Hazards of night cycling

[Greens]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 **** colored by your own
biases.

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

 

[SMS]

Hank Wirtz wrote:
> On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 **** 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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=...59,-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

 

[Hank Wirtz]

On Sep 25, 10:37 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 3:38 pm, SMS <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 **** 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.

 

[Greens]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 **** about how the
public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes me
want to hide.

 

[Greens]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 25, 9:11 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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 **** 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
>> ****.
>> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 10:32 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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 **** 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 **** about how the
> public needs to be lulled into a false sense of security certainly makes me
> want to hide.

 

[Greens]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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....

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 11:17 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 25, 9:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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.....

 

[vey]

[email protected] 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?

 

[_]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:59:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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".

 

[Andy M-S]

On Sep 26, 7:25 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 9:59 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 4:46 pm, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <[email protected]> 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 **** 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

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] 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 ****.
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 ****, 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 ****?

Joseph

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.

 

[SMS]

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.