>
> Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
> it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
> return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?
>
> Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
> visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
> really foolish.
>
> Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
> cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
> especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
> bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
> notice anything" speaks volumes.
>
> Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
> hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
> product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
> responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Well said Frank.....

Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:00:11
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 11:17 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190778138.663252.6700@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
> >> before.
> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or
> >> my
> >> obsessions,
>
> > ... although the temptation is immense...
>
> >> rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
> >> near disaster and disaster not averted.
>
> > IOW you want to do your usual job of trying to raise everyone's fear
> > level. But I see from the discussion that you're not succeeding.
>
> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night?
>
> > No, I never have. And I've been riding, and often commuting, at night
> > since about 1977.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> No. I'm not trying to raise fear levels. That wouldn't do anything for me.
> I'm a cyclist and I'm interested in talking to people who have also seen the
> dangers. It don't like to pretend that I'm all fearless and confident. (not
> that you do pretend. You may seriously be fearless and confident)
>
> Maybe you're athletic. Maybe that's why you don't get hurt. Have you ever
> thought that not everyone has your abilities? Maybe fat, out of shape types
> come in here trying to get into cycling. You'd probably want them to cycle
> and exercise, but if they do and they get spooked by the dangers, you want
> them to shut the hell up and quite fear mongering!!! LOL BECUZ ITS NOT
> DANGeROUSE graaaaaaaarrrrrrrr....

If you want to lose weight and get a better handle on your biking,
take a few months off and ride to South America or something. You only
live once. But get a better light :-)

Like this guy:

http://vikingbikersdiary.blogspot.com/

Joseph

Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:08:00
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190800811.263429.281230@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 26, 11:17 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190778138.663252.6700@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an
>> >> incident
>> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> >> before.
>> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me
>> >> or
>> >> my
>> >> obsessions,
>>
>> > ... although the temptation is immense...
>>
>> >> rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
>> >> near disaster and disaster not averted.
>>
>> > IOW you want to do your usual job of trying to raise everyone's fear
>> > level. But I see from the discussion that you're not succeeding.
>>
>> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night?
>>
>> > No, I never have. And I've been riding, and often commuting, at night
>> > since about 1977.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> No. I'm not trying to raise fear levels. That wouldn't do anything for
>> me.
>> I'm a cyclist and I'm interested in talking to people who have also seen
>> the
>> dangers. It don't like to pretend that I'm all fearless and confident.
>> (not
>> that you do pretend. You may seriously be fearless and confident)
>>
>> Maybe you're athletic. Maybe that's why you don't get hurt. Have you ever
>> thought that not everyone has your abilities? Maybe fat, out of shape
>> types
>> come in here trying to get into cycling. You'd probably want them to
>> cycle
>> and exercise, but if they do and they get spooked by the dangers, you
>> want
>> them to shut the hell up and quite fear mongering!!! LOL BECUZ ITS NOT
>> DANGeROUSE graaaaaaaarrrrrrrr....
>
> If you want to lose weight and get a better handle on your biking,
> take a few months off and ride to South America or something. You only
> live once. But get a better light :-)
>
> Like this guy:
>
> http://vikingbikersdiary.blogspot.com/
>
> Joseph
>

Hah, yea. Nice trip. I'll pack my bags.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 02:11:11
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 26, 10:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190779148.243507.69990@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
> >> something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
> >> could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the
> >> hell
> >> is he doing on the road at night?
>
> > I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
> > see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
> > like the one you bought.
>
> > Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
> > series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
> > or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
> > take some responsibility.
>
> > Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
> > purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
> > purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
> > for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
> > have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.
>
> > Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
> > it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
> > return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?
>
> > Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
> > visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
> > really foolish.
>
> > Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
> > cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
> > especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
> > bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
> > notice anything" speaks volumes.
>
> > Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
> > hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
> > product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
> > responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Here's what it says over at performance about the Cateye 300
>
> a.. Opticube lens and reflector technology combined with five LED's provide
> an incredible 400+ candlepower of clear, focused, white light
> a.. Run it for 30 hours as a high power headlight or for 110 hours in safety
> mode
> a.. Tool-free mount makes it easy to keep your light with you no matter what
> bike you're riding
> a.. Compact design is perfect for the commuter or weekend trail warrior
> a.. Runs on 4 AA batteries
> a.. Fits 22mm - 26mm bars
>
> It says it's incredibly powerful. It has a clear, focused light. It runs for
> a long time and it's perfect for commuters or weekend warriors. Sounds to me
> like it's a perfectly adequate headlight. It's also visible from the side
> and it costs one tenth of what the expensive headlights cost. It doesn't say
> it's for being seen only or it's not for seeing. It says it's perfect.
>
> I could spend all day reading all the product descriptions, but that's
> boring and the product descriptions are clearly misleading. This product
> doesn't have any drawbacks. If they have better, more expensive lights, why
> don't they tell me some reasons I'd want to spend more? What's the point of
> reading all these product descriptions if they all describe each product as
> powerful and great? I could search out reviews, but I didn't see any
> professional reviews just people like yourself who tend to have
> disagreements like "It's great." and "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "Nope".
>
> I want to spend my time cycling not searching out and reading reviews. Do
> you think I read reviews of car headlights when a headlight goes out? No. I
> just bring it in to the shop and tell the mechanic to replace the headlight
> or I buy a replacement myself. So far they've never tried to sell me a "be
> seen" headlight that isn't worth a shit for "seeing", but only good for
> "being seen". You just seem to love everything that's wrong with marketing
> and cycling. Are you an executive in the bike parts industry?

Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
ones are good enough, but that is because car driving is pretty
similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.

> For most of the ride 20mph was a safe speed. If the gravel extended over the
> portion of the road used by cars, there would have been a sign, but there
> was no sign because they don't give a damn about cyclists, especially
> cyclists that ride at night.

So what? If everything was forseen, you wouldn't need a light at all
and you could ride with your eyes closed. The point is you have to see
obstacles (could have been a racoon!) and react accordingly. It's your
job to make sure you ride at a speed where you have time to react.
Doesn't matter if it's day time, at night or what. And time to react
depends on your equipment and conditions. Not just lights that shine a
certain distance, but brakes that can stop in a certain distance,
tires that can grip, etc. Just because something unexpected crops up
isn't an excuse. Last winter I was driving to a bike club meeting
(there were some pizzas to test!) and out by my house the road was
very snowy and slippery. I took it easy. As I neared town, the roads
had been plowed and salted so I started going faster. As I got to
town, I drove into a round-about that was not cleared, and I slid off
into a post because I was going too fast. Who's fault was that? It was
mine. I was going too fast to slow enough when I saw that the road in
front was not safe. It dosen't matter that the round-about should have
been cleared and that the fact that the other roads were salted lulled
me into expecting that all the roads near town would be too.

Joseph

> The state doesn't givea damn about cyclists and neither do the people
> selling bikes and accessories. Wouldn't it make more sense to lead people to
> appropriate decisions instead of just talking glowingly of every stupid
> product? If people felt they could make fast, good decisions based on good
> product descriptions, they'd be more likely to want to buy more stuff and do
> more cycling. As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
> thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about how the
> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes me
> want to hide.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:34:04
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
> levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
> at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
> are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
> ones are good enough,

Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
"good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT approved.

>but that is because car driving is pretty
> similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.

People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.

Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.

As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
be argumenative, but why do you think that is?

Date: 28 Sep 2007 18:46:42
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 28, 1:27 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190992466.309605.117930@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 8:34 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 28, 10:13 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 28, 7:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > >news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> Andy M-S wrote:
> >> > > >> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>
> >> > > >> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the
> >> > > >> money, it
> >> > > >> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for
> >> > > >> every
> >> > > >> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>
> >> > > >> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid
> >> > > >> consumers
> >> > > >> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you
> >> > > >> make it
> >> > > >> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>
> >> > > >> Just put some basic information on the package:
>
> >> > > >> Power source:
>
> >> > > >> Run time:
>
> >> > > >> Illumination Level:
>
> >> > > >> Suitability:
>
> >> > > >> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
> >> > > >> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>
> >> > > > Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>
> >> > > > "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
> >> > > > expensive
> >> > > > stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy,
> >> > > > cheap,
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>
> >> > > When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs
> >> > > to be
> >> > > an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy
> >> > > practical
> >> > > things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status
> >> > > buyers.
> >> > > I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five
> >> > > times
> >> > > as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't
> >> > > affect my
> >> > > performance much I can show it off to other bikers.
>
> >> > I guess that's not unreasonable. At the same time, some personal
> >> > judgement as to what you DO have is important. Back in the late '70s,
> >> > you could buy flashlights that had a large, shallow reflector, ran on
> >> > a pair of C-cells, and that fit into a handlebar bracket. Lots of
> >> > folks had 'em.
>
> >> > I had one. But even then, I was smart enough not to think of them as
> >> > suitable for anything more than slow riding.
>
> >> > When you discovered that the Cateye was insufficient (something that
> >> > should have been obvious within a few moments of starting your ride)
> >> > you had a choice...abandon the ride because your equipment was
> >> > insufficient, or continue at your own risk. You continued,
> >> > fortunately, were not injured, and wrote your post.
>
> >> > I think the way you started this thread, blaming everything and
> >> > everyone but yourself, may have lead many of us here to take a
> >> > jaundiced view of your further comments.
>
> >> > And of course, any number of smaller flame-wars have begun from this.
>
> >> > Good lights do not a safe ride make...my own story. Early November,
> >> > 2004, I was riding home from work. My lights--15 watts of SLA-powered
> >> > halogen--were giving me trouble; the mount was a little loose, and it
> >> > was raining. I'm told that I was coasting to a stop (flat, level
> >> > ground) when the accident happened. I apparently didn't see the deep
> >> > curb cut that had been made to repair a section that trucks roll over,
> >> > my front wheel went in, and I supermanned over the bars. I woke up
> >> > while they were putting me in the ambulance. Concussion and six weeks
> >> > with my jaw wired shut.
>
> >> > Was it the fault of my lights or the manufacturer? No. Was it the
> >> > fault of the trucks, or of the county doing the work? No. It was my
> >> > fault. I should have been more careful. I knew I was having trouble
> >> > with my lights and I overrode them.
>
> >> > After I recovered, I replaced them with a less expensive but more
> >> > reliable (IMO) system. I've continued to work on and improve my
> >> > lighting since, as I had before. It's my responsibility to keep
> >> > myself safe in the conditions I'm likely to encounter on public roads,
> >> > and I should either accept that responsibility, or stay off them.
>
> >> Ouch! Were you wearing a helmet at the time?
>
> > I'm not gonna say one way or the other. There are enough flame wars
> > in the world as it is.
>
> Sorry, but your noble attitude doesn't impress me as much as you'd like it
> to. Somebody made a financial decision to leave that invisible curb cut the
> way it was over night. They figured, "Cars will go around and have good
> lights anyway. Bikes? What are bikes? Nobody bikes at night. If they do,
> shit, we can't protect from every contingency. We might have to put a cone
> out there." They weighted the cost of putting a cone out there and decided
> that fuck it. It wasn't worth it. Your jaw and skull weren't worth the work
> of moving a traffic cone!
>
> The design of bikes is such that headers and supermans are pretty common.
> Would a bicycle with a bigger front wheel and a longer frame be less likely
> to throw you onto your head? One things for sure. Once you leave a bike
> there's nothing left to cushion impact (except your helmet of course). No
> more wheels to collapse. Your face collapses. It probably doesn't take much.
> Would you have been as cheerful had you spent the rest of your life in a
> coma. Dead people and coma patients don't complain much on newsgroups.
> Really the people most likely to agree that bikes and roads need to be safer
> aren't here to agree with me. They're rotting in their hospital beds and
> graves.
>
> HA HA HA! FEAR MONGERING!!!
>
> Watch this young babe die in a slow speed crash.http://s0006.photobucket.com/albums/0006/pbhomepage/video3/?action=vi...
>
> Ha ha. I fooled you again! She doesn't even appear to be hurt.

Well, I've fed this troll enough.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 17:33:26
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
>> levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>> at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>> are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>> ones are good enough,

vey wrote:
> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT approved.

> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>> but that is because car driving is pretty
>> similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.

vey wrote:
> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>
> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>
> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?

Never heard of Dorcy or Garrity, had to look to see who they are. I
would assume they are not interested in a small niche market where one
or two of their flashlights outsells all brands/models of bicycle
lights. Maglite certainly doesn't need our market if they are even
aware of the potential.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:24:50
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13flnfqhektpga4@corp.supernews.com...
>> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Car headlights, like everything else, ARE available in varying quailty
>>> levels at various prices. Some are made in the same factory, but sold
>>> at different prices under different brands. Sometimes the cheap ones
>>> are just as good, sometimes better. Sure most of them, even the cheap
>>> ones are good enough,
>
> vey wrote:
>> Car headlights are *not* like everything else. Car headlight performance
>> is regulated by the US Department of Transportation. They must meet
>> minimum standards and be DOT approved. That's why even cheap ones are
>> "good enough." There's a reason they are regulated. It's because people
>> were getting maimed and killed by inferior lights that weren't "good
>> enough." No that long ago cars used bulbs like the kind found in the
>> tailights, but a little brighter. Those were not able to get DOT
>> approved.
>
>> joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
>>> but that is because car driving is pretty
>>> similar no matter what. People ride bikes in a much more varied way.
>
> vey wrote:
>> People drive in different ways, too. They drive on a variety of surfaces
>> and different cars have their headlights at different heights. Somehow,
>> the headlight manufacturer's have figured this out and design for it.
>>
>> Sealed beams were a huge improvement because it gave the headlight
>> manufacturer control rather than the car maker. Bicycle light
>> manufacturers have the same control. They should use it.
>>
>> As a side note, have you noticed that Garrity doesn't make bicycle
>> lights? Neither does Dorcy. Nothing from SureFire or Mag. Not trying to
>> be argumenative, but why do you think that is?
>
> Never heard of Dorcy or Garrity, had to look to see who they are. I would
> assume they are not interested in a small niche market where one or two of
> their flashlights outsells all brands/models of bicycle lights. Maglite
> certainly doesn't need our market if they are even aware of the potential.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

IMO Dorcy and Garrity are shit flashlights. They're much bigger than they
need to be. They're often dim and brittle. They sell em in every walmart and
k mart and sears. Go to target and get an Inova! Wooooooo! I got a tiny
Inova with a super bright LED. It's brighter than my headlight. It's got
vents it gets so hot. I used it one night on the bike. Surprise, it goes off
when it overheats! Still a very nice flashlight.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 23:19:16
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 10:37 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't
> >> powerful enough for the type of cycling where you had your little
> >> incident, except for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.
>
> > FFS Steve, quit making shit up about dynamo lights!
>
> > Your bias against them is evident enough to illustrate that you don't
> > ride with them,
>
> I most certainly do ride with them sometimes. They definitely have some
> advantages in some situations.
>
> > say about them. You seem to focus solely on wattage and electronics,
> > ignoring the FAR more important contribution of quality optics.
>
> Lumens, lux, and optics are all factors, and are all inter-related. What
> many people apparently don't understand is that in many cases the optics
> are designed based around the available light from the source, and are
> often a compromise.
>
> > You're intellectually dishonest by advertising your site as "http://
> > bicyclelighting.com" and have your "Experts' opinions" link point to
> > "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/experts.html" which misleadingly looks like
> > it's external. But no, it's more cherrypicked crap colored by your own
> > biases.
>
> The reason for the URL pointing to my home domain is because it's much
> cheaper to have different domains sharing the same web host this way.
> There was no attempt at trying to make people think the sub-page is a
> different site. I can point this out explicitly on the next update.
>
> If there are any other expert opinions, from unbiased sources, on dynamo
> lights that are different, then I'm happy to add them, as long as they
> are not just anecdotes and stories by people pushing their own agenda.
>
> > If you don't want to ride with dynamos, fine, but just STFU about
> > them.
>
> I think it's important that the facts be promulgated, so sorry, I can't
> comply with your request.

But that's just it...What you have to say about dynamo lighting isn't
"the facts." Nor is what I have to say about the subject. They're
opinions. Trying to present your opinion as fact about something like
adequacy when there's no objective standard in the US (and in the
Germany, the standard is 10 lux, which I'd wager nearly all dynamo
systems are capable of) is dishonest.

My LED-based dynamo system provides 16 lux as slow as 3.5 mph. I ride
in areas with and without streetlighting, and with and without cars.
It has a standlight so I can be seen while stopped.I have found that
amount of light to suit my needs better than the two rechargeable high-
power systems I'd used prior. While those other systems did put out
more light, their charge would just barely provide light for enough
time to get me to work and home again in the winter.

My dynamo system's output is not affected by how long it takes me to
get home, nor is it significantly affected by temperature. Its light
output is sufficient for me to be safe riding between 5-30 mph in a
variety of conditions, IN MY OPINION. You may feel differently. To
present that opposing opinion as fact is, as I said before, dishonest.

Dishonest.

Dishonest.

Dishonest.

In my opinion.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 08:46:28
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Hank Wirtz wrote:

<snip >

> In my opinion.

I think the problem you have is one shared by many posters. There is a
tendency to promote whatever product you choose to use as the logical
choice, because, well, if you chose it then it must be good, and anyone
that thinks otherwise is somehow wrong.

That's why on the web site I examine the pros and cons of each type of
lighting system.

You are correct that the quotes by all those experts and organizations
are their views. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between
informed opinion and fact. When so many experts, from different
organizations, none with vested interests in selling lights, say the
same thing, it's as close to a fact as you can get.

I have not seen a single organization, or lighting expert, promote low
power dynamo lights, though now with the SolidLight, I think the line is
a little less clear.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 21:48:33
From: Hank Wirtz
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:

> For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't
> powerful enough for the type of cycling where you had your little
> incident, except for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.

FFS Steve, quit making shit up about dynamo lights!

Your bias against them is evident enough to illustrate that you don't
ride with them, so nobody should put much stock in what you have to
say about them. You seem to focus solely on wattage and electronics,
ignoring the FAR more important contribution of quality optics.

You're intellectually dishonest by advertising your site as "http://
bicyclelighting.com" and have your "Experts' opinions" link point to
"http://nordicgroup.us/s78/experts.html" which misleadingly looks like
it's external. But no, it's more cherrypicked crap colored by your own
biases.

If you don't want to ride with dynamos, fine, but just STFU about
them.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 22:37:38
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't
>> powerful enough for the type of cycling where you had your little
>> incident, except for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.
>
> FFS Steve, quit making shit up about dynamo lights!
>
> Your bias against them is evident enough to illustrate that you don't
> ride with them,

I most certainly do ride with them sometimes. They definitely have some
advantages in some situations.

> say about them. You seem to focus solely on wattage and electronics,
> ignoring the FAR more important contribution of quality optics.

Lumens, lux, and optics are all factors, and are all inter-related. What
many people apparently don't understand is that in many cases the optics
are designed based around the available light from the source, and are
often a compromise.

> You're intellectually dishonest by advertising your site as "http://
> bicyclelighting.com" and have your "Experts' opinions" link point to
> "http://nordicgroup.us/s78/experts.html" which misleadingly looks like
> it's external. But no, it's more cherrypicked crap colored by your own
> biases.

The reason for the URL pointing to my home domain is because it's much
cheaper to have different domains sharing the same web host this way.
There was no attempt at trying to make people think the sub-page is a
different site. I can point this out explicitly on the next update.

If there are any other expert opinions, from unbiased sources, on dynamo
lights that are different, then I'm happy to add them, as long as they
are not just anecdotes and stories by people pushing their own agenda.

> If you don't want to ride with dynamos, fine, but just STFU about
> them.

I think it's important that the facts be promulgated, so sorry, I can't
comply with your request.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
>
> As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
> something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
> could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the hell
> is he doing on the road at night?

I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
like the one you bought.

Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
take some responsibility.

Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.

Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?

Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
really foolish.

Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
notice anything" speaks volumes.

Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:43:22
From: _
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>

>
> Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
> hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
> product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
> responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>

There's another, more fundamental mistake in "Greens"'s operation here -
having an agenda to prove that cycling is "dangerous".

Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:48:02
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"_" <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com > wrote in message
news:4teywi7bdjf.1gzox5s0jwlt3.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>> Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
>> hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
>> product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
>> responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>>
>
> There's another, more fundamental mistake in "Greens"'s operation here -
> having an agenda to prove that cycling is "dangerous".

Your group's problem is that they fear the loss of their cycling freedoms.
You think that if attempts are made to by uncaring DOTs, you won't be able
to ride on a lot of roads. You'll be patrolled by cops, get tickets, need
insurance and so on. I fear that too, but I don't want it to scare me away
from ideas to make cycling safer for the general public.

Let me know if I'm wrong about this.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 04:32:36
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190779148.243507.69990@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
>> something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
>> could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the
>> hell
>> is he doing on the road at night?
>
> I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
> see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
> like the one you bought.
>
> Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
> series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
> or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
> take some responsibility.
>
> Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
> purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
> purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
> for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
> have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.
>
> Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
> it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
> return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?
>
> Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
> visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
> really foolish.
>
> Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
> cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
> especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
> bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
> notice anything" speaks volumes.
>
> Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
> hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
> product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
> responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Here's what it says over at performance about the Cateye 300

a.. Opticube lens and reflector technology combined with five LED's provide
an incredible 400+ candlepower of clear, focused, white light
a.. Run it for 30 hours as a high power headlight or for 110 hours in safety
mode
a.. Tool-free mount makes it easy to keep your light with you no matter what
bike you're riding
a.. Compact design is perfect for the commuter or weekend trail warrior
a.. Runs on 4 AA batteries
a.. Fits 22mm - 26mm bars

It says it's incredibly powerful. It has a clear, focused light. It runs for
a long time and it's perfect for commuters or weekend warriors. Sounds to me
like it's a perfectly adequate headlight. It's also visible from the side
and it costs one tenth of what the expensive headlights cost. It doesn't say
it's for being seen only or it's not for seeing. It says it's perfect.

I could spend all day reading all the product descriptions, but that's
boring and the product descriptions are clearly misleading. This product
doesn't have any drawbacks. If they have better, more expensive lights, why
don't they tell me some reasons I'd want to spend more? What's the point of
reading all these product descriptions if they all describe each product as
powerful and great? I could search out reviews, but I didn't see any
professional reviews just people like yourself who tend to have
disagreements like "It's great." and "No it isn't." "Yes it is." "Nope".

I want to spend my time cycling not searching out and reading reviews. Do
you think I read reviews of car headlights when a headlight goes out? No. I
just bring it in to the shop and tell the mechanic to replace the headlight
or I buy a replacement myself. So far they've never tried to sell me a "be
seen" headlight that isn't worth a shit for "seeing", but only good for
"being seen". You just seem to love everything that's wrong with marketing
and cycling. Are you an executive in the bike parts industry?

For most of the ride 20mph was a safe speed. If the gravel extended over the
portion of the road used by cars, there would have been a sign, but there
was no sign because they don't give a damn about cyclists, especially
cyclists that ride at night.

The state doesn't givea damn about cyclists and neither do the people
selling bikes and accessories. Wouldn't it make more sense to lead people to
appropriate decisions instead of just talking glowingly of every stupid
product? If people felt they could make fast, good decisions based on good
product descriptions, they'd be more likely to want to buy more stuff and do
more cycling. As it is, most of my cycling purchases make me want to put the
thing in a compactor and hide on the couch. Reading your crap about how the
public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes me
want to hide.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 23:42:21
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
>> something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
>> could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the hell
>> is he doing on the road at night?
>
>I don't know that it matters much what drivers think it is. If they
>see it, they'll avoid it - which is the function of a "be seen" light
>like the one you bought.
>
>Personally, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You made a
>series of mistakes, and the fault is not with the light manufacturer
>or the government. You need to learn from your mistakes, and learn to
>take some responsibility.
>
>Your first mistake was, apparently buying the wrong light for your
>purpose. That headlight functions well enough for it's intended
>purpose: being seen, in locations where street lighting is adequate
>for riding at a reasonably slow speed. If you wanted more, you should
>have learned what light was appropriate and bought it.
>
>Your second mistake was not realizing what you'd bought when you put
>it on your bike and went out for a ride. Why did you not simply
>return it, saying "Sell me something brighter"?
>
>Your third mistake was not riding within the limits of your
>visibility. Riding 20 mph when you can see only 25 feet ahead is
>really foolish.
>
>Your fourth mistake was not being able to handle your bike. A decent
>cyclist shouldn't have problems clearing a tiny bit of gravel,
>especially on a mountain bike. If necessary, lift the front wheel a
>bit on rough parts. The fact that the cyclist in front of you "didn't
>notice anything" speaks volumes.
>
>Your fifth mistake was coming here hoping to have everybody give you
>hugs and encouragement, and make those bad people stop selling their
>product. Sorry, but there's still some room for personal
>responsibility in America, and "caveat emptor" still makes sense.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

By sad coincidence, the Denver Boast featured this article today:

Bicyclist killed in pre-dawn accident
By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 09/24/2007 03:07:57 PM MDT

A bicyclist was struck by a car and killed early this morning on a
frontage road in Adams County.

The Colorado State Patrol said the bicyclist was hit just after 6
a.m., while it was still dark, on the Interstate 76 frontage road
between 88th and 96th avenues in Adams County. Master Trooper Ron
Watkins said the rider did not have lights or reflective gear on his
bike or on his clothing.

He was pronounced dead at the scene, and his identity has not been
released.

He was struck in a traffic lane, not on the shoulder, by a 2004
Chevrolet Malibu driven by Charles Polich, 61, of Aurora.

Watkins said the investigation in continuing but that Polich never saw
the bike before hitting it. Drugs and alcohol are not considered
factors in the accident, Watkins said.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6985822

The same paper lists sunrise as 6:50 a.m., 6:23 a.m. for civil
twilight.

The map and my memory suggest that the speed limit on the frontage
road would be at least 50 mph, but I could be wrong:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=thornton,co&ie=UTF8&ll=39.86459,-104.907804&spn=0.016964,0.02841&z=15&om=1

It sounds as if the dead bicyclist was riding in the dark in the
traffic lane with no lights and no reflectors at 6 a.m. with his back
to the car that hit him.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:42:18
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once before.
> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or my
> obsessions,

... although the temptation is immense...

> rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
> near disaster and disaster not averted.

IOW you want to do your usual job of trying to raise everyone's fear
level. But I see from the discussion that you're not succeeding.

> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night?

No, I never have. And I've been riding, and often commuting, at night
since about 1977.

- Frank Krygowski

Date: 26 Sep 2007 05:17:51
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190778138.663252.6700@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
>> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> before.
>> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or
>> my
>> obsessions,
>
> ... although the temptation is immense...
>
>> rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
>> near disaster and disaster not averted.
>
> IOW you want to do your usual job of trying to raise everyone's fear
> level. But I see from the discussion that you're not succeeding.
>
>> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night?
>
> No, I never have. And I've been riding, and often commuting, at night
> since about 1977.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

No. I'm not trying to raise fear levels. That wouldn't do anything for me.
I'm a cyclist and I'm interested in talking to people who have also seen the
dangers. It don't like to pretend that I'm all fearless and confident. (not
that you do pretend. You may seriously be fearless and confident)

Maybe you're athletic. Maybe that's why you don't get hurt. Have you ever
thought that not everyone has your abilities? Maybe fat, out of shape types
come in here trying to get into cycling. You'd probably want them to cycle
and exercise, but if they do and they get spooked by the dangers, you want
them to shut the hell up and quite fear mongering!!! LOL BECUZ ITS NOT
DANGeROUSE graaaaaaaarrrrrrrr....

Date: 26 Sep 2007 01:19:07
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1190725980.937109.205010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greens wrote:
> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
> >> before.
> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or
> >> my
> >> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales
> >> of
> >> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
> >> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>
> >> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with
> >> new
> >> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
> >> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
> >> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch
> >> in
> >> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and
> >> to
> >> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
> >> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
> >> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
> >> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in
> >> better
> >> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
> >> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder
> >> not
> >> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the
> >> traffic
> >> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>
> >> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
> >> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
> >> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>
> >> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider
> >> have
> >> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head
> >> down
> >> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet.
> >> Going
> >> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do
> >> evasive
> >> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might
> >> have
> >> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low
> >> light
> >> LED.
>
> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
> >> roads
> >> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot
> >> holes
> >> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier
> >> to
> >> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the
> >> effects
> >> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
> >> It
> >> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> >> disaster.
>
> > Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???
>
> > Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
> > road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
> > gonna blame the tire maker?
>
> > If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
> > pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.
>
> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience
> >> and
> >> conclusion.
>
> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at 10mph
> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel?

If the light doesn't allow you to see hazards at the speed you were
riding, slow down.

Seems unlikely
> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye for
> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of the
> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night.

Really. We sell many and tell the people of it's limitations. It isn't
the brightest thing, but I use it and it is fine for my 2.5 mile ride
home. It is what it is, don't expect it to be as bright as something
that has 100 timnes the battery power.

They know that
> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they know
> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of crap.
> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they know
> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't seen
> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.

Like the weather, it is YOUR responsibility to ride within your own
limitations and those of your equipment. Don't blame Cateye because
you werte going to fast for conditions.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 04:38:06
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1190769547.793533.177600@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1190725980.937109.205010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Greens wrote:
>> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an
>> >> incident
>> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> >> before.
>> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me
>> >> or
>> >> my
>> >> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their
>> >> tales
>> >> of
>> >> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest
>> >> of
>> >> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>>
>> >> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight
>> >> with
>> >> new
>> >> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened
>> >> road.
>> >> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It
>> >> looked
>> >> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an
>> >> inch
>> >> in
>> >> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them
>> >> and
>> >> to
>> >> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding
>> >> sideways
>> >> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks.
>> >> A
>> >> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of
>> >> the
>> >> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in
>> >> better
>> >> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed
>> >> a
>> >> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder
>> >> not
>> >> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the
>> >> traffic
>> >> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>>
>> >> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly
>> >> and
>> >> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The
>> >> gravel
>> >> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>>
>> >> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous
>> >> rider
>> >> have
>> >> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my
>> >> head
>> >> down
>> >> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet.
>> >> Going
>> >> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do
>> >> evasive
>> >> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might
>> >> have
>> >> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low
>> >> light
>> >> LED.
>>
>> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>> >> roads
>> >> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot
>> >> holes
>> >> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much
>> >> easier
>> >> to
>> >> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the
>> >> effects
>> >> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>>
>> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak
>> >> light.
>> >> It
>> >> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
>> >> disaster.
>>
>> > Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???
>>
>> > Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
>> > road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
>> > gonna blame the tire maker?
>>
>> > If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
>> > pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.
>>
>> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your
>> >> experience
>> >> and
>> >> conclusion.
>>
>> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
>> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at
>> 10mph
>> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel?
>
> If the light doesn't allow you to see hazards at the speed you were
> riding, slow down.
>
> Seems unlikely
>> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye
>> for
>> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of
>> the
>> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
>> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
>> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night.
>
> Really. We sell many and tell the people of it's limitations. It isn't
> the brightest thing, but I use it and it is fine for my 2.5 mile ride
> home. It is what it is, don't expect it to be as bright as something
> that has 100 timnes the battery power.
>
>
>
> They know that
>> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they
>> know
>> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
>> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
>> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of
>> crap.
>> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they
>> know
>> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't
>> seen
>> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
>> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.
>
> Like the weather, it is YOUR responsibility to ride within your own
> limitations and those of your equipment. Don't blame Cateye because
> you werte going to fast for conditions.
>
>

You forget that speed seemed safe one moment and totally unsafe the next.
There was no warning of changing surface. Nobody said, "Marbles on road
ahead. Slow down." All of a sudden there were marbles. There was a trap like
this on route 8 in New York. It worked on cars. There'd be about a hundred
miles of more or less straight, high speed road and then one little sign
warning of a curve and then a 15mph curve. People get lulled by lots of
straight road. It's crazy to throw in a 15mph hairpin turn after a hundred
miles of going 65mph. If you want to put in a hairpin like that, you need a
lot of warning signs and flashing lights to wake people up and get them
ready for the danger.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 15:38:23
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.

The issue of crappy lights being legal lights for bicycles is indeed a
problem. It gives people a false sense of security when they mount a toy
light to their handlebars. Those lights are good for "being seen" and
being legal, but they are not for very dark areas, or riding at a
relatively quick pace.

If you want to ride 15-20 mph at night in very dark places, get some
good lights. There are a lot of new lighting products on the market and
you can get started for well under $100 with a powerful battery powered
headlight with a proper beam that illuminates not only sufficiently far
ahead, but off to the sides as well.

For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't
powerful enough for the type of cycling where you had your little
incident, except for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.

Look into some of the new Cree LED flashlights as well. This is a
relatively inexpensive alternative to lights like the DiNotte (still not
as cheap as a CatEye EL300).

Simply type "Bicycle Lighting" into the Google Search box, then click
"I'm Feeling Lucky." You'll be taken to the pre-eminent web site for
bicycle lighting in the world. This site will show you how to set up
lighting that enables you to ride more safely at night.

Steve
"http://bicyclelighting.com"

Date: 26 Sep 2007 00:48:20
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46f98d8c$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

> For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't powerful
> enough for the type of cycling where you had your little incident, except
> for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.

(cough) bollocks.

But we all know that.

> Simply type "Bicycle Lighting" into the Google Search box, then click "I'm
> Feeling Lucky." You'll be taken to

SMS's website, which although it contains some useful info is severely
tainted by his refusal to admit that what others use successfully can
possibly work.

clive

Date: 25 Sep 2007 22:43:32
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message
news:13fj7ieqm5eln8e@corp.supernews.com...
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f98d8c$0$27236$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>> For around town, you can get some dynamo lights, but they aren't powerful
>> enough for the type of cycling where you had your little incident, except
>> for perhaps the new Solidlight 1203D.
>
> (cough) bollocks.
>
> But we all know that.
>
>> Simply type "Bicycle Lighting" into the Google Search box, then click
>> "I'm Feeling Lucky." You'll be taken to
>
> SMS's website, which although it contains some useful info is severely
> tainted by his refusal to admit that what others use successfully can
> possibly work.
>
> clive

I enjoyed his site anyway. I've been reading articles from it for more than
an hour. He seems to have a passion for lights and safety.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 11:08:20
From:
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 11:11 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1190725980.937109.205010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Greens wrote:
> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
> >> before.
> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or
> >> my
> >> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales
> >> of
> >> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
> >> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>
> >> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with
> >> new
> >> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
> >> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
> >> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch
> >> in
> >> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and
> >> to
> >> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
> >> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
> >> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
> >> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in
> >> better
> >> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
> >> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder
> >> not
> >> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the
> >> traffic
> >> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>
> >> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
> >> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
> >> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>
> >> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider
> >> have
> >> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head
> >> down
> >> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet.
> >> Going
> >> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do
> >> evasive
> >> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might
> >> have
> >> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low
> >> light
> >> LED.
>
> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
> >> roads
> >> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot
> >> holes
> >> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier
> >> to
> >> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the
> >> effects
> >> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
> >> It
> >> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> >> disaster.
>
> > Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???
>
> > Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
> > road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
> > gonna blame the tire maker?
>
> > If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
> > pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.
>
> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience
> >> and
> >> conclusion.
>
> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at 10mph
> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel? Seems unlikely
> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye for
> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of the
> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night. They know that
> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they know
> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of crap.
> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they know
> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't seen
> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night."

You wouldn't happen to be part of this cheapskate market, would you
Greens? At some point, the individual has to take some responsibility.
If the light is good for 10mph, that's what you ride at. In town with
well-lit streets, that light is probably fine for doing the primary
job of a light in that situation, namely making other traffic aware of
the cyclist.

Smokey

Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:20:52
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
At some point, the individual has to take some responsibility.
> If the light is good for 10mph, that's what you ride at.

You call $40 for what is essentially a flashight "cheap"?

I bought a Vista Light Road Toad/Blinky taillight combo for about $30
from an LBS. I found out is wasn't even good for 1 MPH the first night I
had it out. Optics were all screwed up. I liked the Blinky, so I kept it.

A $1 flashlight from the Dollar Store works better. I just strap it on
there somewhere and I get enough light. Works okay for about six months,
then water or shock finally gets to it.

AFAIC, a "be seen" light, unless its a blinky front light, equals a
piece of crap so bad it shouldn't be sold as a safety device.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 16:46:18
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<smokeystrodtman@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190743700.914674.62370@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 11:11 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1190725980.937109.205010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Greens wrote:
>> >> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an
>> >> incident
>> >> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> >> before.
>> >> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me
>> >> or
>> >> my
>> >> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their
>> >> tales
>> >> of
>> >> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest
>> >> of
>> >> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>>
>> >> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight
>> >> with
>> >> new
>> >> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened
>> >> road.
>> >> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It
>> >> looked
>> >> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an
>> >> inch
>> >> in
>> >> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them
>> >> and
>> >> to
>> >> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding
>> >> sideways
>> >> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks.
>> >> A
>> >> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of
>> >> the
>> >> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in
>> >> better
>> >> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed
>> >> a
>> >> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder
>> >> not
>> >> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the
>> >> traffic
>> >> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>>
>> >> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly
>> >> and
>> >> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The
>> >> gravel
>> >> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>>
>> >> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous
>> >> rider
>> >> have
>> >> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my
>> >> head
>> >> down
>> >> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet.
>> >> Going
>> >> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do
>> >> evasive
>> >> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might
>> >> have
>> >> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low
>> >> light
>> >> LED.
>>
>> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>> >> roads
>> >> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot
>> >> holes
>> >> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much
>> >> easier
>> >> to
>> >> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the
>> >> effects
>> >> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>>
>> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak
>> >> light.
>> >> It
>> >> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
>> >> disaster.
>>
>> > Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???
>>
>> > Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
>> > road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
>> > gonna blame the tire maker?
>>
>> > If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
>> > pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.
>>
>> >> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your
>> >> experience
>> >> and
>> >> conclusion.
>>
>> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
>> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at
>> 10mph
>> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel? Seems unlikely
>> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye
>> for
>> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of
>> the
>> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
>> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
>> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night. They know
>> that
>> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they
>> know
>> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
>> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
>> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of
>> crap.
>> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they
>> know
>> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't
>> seen
>> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
>> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night."
>
> You wouldn't happen to be part of this cheapskate market, would you
> Greens? At some point, the individual has to take some responsibility.
> If the light is good for 10mph, that's what you ride at. In town with
> well-lit streets, that light is probably fine for doing the primary
> job of a light in that situation, namely making other traffic aware of
> the cyclist.
>
> Smokey
>

Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the expensive
stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap, this
is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing.

Cheap stuff, if it causes serious injury, is not cheap. How much is
treatment for a broken arm compared to $500 for a good light? It's nothing.
Avoiding the pain and inconvenience of a broken arm is worth $500. Avoiding
the huge hospital and doctor bills is worth even more. But how do they sell
the lights? Look in the catalogs. They tell you this light is one of the
brightest LED's available from the geniuses at Cateye. I called Performance
up and the technician told me those cheap lights are "safety lights".
They're there for you to be seen not to see. This isn't clearly spelled out
in the ads. The idea that giving you false confidence in a cheap light is
"safety" is perverse. If anything they're luring you into a dangerous
practice so they can make a few measly bucks that they do on cheap lights.

As it turns out, the light isn't even that good for being seen. Cars see
something, but they don't know what it is. It looks like a flashlight. It
could be snowmobile or ATV. Mostly I think they're wondering, "What the hell
is he doing on the road at night?

Date: 28 Sep 2007 15:14:26
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 28, 8:34 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com > wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:13 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 7:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Andy M-S wrote:
> > > >> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>
> > > >> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
> > > >> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
> > > >> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>
> > > >> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
> > > >> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
> > > >> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>
> > > >> Just put some basic information on the package:
>
> > > >> Power source:
>
> > > >> Run time:
>
> > > >> Illumination Level:
>
> > > >> Suitability:
>
> > > >> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
> > > >> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>
> > > > Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>
> > > > "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
> > > > expensive
> > > > stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap,
> > > > this
> > > > is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>
> > > When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs to be
> > > an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy practical
> > > things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status buyers.
> > > I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five times
> > > as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't affect my
> > > performance much I can show it off to other bikers.
>
> > I guess that's not unreasonable. At the same time, some personal
> > judgement as to what you DO have is important. Back in the late '70s,
> > you could buy flashlights that had a large, shallow reflector, ran on
> > a pair of C-cells, and that fit into a handlebar bracket. Lots of
> > folks had 'em.
>
> > I had one. But even then, I was smart enough not to think of them as
> > suitable for anything more than slow riding.
>
> > When you discovered that the Cateye was insufficient (something that
> > should have been obvious within a few moments of starting your ride)
> > you had a choice...abandon the ride because your equipment was
> > insufficient, or continue at your own risk. You continued,
> > fortunately, were not injured, and wrote your post.
>
> > I think the way you started this thread, blaming everything and
> > everyone but yourself, may have lead many of us here to take a
> > jaundiced view of your further comments.
>
> > And of course, any number of smaller flame-wars have begun from this.
>
> > Good lights do not a safe ride make...my own story. Early November,
> > 2004, I was riding home from work. My lights--15 watts of SLA-powered
> > halogen--were giving me trouble; the mount was a little loose, and it
> > was raining. I'm told that I was coasting to a stop (flat, level
> > ground) when the accident happened. I apparently didn't see the deep
> > curb cut that had been made to repair a section that trucks roll over,
> > my front wheel went in, and I supermanned over the bars. I woke up
> > while they were putting me in the ambulance. Concussion and six weeks
> > with my jaw wired shut.
>
> > Was it the fault of my lights or the manufacturer? No. Was it the
> > fault of the trucks, or of the county doing the work? No. It was my
> > fault. I should have been more careful. I knew I was having trouble
> > with my lights and I overrode them.
>
> > After I recovered, I replaced them with a less expensive but more
> > reliable (IMO) system. I've continued to work on and improve my
> > lighting since, as I had before. It's my responsibility to keep
> > myself safe in the conditions I'm likely to encounter on public roads,
> > and I should either accept that responsibility, or stay off them.
>
> Ouch! Were you wearing a helmet at the time?

I'm not gonna say one way or the other. There are enough flame wars
in the world as it is.

Date: 28 Sep 2007 14:27:29
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Andy M-S" <marchantshapiro@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190992466.309605.117930@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 28, 8:34 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 10:13 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 28, 7:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Andy M-S wrote:
>> > > >> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>>
>> > > >> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the
>> > > >> money, it
>> > > >> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for
>> > > >> every
>> > > >> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>>
>> > > >> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid
>> > > >> consumers
>> > > >> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you
>> > > >> make it
>> > > >> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>>
>> > > >> Just put some basic information on the package:
>>
>> > > >> Power source:
>>
>> > > >> Run time:
>>
>> > > >> Illumination Level:
>>
>> > > >> Suitability:
>>
>> > > >> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
>> > > >> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>>
>> > > > Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>>
>> > > > "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
>> > > > expensive
>> > > > stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy,
>> > > > cheap,
>> > > > this
>> > > > is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>>
>> > > When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs
>> > > to be
>> > > an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy
>> > > practical
>> > > things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status
>> > > buyers.
>> > > I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five
>> > > times
>> > > as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't
>> > > affect my
>> > > performance much I can show it off to other bikers.
>>
>> > I guess that's not unreasonable. At the same time, some personal
>> > judgement as to what you DO have is important. Back in the late '70s,
>> > you could buy flashlights that had a large, shallow reflector, ran on
>> > a pair of C-cells, and that fit into a handlebar bracket. Lots of
>> > folks had 'em.
>>
>> > I had one. But even then, I was smart enough not to think of them as
>> > suitable for anything more than slow riding.
>>
>> > When you discovered that the Cateye was insufficient (something that
>> > should have been obvious within a few moments of starting your ride)
>> > you had a choice...abandon the ride because your equipment was
>> > insufficient, or continue at your own risk. You continued,
>> > fortunately, were not injured, and wrote your post.
>>
>> > I think the way you started this thread, blaming everything and
>> > everyone but yourself, may have lead many of us here to take a
>> > jaundiced view of your further comments.
>>
>> > And of course, any number of smaller flame-wars have begun from this.
>>
>> > Good lights do not a safe ride make...my own story. Early November,
>> > 2004, I was riding home from work. My lights--15 watts of SLA-powered
>> > halogen--were giving me trouble; the mount was a little loose, and it
>> > was raining. I'm told that I was coasting to a stop (flat, level
>> > ground) when the accident happened. I apparently didn't see the deep
>> > curb cut that had been made to repair a section that trucks roll over,
>> > my front wheel went in, and I supermanned over the bars. I woke up
>> > while they were putting me in the ambulance. Concussion and six weeks
>> > with my jaw wired shut.
>>
>> > Was it the fault of my lights or the manufacturer? No. Was it the
>> > fault of the trucks, or of the county doing the work? No. It was my
>> > fault. I should have been more careful. I knew I was having trouble
>> > with my lights and I overrode them.
>>
>> > After I recovered, I replaced them with a less expensive but more
>> > reliable (IMO) system. I've continued to work on and improve my
>> > lighting since, as I had before. It's my responsibility to keep
>> > myself safe in the conditions I'm likely to encounter on public roads,
>> > and I should either accept that responsibility, or stay off them.
>>
>> Ouch! Were you wearing a helmet at the time?
>
> I'm not gonna say one way or the other. There are enough flame wars
> in the world as it is.
>

Sorry, but your noble attitude doesn't impress me as much as you'd like it
to. Somebody made a financial decision to leave that invisible curb cut the
way it was over night. They figured, "Cars will go around and have good
lights anyway. Bikes? What are bikes? Nobody bikes at night. If they do,
shit, we can't protect from every contingency. We might have to put a cone
out there." They weighted the cost of putting a cone out there and decided
that fuck it. It wasn't worth it. Your jaw and skull weren't worth the work
of moving a traffic cone!

The design of bikes is such that headers and supermans are pretty common.
Would a bicycle with a bigger front wheel and a longer frame be less likely
to throw you onto your head? One things for sure. Once you leave a bike
there's nothing left to cushion impact (except your helmet of course). No
more wheels to collapse. Your face collapses. It probably doesn't take much.
Would you have been as cheerful had you spent the rest of your life in a
coma. Dead people and coma patients don't complain much on newsgroups.
Really the people most likely to agree that bikes and roads need to be safer
aren't here to agree with me. They're rotting in their hospital beds and
graves.

HA HA HA! FEAR MONGERING!!!

Watch this young babe die in a slow speed crash.
http://s0006.photobucket.com/albums/0006/pbhomepage/video3/?action=view¤t=5b81cca6.flv

Ha ha. I fooled you again! She doesn't even appear to be hurt.

Date: 28 Sep 2007 06:34:22
From: tiborg
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 28, 10:13 pm, Andy M-S <marchantshap...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >> Andy M-S wrote:
> > >> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>
> > >> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
> > >> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
> > >> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>
> > >> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
> > >> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
> > >> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>
> > >> Just put some basic information on the package:
>
> > >> Power source:
>
> > >> Run time:
>
> > >> Illumination Level:
>
> > >> Suitability:
>
> > >> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
> > >> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>
> > > Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>
> > > "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
> > > expensive
> > > stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap,
> > > this
> > > is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>
> > When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs to be
> > an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy practical
> > things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status buyers.
> > I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five times
> > as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't affect my
> > performance much I can show it off to other bikers.
>
> I guess that's not unreasonable. At the same time, some personal
> judgement as to what you DO have is important. Back in the late '70s,
> you could buy flashlights that had a large, shallow reflector, ran on
> a pair of C-cells, and that fit into a handlebar bracket. Lots of
> folks had 'em.
>
> I had one. But even then, I was smart enough not to think of them as
> suitable for anything more than slow riding.
>
> When you discovered that the Cateye was insufficient (something that
> should have been obvious within a few moments of starting your ride)
> you had a choice...abandon the ride because your equipment was
> insufficient, or continue at your own risk. You continued,
> fortunately, were not injured, and wrote your post.
>
> I think the way you started this thread, blaming everything and
> everyone but yourself, may have lead many of us here to take a
> jaundiced view of your further comments.
>
> And of course, any number of smaller flame-wars have begun from this.
>
> Good lights do not a safe ride make...my own story. Early November,
> 2004, I was riding home from work. My lights--15 watts of SLA-powered
> halogen--were giving me trouble; the mount was a little loose, and it
> was raining. I'm told that I was coasting to a stop (flat, level
> ground) when the accident happened. I apparently didn't see the deep
> curb cut that had been made to repair a section that trucks roll over,
> my front wheel went in, and I supermanned over the bars. I woke up
> while they were putting me in the ambulance. Concussion and six weeks
> with my jaw wired shut.
>
> Was it the fault of my lights or the manufacturer? No. Was it the
> fault of the trucks, or of the county doing the work? No. It was my
> fault. I should have been more careful. I knew I was having trouble
> with my lights and I overrode them.
>
> After I recovered, I replaced them with a less expensive but more
> reliable (IMO) system. I've continued to work on and improve my
> lighting since, as I had before. It's my responsibility to keep
> myself safe in the conditions I'm likely to encounter on public roads,
> and I should either accept that responsibility, or stay off them.

Ouch! Were you wearing a helmet at the time?

Date: 25 Sep 2007 09:31:11
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 11:19 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > Greens wrote:
>
> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
> >> roads on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like
> >> pot holes and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them.
> >> Much easier to see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or
> >> face the effects of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run
> >> over.
>
> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
> >> It gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> >> disaster.
>
> > There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb is
> > "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen" light
> > where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
> > light.
>
> Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a "be
> seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
> test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
> Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
> regulation. Whether you ride or not, you're using a public road. Certain
> safety requirements need to be met because everyone faces the same oncoming
> vehicles and road hazards. It doesn't matter how cheap their vehicle is. Do
> you think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from safety
> requirements? That's how it is now. You can walk, children can walk on the
> side of high speed traffic without any lights or reflectors. Is that how you
> want things to be?

I pass a commuter on his bike to a fast food place each morning. He
travels slowly down a well lit road and he rides an inexpensive old
cruiser. He uses one of those cheap battery lights and it serves the
vital purpose of making him highly visible. If your proposed
regulation permitted only the sale of powerful lights that would cost
him about a weeks pay, this guy just would probably just ride without
one. Cheap lights are better than no lights.

Wayne

Date: 25 Sep 2007 16:51:09
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Wayne" <waynesulak@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1190737871.638464.239060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 11:19 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Greens wrote:
>>
>> >> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>> >> roads on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises
>> >> like
>> >> pot holes and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on
>> >> them.
>> >> Much easier to see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light
>> >> or
>> >> face the effects of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your
>> >> run
>> >> over.
>>
>> >> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak
>> >> light.
>> >> It gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead
>> >> to
>> >> disaster.
>>
>> > There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb
>> > is
>> > "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen"
>> > light
>> > where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a
>> > 10mph
>> > light.
>>
>> Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a
>> "be
>> seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time
>> to
>> test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
>> Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
>> regulation. Whether you ride or not, you're using a public road. Certain
>> safety requirements need to be met because everyone faces the same
>> oncoming
>> vehicles and road hazards. It doesn't matter how cheap their vehicle is.
>> Do
>> you think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from safety
>> requirements? That's how it is now. You can walk, children can walk on
>> the
>> side of high speed traffic without any lights or reflectors. Is that how
>> you
>> want things to be?
>
>
> I pass a commuter on his bike to a fast food place each morning. He
> travels slowly down a well lit road and he rides an inexpensive old
> cruiser. He uses one of those cheap battery lights and it serves the
> vital purpose of making him highly visible. If your proposed
> regulation permitted only the sale of powerful lights that would cost
> him about a weeks pay, this guy just would probably just ride without
> one. Cheap lights are better than no lights.
>
> Wayne
>

Not if they cops told him he couldn't ride on the road at night without a
light. In New York it's the law. I don't know if it's enforced. I saw kids
riding around at night last night with no reflectors or lights of any kind
just like kids always have. They made some sarcastic comments as we went by
too. "Nice lights". Yea? How do you like my mace, you fricken delinquents,
lol?

Date: 25 Sep 2007 09:29:49
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:

> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at 10mph
> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel?

Yes. If the light only lights up far enough to see stuff in time to
react at 10mph, that what you have to do.

Seems unlikely
> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye for
> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of the
> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night. They know that
> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they know
> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of crap.
> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they know
> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't seen
> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.

I think yuo a reading WAY more into this than there is. Products of
all sorts come in a variety of quality and utlity levels. You can buy
cheap-o screwdrivers that barely work one time, or you can get top-
notch stuff. Sometimes the cheap one is all you need, sometimes it's
not. Same with everything else.

Joseph

Date: 25 Sep 2007 16:37:38
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190737789.701630.47500@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
>> were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at
>> 10mph
>> the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel?
>
> Yes. If the light only lights up far enough to see stuff in time to
> react at 10mph, that what you have to do.
>
>
> Seems unlikely
>> anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye
>> for
>> not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of
>> the
>> light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
>> dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
>> capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night. They know
>> that
>> most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they
>> know
>> that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
>> adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
>> the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of
>> crap.
>> If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they
>> know
>> that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't
>> seen
>> as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
>> standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.
>
> I think yuo a reading WAY more into this than there is. Products of
> all sorts come in a variety of quality and utlity levels. You can buy
> cheap-o screwdrivers that barely work one time, or you can get top-
> notch stuff. Sometimes the cheap one is all you need, sometimes it's
> not. Same with everything else.
>
> Joseph
>

You can buy cheap crap like that THESE DAYS, but you couldn't do that 40
years ago when there were real hardware stores, Sonny. See years ago, you'd
go to the hardware store and there'd be the owner there and he wouldn't sell
you a piece of shit without telling you it was a piece of shit that nobody
in their right mind would want to own. He'd be looking out for you and for
himself. His store was small not like home depot and lowes. There was no
room for carrying cheap shit and the attitude back then was that tools were
a serious thing that shouldn't be crap.

The new attitude is "If they'll buy it, fuck it, we'll sell it to them.
Build a bigger store and parking lot. Fire all the guys with experience.
Hire a bunch of ex hamburger flippers that don't know anything and sell any
fucking thing. Get out of the advice business unless it's to give bad advice
like buy on our easy payment plan or buy our service contract for our shit
product that won't last." LOL rant over

Date: 24 Sep 2007 23:10:04
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Buy the equipment you need for safe
night bike riding. The one time I had
to do some hospital time from a day time
bike crash cost me $1000, and the
insurance company $5000 more. So that's
the benchmark I use. So if you compare
it to that, batteries and lights and
some reflector gear is really quite
cheap. Buy a good handlebar light, a
helmet mounted light and you are
business. The el-300 doesn't cut it,
the el-500 is the best of the cheap
cateye lights. The helmet mounted
princeton tec EOS is pretty good for
road, and you point the beam right in
front, when blinded by car high beams.
Put a couple good rear lights on the
back, and put some ankle reflectors on,
and you'll be seen by cars. Most rear
lights, I've seen do a pretty good job,
even the cheap ones. But I use
rechargeable batteries in them, to make
them as bright as possible. The best
rear light you can buy is naturally
useless, with dead or dying batteries.
I prefer night riding to day riding, but
you have to have the right stuff.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:12:34
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Crescentius Vespasianus" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:13fi6n9hfsgot62@corp.supernews.com...
> Buy the equipment you need for safe night bike riding. The one time I had
> to do some hospital time from a day time bike crash cost me $1000, and the
> insurance company $5000 more. So that's the benchmark I use. So if you
> compare it to that, batteries and lights and some reflector gear is really
> quite cheap. Buy a good handlebar light, a helmet mounted light and you
> are business. The el-300 doesn't cut it, the el-500 is the best of the
> cheap cateye lights. The helmet mounted princeton tec EOS is pretty good
> for road, and you point the beam right in front, when blinded by car high
> beams. Put a couple good rear lights on the back, and put some ankle
> reflectors on, and you'll be seen by cars. Most rear lights, I've seen do
> a pretty good job, even the cheap ones. But I use rechargeable batteries
> in them, to make them as bright as possible. The best rear light you can
> buy is naturally useless, with dead or dying batteries. I prefer night
> riding to day riding, but you have to have the right stuff.

I'm agree with you completely. I use two tail lights so they're redundant.
If one goes out, I might not know it, but at least I've got the second
light. I've rigged one tail light to the back of my helmet so that it's up
higher and can be seen further away and through higher SUV windows.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 09:36:39
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:

> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for roads
> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot holes
> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier to
> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the effects
> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.
>

There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb
is "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen"
light where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a
10mph light.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Greens wrote:
>
>> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>> roads on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like
>> pot holes and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them.
>> Much easier to see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or
>> face the effects of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run
>> over.
>>
>> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
>> It gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
>> disaster.
>>
>
> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb is
> "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen" light
> where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
> light.

Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a "be
seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
regulation. Whether you ride or not, you're using a public road. Certain
safety requirements need to be met because everyone faces the same oncoming
vehicles and road hazards. It doesn't matter how cheap their vehicle is. Do
you think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from safety
requirements? That's how it is now. You can walk, children can walk on the
side of high speed traffic without any lights or reflectors. Is that how you
want things to be?

Date: 26 Sep 2007 09:43:58
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net >
wrote:
>"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb is
>> "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen" light
>> where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
>> light.
>
>Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a "be
>seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
>test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.

Interestingly enough, at least two stores (REI and Performance, IIRC)
have been labeling their lights something like "seeing" and "be seen."

>Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
>regulation.

I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:11:04
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.

Come now, many companies, including CatEye, make lights that are
suitable for different situations. It's not an unreasonable idea that
they indicate which lights are appropriate for which riding situations
(though perhaps they feel there is some liability in doing this).

It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
pattern, battery life, etc.

Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
own standards.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 22:21:58
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:11:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com >
wrote:
>Patrick Lamb wrote:
>> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
>> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.
>
>Come now, many companies, including CatEye, make lights that are
>suitable for different situations. It's not an unreasonable idea that
>they indicate which lights are appropriate for which riding situations
>(though perhaps they feel there is some liability in doing this).
>
>It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
>lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
>pattern, battery life, etc.
>
>Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
>own standards.

It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
That was part of driver's ed a few decades back. Using such a simple
guideline, there's no need to play the standards game.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 08:17:37
From: vey
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Patrick Lamb wrote:

>
> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.

In the case of the light I bought, that would be zero MPH since it
didn't light up anything. And it was zero. I walked my bike until I got
under a street lamp and could see, then rode a bit and walked some more.

When I got home, I took it off and shined it around a room. The walls
showed up perfectly, but the beam was so diffused, it didn't do anything
for the floor. So even if I had tried it out at the LBS I bought it at,
I wouldn't have known any better.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:36:16
From: SMS
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
> That was part of driver's ed a few decades back. Using such a simple
> guideline, there's no need to play the standards game.

When you buy a motor vehicle, decent headlights are part of the deal.
The driver's ed course referred to stuff on outrunning your headlights
was more in reference to rain, fog, and snow, than driving in clear
weather, at or under the speed limit.

With bicycle lights, when you buy them there is very little indication
as to their adequacy for different riding situations. It would be a good
move on the part of the lighting manufacturers to come up with some kind
of a system that indicated what type of bicycling the lights are
adequate for.

Date: 27 Sep 2007 19:53:19
From: Dorfus Dippintush
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

SMS wrote:
> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>
>> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
>> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
>> That was part of driver's ed a few decades back. Using such a simple
>> guideline, there's no need to play the standards game.
>
> When you buy a motor vehicle, decent headlights are part of the deal.
> The driver's ed course referred to stuff on outrunning your headlights
> was more in reference to rain, fog, and snow, than driving in clear
> weather, at or under the speed limit.
>
> With bicycle lights, when you buy them there is very little indication
> as to their adequacy for different riding situations. It would be a good
> move on the part of the lighting manufacturers to come up with some kind
> of a system that indicated what type of bicycling the lights are
> adequate for.

Why would they?
If you asked a manufacturer which light you need, they would say that
THEIR light is exactly the one you need.

Do you think they would say their light is no good and you should buy
the oppositions?

Dorfus

Date: 27 Sep 2007 01:38:19
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:o98mf3pvecetlq6dl3c4hm7jdaus26isho@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:11:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>>Patrick Lamb wrote:
>>> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
>>> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.
>>
>>Come now, many companies, including CatEye, make lights that are
>>suitable for different situations. It's not an unreasonable idea that
>>they indicate which lights are appropriate for which riding situations
>>(though perhaps they feel there is some liability in doing this).
>>
>>It's not really reasonable to think that every customer for bicycle
>>lights is well-versed in all the differences in illumination, beam
>>pattern, battery life, etc.
>>
>>Rather than wait for government regulation, the industry should form its
>>own standards.
>
> It's really reasonable to think that a person riding a bicycle at
> night should modulate his speed so he doesn't over-ride his lights.
> That was part of driver's ed a few decades back. Using such a simple
> guideline, there's no need to play the standards game.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.

Idiot! Do road conditions go from smooth to inch diameter gravel with no
warning, no sign? Only for bicycles on shoulders. Nobody would have been
ready for that. You're not going to go down a hill at 6 mph for 50 miles
just in case there's some gravel every 50 miles.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:49:58
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:psrkf35sb3ge7qffapsl23vhvhoacfa9ms@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>>"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb
>>> is
>>> "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen"
>>> light
>>> where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
>>> light.
>>
>>Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a
>>"be
>>seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
>>test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
>
> Interestingly enough, at least two stores (REI and Performance, IIRC)
> have been labeling their lights something like "seeing" and "be seen."
>
>>Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
>>regulation.
>
> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.

Sounds like another guy who loves the freedom of cycling so much he's eager
to take it away from somebody who differs in opinion. Are you a freedom
loving fellow American? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Date: 26 Sep 2007 22:18:53
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:49:58 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net >
wrote:
>"Patrick Lamb" <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:psrkf35sb3ge7qffapsl23vhvhoacfa9ms@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>
>> wrote:
>>>Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
>>>regulation.
>>
>> I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet
>> trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.
>
>Sounds like another guy who loves the freedom of cycling so much he's eager
>to take it away from somebody who differs in opinion. Are you a freedom
>loving fellow American? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Or, could be someone who's tired of fearmongering trolls. You've
already admitted to being a troll. Are you a fearmonger? Wouldn't
surprise me at all.

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 13:00:58
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Greens wrote:
>>
>>> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>>> roads on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like
>>> pot holes and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them.
>>> Much easier to see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or
>>> face the effects of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run
>>> over.
>>>
>>> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
>>> It gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
>>> disaster.
>>>
>> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb is
>> "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen" light
>> where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a 10mph
>> light.
>
> Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a "be
> seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have time to
> test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and manufacturers.
> Those parties are only interested in making profits. The solution is
> regulation.

Perhaps. But I think what you mean is *more* regulation. Currently,
bicycle lighting seems covered on a state-by-state basis. My state (MA)
requires a headlight visible from 500', a taillight (or reflector)
visible from 600', and pedal or ankle reflectors visible from 600'
(where the 600' implies lit from normal low beams). That's it. There's
no requirement for the amount of road illumination.

> Whether you ride or not, you're using a public road. Certain
> safety requirements need to be met because everyone faces the same oncoming
> vehicles and road hazards. It doesn't matter how cheap their vehicle is. Do
> you think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from safety
> requirements? That's how it is now. You can walk, children can walk on the
> side of high speed traffic without any lights or reflectors. Is that how you
> want things to be?

I'd rather not broaden the question to include walkers. It's not how I'd
send my kids out, and I'll leave it at that.

As for lights, the law seems to be aimed at protecting cyclists from
being hit by motorists, not for protecting cyclists from road hazards.
I'm no expert, but I believe some countries do have more demanding
requirements for lights. I guess that would be a good thing, or at least
to have a minimum spec for manufacturers to certify to, whether it was
required or not.

This is the sort of issue a bike shop is there to help with. Most shops
stock a variety of lights and have the expertise to help you select. If
you buy mail-order or discount house, you're on your own, which is true
for a lot of other things besides lights. Of course there are resources
like this group, there are usually several threads on lights around this
time of the year (don't forget the archives).

As I said before, the cardinal rule is: never outride your lights.
People's night vision varies, weather varies, ambient light varies, etc.
Sometimes you just don't have enough light for the conditions and you
have to adjust your speed accordingly.

I might also add that shoulders are a pretty bad place to ride,
particularly at night. I usually try to observe the "debris line", which
marks the edge of the area swept by car tires. I ride just to the left
of it (US). If there's a paved shoulder and a fog line painted to mark
the lane edge, I may use it if it's clean, but that's a tough call,
especially at night -- it's not guaranteed to be clean -- crap in the
travel lane usually gets flattened or swept aside, not true on the shoulder.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:07:15
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:bbqdndhu14RWo2TbnZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Greens wrote:
>> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:qPudnW3oteB0k2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Greens wrote:
>>>
>>>> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>>>> roads on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises
>>>> like pot holes and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on
>>>> them. Much easier to see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter
>>>> light or face the effects of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or
>>>> get your run over.
>>>>
>>>> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
>>>> It gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead
>>>> to disaster.
>>>>
>>> There are "seeing" lights and "be seen" lights. The best rule of thumb
>>> is "never outride your lights". Sounds like you either had a "be seen"
>>> light where you needed a "seeing" light, or you were riding 20mph with a
>>> 10mph light.
>>
>> Again, should it be left up to the individual cyclist to think of when a
>> "be seen" light or "seeing" light is necessary? Individuals don't have
>> time to test things extensively. They have to trust merchants and
>> manufacturers. Those parties are only interested in making profits. The
>> solution is regulation.
>
> Perhaps. But I think what you mean is *more* regulation. Currently,
> bicycle lighting seems covered on a state-by-state basis. My state (MA)
> requires a headlight visible from 500', a taillight (or reflector) visible
> from 600', and pedal or ankle reflectors visible from 600' (where the 600'
> implies lit from normal low beams). That's it. There's no requirement for
> the amount of road illumination.
>
>
>> Whether you ride or not, you're using a public road. Certain safety
>> requirements need to be met because everyone faces the same oncoming
>> vehicles and road hazards. It doesn't matter how cheap their vehicle is.
>> Do you think that pedestrians and cyclists should be exempt from safety
>> requirements? That's how it is now. You can walk, children can walk on
>> the side of high speed traffic without any lights or reflectors. Is that
>> how you want things to be?
>
> I'd rather not broaden the question to include walkers. It's not how I'd
> send my kids out, and I'll leave it at that.
>
> As for lights, the law seems to be aimed at protecting cyclists from being
> hit by motorists, not for protecting cyclists from road hazards. I'm no
> expert, but I believe some countries do have more demanding requirements
> for lights. I guess that would be a good thing, or at least to have a
> minimum spec for manufacturers to certify to, whether it was required or
> not.
>
> This is the sort of issue a bike shop is there to help with. Most shops
> stock a variety of lights and have the expertise to help you select. If
> you buy mail-order or discount house, you're on your own, which is true
> for a lot of other things besides lights. Of course there are resources
> like this group, there are usually several threads on lights around this
> time of the year (don't forget the archives).
>
> As I said before, the cardinal rule is: never outride your lights.
> People's night vision varies, weather varies, ambient light varies, etc.
> Sometimes you just don't have enough light for the conditions and you have
> to adjust your speed accordingly.
>
> I might also add that shoulders are a pretty bad place to ride,
> particularly at night. I usually try to observe the "debris line", which
> marks the edge of the area swept by car tires. I ride just to the left of
> it (US). If there's a paved shoulder and a fog line painted to mark the
> lane edge, I may use it if it's clean, but that's a tough call, especially
> at night -- it's not guaranteed to be clean -- crap in the travel lane
> usually gets flattened or swept aside, not true on the shoulder.

I agree with most of what you said. I don't agree that discount houses
should be allowed to sell any old junk when it comes to safety. Regulation
can see to it that they don't.

Lots of cyclists are very pro freedom and anti regulation. What could be
cooler than to be against stupid regulations? The thing is there are reasons
for rules and uniformity. You can't drive as fast as you want with a car.
You can't just duct tape flashlights on your car. Why should that sort of
thing be allowed with bicycles? You're using public roads with all kinds of
vehicles. An unconscious cyclist laying in the middle of the road because of
unseen road debris is a hazard to all the cars and bikes on the road as well
as to himself (or at least he was a hazard to himself). It's just false to
say they can't control what people put on their bicycles for lighting. What
they really mean is they're too lazy to bother with them. The attitude is
"go kill yourself if you want. We don't care. We can't be bothered to set
up standards."

Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:37:43
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:
>>>>> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight
-snip-
>>>>> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light
-snip-
> I don't agree that discount houses
> should be allowed to sell any old junk when it comes to safety. Regulation
> can see to it that they don't.
-snip-
> The attitude is
> "go kill yourself if you want. We don't care. We can't be bothered to set
> up standards."

Sounds good to me. Is there a problem?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 25 Sep 2007 06:13:00
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

Greens wrote:
> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once before.
> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or my
> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>
> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with new
> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch in
> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and to
> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in better
> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder not
> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the traffic
> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>
> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>
> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider have
> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head down
> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet. Going
> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do evasive
> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might have
> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low light
> LED.
>
> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for roads
> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot holes
> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier to
> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the effects
> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.

Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???

Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
gonna blame the tire maker?

If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.

>
> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience and
> conclusion.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 12:11:42
From: Greens
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1190725980.937109.205010@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Greens wrote:
>> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
>> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once
>> before.
>> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or
>> my
>> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales
>> of
>> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
>> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>>
>> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with
>> new
>> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
>> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
>> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch
>> in
>> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and
>> to
>> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
>> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
>> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
>> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in
>> better
>> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
>> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder
>> not
>> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the
>> traffic
>> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>>
>> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
>> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
>> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>>
>> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider
>> have
>> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head
>> down
>> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet.
>> Going
>> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do
>> evasive
>> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might
>> have
>> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low
>> light
>> LED.
>>
>> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for
>> roads
>> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot
>> holes
>> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier
>> to
>> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the
>> effects
>> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>>
>> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light.
>> It
>> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
>> disaster.
>
> Absolutely..take NO responsibility for yourself, blame Cateye-Huh???
>
> Look at how bright the light is and ride accordingly...If you take a
> road bike with 20mm tires onto a MTB trail and then crash, are ya
> gonna blame the tire maker?
>
> If you want a brighter light, buy a brighter light and be prepared to
> pay more for it. No such thing as a free lunch.
>
>
>>
>> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience
>> and
>> conclusion.
>

Riding downhill at the speed I was going was a reasonable speed. The cars
were few and 99.999% of the road was smooth. Am I supposed to ride at 10mph
the whole 7 miles just in case there is a patch of gravel? Seems unlikely
anyone would be that cautious. That's why I blame the light and Cateye for
not testing the light extensively in actual use. A little night use of the
light by responsible evaluators would quickly turn up it's weaknesses and
dangers but cateye and the people selling them are only interested in
capturing the cheapskate market who wants to ride at night. They know that
most people won't buy a $400 light for a few nights of riding and they know
that those same people will spend $40 towards the same purpose if they're
adequately assured (bullshitted) that it is safe so they put the light on
the market even though they know the light is an inadequate piece of crap.
If someone gets hurt and actually has the ballls to go to court, they know
that cyclists have a reputation for being odd and that bicycles aren't seen
as legitimate road vehicles in court. The light won't be held to the same
standards of safety that a light on a licensed motor vehicle.

Date: 28 Sep 2007 13:13:32
From: Andy M-S
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 28, 7:56 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> "Andy M-S" <marchantshap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1190928280.257172.118310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> Andy M-S wrote:
> >> > It stopped you from buying a decent light, didn't it?
>
> >> The reason he bought an inadequate light was probably not the money, it
> >> was that he didn't know any better. It might be unreasonable for every
> >> consumer to become an expert for every item they buy.
>
> >> Other industries set their own standards for products to aid consumers
> >> in their buying decision. It actually helps sell more when you make it
> >> easier for the consumer to make an informed decision.
>
> >> Just put some basic information on the package:
>
> >> Power source:
>
> >> Run time:
>
> >> Illumination Level:
>
> >> Suitability:
>
> >> REI at least provides some advice on lights on their site
> >> "http://www.rei.com/learn/Cycling/rei/learn/cycle/bikeltf"
>
> > Ah, but he's self-described as cheap:
>
> > "Yea. I love the cheap stuff, but that's because the value of the
> > expensive
> > stuff isn't sold. They don't push wise choices. They push easy, cheap,
> > this
> > is what you want, who gives a fuck what you need, marketing. "
>
> When one light costs ten times what another light costs, there needs to be
> an explanation of the expensive light's worth. I like to buy practical
> things. A lot of the expensive lighting seems to be targeting status buyers.
> I don't want to be one of these people that buys parts that cost five times
> as much becuase they're a half ounce lighter and while it doesn't affect my
> performance much I can show it off to other bikers.

I guess that's not unreasonable. At the same time, some personal
judgement as to what you DO have is important. Back in the late '70s,
you could buy flashlights that had a large, shallow reflector, ran on
a pair of C-cells, and that fit into a handlebar bracket. Lots of
folks had 'em.

I had one. But even then, I was smart enough not to think of them as
suitable for anything more than slow riding.

When you discovered that the Cateye was insufficient (something that
should have been obvious within a few moments of starting your ride)
you had a choice...abandon the ride because your equipment was
insufficient, or continue at your own risk. You continued,
fortunately, were not injured, and wrote your post.

I think the way you started this thread, blaming everything and
everyone but yourself, may have lead many of us here to take a
jaundiced view of your further comments.

And of course, any number of smaller flame-wars have begun from this.

Good lights do not a safe ride make...my own story. Early November,
2004, I was riding home from work. My lights--15 watts of SLA-powered
halogen--were giving me trouble; the mount was a little loose, and it
was raining. I'm told that I was coasting to a stop (flat, level
ground) when the accident happened. I apparently didn't see the deep
curb cut that had been made to repair a section that trucks roll over,
my front wheel went in, and I supermanned over the bars. I woke up
while they were putting me in the ambulance. Concussion and six weeks
with my jaw wired shut.

Was it the fault of my lights or the manufacturer? No. Was it the
fault of the trucks, or of the county doing the work? No. It was my
fault. I should have been more careful. I knew I was having trouble
with my lights and I overrode them.

After I recovered, I replaced them with a less expensive but more
reliable (IMO) system. I've continued to work on and improve my
lighting since, as I had before. It's my responsibility to keep
myself safe in the conditions I'm likely to encounter on public roads,
and I should either accept that responsibility, or stay off them.

Date: 25 Sep 2007 05:11:43
From: tiborg
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 3:05 pm, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once before.
> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or my
> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>
> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with new
> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch in
> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and to
> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in better
> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder not
> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the traffic
> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>
> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>
> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider have
> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head down
> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet. Going
> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do evasive
> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might have
> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low light
> LED.
>
> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for roads
> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot holes
> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier to
> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the effects
> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.
>
> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience and
> conclusion.

After buying an EL300, I bought another one the next day. Two mounted
on the bar let you focus one close and another just beyond, which
helps considerably. I've seen a dynamo powered version of the EL300
which might be better since it's mounted close to the ground. That
would reduce the distance the light needs to travel to illuminate road
debris.

Cateye's 1W LEDs are about as bright as 2 EL300s, so a couple 1Ws make
a good upgrade if you don't want to spend much money. Other people
have mentioned on this group non-cycling alternatives that are much
brighter than what Cateye makes (whatever happened to the Stadium3
HID?).

Date: 25 Sep 2007 00:39:17
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hazards of night cycling

On Sep 25, 8:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net > wrote:
> At the risk of sounding obsessed with safety, I will describe an incident
> this evening while riding downhill on a road I've only been on once before.
> Please note; I'd rather this didn't turn into a discussion about me or my
> obsessions, rather I'd prefer it if other night riders shared their tales of
> near disaster and disaster not averted. This would be in the interest of
> educating the night riding public in avoiding problems.
>
> It was dark, clear night and I was using my Cateye EL 300 headlight with new
> batteries. I was going downhill on the shoulder of a well maintened road.
> Cars were few. All of a sudden I noticed something just ahead. It looked
> like white rocks. I thought about ten rocks, each a half inch to an inch in
> diameter. It was too late to do anything else. I ran right into them and to
> my surprise I found my front wheel on my mountain bike sliding sideways
> about six inches. Just as I was about to go down, I cleared the rocks. A
> little shaken, I made note of a house with lights on either side of the
> garage door lit so that I might drive back and look the thing over in better
> light. The rider passing before me hadn't noticed anything. I noticed a
> colorful barrel marking some recent work in the middle of the shoulder not
> too much further along. There I swerved around the barrel into the traffic
> lanes rather than hit the barrel.
>
> I drove back and found the garage and it's lights. Drove along slowly and
> found.... a graveled entrance to... who knows and who cares? The gravel
> covered the whole shoulder for about the width of a driveway.
>
> How is it that I didn't spot this sooner? Why didn't the previous rider have
> trouble with this? My guess is a car had been coming and I kept my head down
> to avoid being blinded. This cuts down my visibility to about 25 feet. Going
> downhill at maybe 18 or 20mph that doesn't leave a lot of time to do evasive
> manuvers, but also if the oncoming car was timed just right, he might have
> gone by just before I got to the gravel when I was adjusting to my low light
> LED.
>
> Conclusion: I'm going to blame my crappy headlight. It's only good for roads
> on which there are no cars and no gravel patches or surprises like pot holes
> and large dead animals. Shoulders have a lot of crap on them. Much easier to
> see in the day. I may have to get a much brighter light or face the effects
> of crash at 20 mph which can break bones or get your run over.
>
> The industry, if it had any scruples, shouldn't even sell a weak light. It
> gives false confidence. It has surprising weaknesses that can lead to
> disaster.
>
> Have you had a near disaster while riding at night? Post your experience and
> conclusion.

When I ride at night it is usually on my MTB with a helmet mounted
Silva halogen made for skiing. I like helmet mounted because I can see
what I'm looking at. I can also use it to blind oncoming cars should I
be on a stretch of road so I KNOW they saw me. But it does give some
tunnel vision, and I nearly punctured my varicose veins in my calf on
a sharp branch I didn't see as it fell outside the tunnel. That would
have been bad. Moral of the story: take it easy when you can't see!

Joseph