J
Jiten Norio
Guest
Following is a long explanation about the background. You can skip to ************THE
QUESTIONS.**************** line.
Recently, METI (Japanese ministry of economy, trade, and industry), a major group of Japanese
bicycle industries, and representatives of Japanese bicycle society (called Rin-kai) presented a
plan to apply Product Safety Consumer (PSC) act to bicycles. According to the plan, a PSC sticker
will be put on a bicycle which passed the new PSC regulation, and one can't sell a bicycle without
the sticker.
I will call this plan BPSC.
In an anonymous bulletin board on the net a few people including me are objecting BPSC because of
the following reasons.
1. Current Japanese PSC act explicitly precludes "traffic vehicles" from its target. Traffic
vehicles are defined in the Japanese Traffic Vehicle Law, and a bicycle is a traffic vehicle by
the law. Therefore, to apply PSC act to bicycles, it is necessary to change the PSC act and
redefine **bicycle as non-vehicle** within
it. I can't believe it is a good thing.
2. There are other regulations that already have been applied to bicycles, such as traffic vehicle
standards (which covers lights, brakes, reflectors, etc.) and JIS (i.e. Japanese Industrial
Standard that covers fork strength, reflectors, and so on). BPSC will be redundant and will make
bad confusion. It is better to integrate the bicycle regulation under the control of Japanese
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Traffic, not under METI.
3. The followers of the BPSC argue as the following: "Because of the recent increase of crude and
cheep utility bicycles (mainly imported from Mainland China), safety of Japanese bicycle
consumers is threatened enormously. It is necessary to have a regulation which invalidate selling
such craps. BPSC is necessary" Although I STRONGLY dislike crappy bicycles (no matter where they
came from), there is little evidence that cheap utility bicycles sold in Japan cause more
accidents compared to the other kind of bicycles. Of course, I will (and every cyclist should)
support the efforts to improve the standards of the bicycle, and propagate the correct
information that decent bikes (not cheap ones) have the value for money, but not by means BPSC. I
will add that, according to several sources, cheap folding bikes sold in Japan seem to have
miserable safety records, there should be some kind of additional standards and/or regulation on
folding bikes sold in Japan.
4. BPSC requires a bicycle should be a finished product before putting the PSC sticker on it. The
sticker should be put by the maker of the bicycle. Hence, it makes customization of a bicycle at
a shop rather difficult (e.g. You can't put a PSC sticker on a bicycle equipped with custom
wheels at a shop). It is widely believed among the followers of the BPSC, to avoid the problem,
Japanese bicycle industries presented a draft which distinguish 'utility' bikes (so called
mama-chari) and 'sports' bikes (MTB, ROAD etc.), and limit the BPSC application only to
mama-charis. Some 'sports' bike users seem to be satisfied with this widely spread rumor. My
opinions on the matter are,
a) First, bicycles will become non-vehicle (see point 1), then, utility bikes and sports bikes
will be treated separately by the law, what a discriminative hierarchy!
b) In many cases it is impossible to distinguish 'sports' bikes and 'utility' ones, how you can?
c) Don't mamacharis need customization at a shop?
d) Do you believe in a rumor?
There should be many other arguments such as on education or maintenances, but not yet done.
In response to our objections, a BPSC follower argued as the following.
"According to the (Japanese reference site of) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/success/bikes.html
CPSC regulations in US reduce deaths in bicycle accidents by 25%. No matter what the MINER
discomforts, we will strongly support the BPSC for the purpose of reducing cyclist's death."
I responded:
e) According to the many articles found on the web (such as written by John Forester), the CPSC's
statement is doubtful.
f) Virtually, all utility bicycles operated in Japan were already equipped with rear reflector and
a set of pedal reflectors, the CPSC reflector argument is irrelevant to the Japanese bicycle.
The final answer from one of the BPSC supporting people was "You are an all-or-nothing perfectionist
without your own opinion. You are a net-junky. BPSC is already on the way because 'Rin-kai' supports
it. We will support the BPSC for better safety and future of bicycle consumers!"
I can't understand why I was called as above.
Sorry for being so long. Then my questions are,
************THE QUESTIONS.**************** Do CPSC regulations on bicycle any good for US people? Is
there any objective evidence that the CPSC regulations (including and/or other than the reflector
regulation) reduce the number of accidents?
******************************************
As I wrote above, I know classic arguments such as John Forester's one (google search is handy). So
please refrain from the unnecessary repetitions if possible. Analysis of the article on the CPSC
site is welcome. I will appreciate positive opinions about CPSC regulations (criticisms are welcome,
of course).
Finally, I must apologize that I don't use my real name for this post. As in the middle of the
discussion on the Japanese bulletin board, someone repetitively wrote to me "You should LITTERARY
DIE". I've got a little nervous.
FYI, above-mentioned discussion had been carried out at
http://sports.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/bicycle/1045231826/ Unfortunately, due to the **** bulletin
board system, you cannot read them (past discussion) unless you register (and pay fee) to the
system. I have a full (Japanese) text (about 250KB) of the discussion at hand and can send it by
E-mail by request (my account is E-mail reachable).
Jitensha Norio (not a real name), a Japanese cyclist. Had been identified as No. 73 on the
above-mentioned board.
QUESTIONS.**************** line.
Recently, METI (Japanese ministry of economy, trade, and industry), a major group of Japanese
bicycle industries, and representatives of Japanese bicycle society (called Rin-kai) presented a
plan to apply Product Safety Consumer (PSC) act to bicycles. According to the plan, a PSC sticker
will be put on a bicycle which passed the new PSC regulation, and one can't sell a bicycle without
the sticker.
I will call this plan BPSC.
In an anonymous bulletin board on the net a few people including me are objecting BPSC because of
the following reasons.
1. Current Japanese PSC act explicitly precludes "traffic vehicles" from its target. Traffic
vehicles are defined in the Japanese Traffic Vehicle Law, and a bicycle is a traffic vehicle by
the law. Therefore, to apply PSC act to bicycles, it is necessary to change the PSC act and
redefine **bicycle as non-vehicle** within
it. I can't believe it is a good thing.
2. There are other regulations that already have been applied to bicycles, such as traffic vehicle
standards (which covers lights, brakes, reflectors, etc.) and JIS (i.e. Japanese Industrial
Standard that covers fork strength, reflectors, and so on). BPSC will be redundant and will make
bad confusion. It is better to integrate the bicycle regulation under the control of Japanese
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Traffic, not under METI.
3. The followers of the BPSC argue as the following: "Because of the recent increase of crude and
cheep utility bicycles (mainly imported from Mainland China), safety of Japanese bicycle
consumers is threatened enormously. It is necessary to have a regulation which invalidate selling
such craps. BPSC is necessary" Although I STRONGLY dislike crappy bicycles (no matter where they
came from), there is little evidence that cheap utility bicycles sold in Japan cause more
accidents compared to the other kind of bicycles. Of course, I will (and every cyclist should)
support the efforts to improve the standards of the bicycle, and propagate the correct
information that decent bikes (not cheap ones) have the value for money, but not by means BPSC. I
will add that, according to several sources, cheap folding bikes sold in Japan seem to have
miserable safety records, there should be some kind of additional standards and/or regulation on
folding bikes sold in Japan.
4. BPSC requires a bicycle should be a finished product before putting the PSC sticker on it. The
sticker should be put by the maker of the bicycle. Hence, it makes customization of a bicycle at
a shop rather difficult (e.g. You can't put a PSC sticker on a bicycle equipped with custom
wheels at a shop). It is widely believed among the followers of the BPSC, to avoid the problem,
Japanese bicycle industries presented a draft which distinguish 'utility' bikes (so called
mama-chari) and 'sports' bikes (MTB, ROAD etc.), and limit the BPSC application only to
mama-charis. Some 'sports' bike users seem to be satisfied with this widely spread rumor. My
opinions on the matter are,
a) First, bicycles will become non-vehicle (see point 1), then, utility bikes and sports bikes
will be treated separately by the law, what a discriminative hierarchy!
b) In many cases it is impossible to distinguish 'sports' bikes and 'utility' ones, how you can?
c) Don't mamacharis need customization at a shop?
d) Do you believe in a rumor?
There should be many other arguments such as on education or maintenances, but not yet done.
In response to our objections, a BPSC follower argued as the following.
"According to the (Japanese reference site of) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/success/bikes.html
CPSC regulations in US reduce deaths in bicycle accidents by 25%. No matter what the MINER
discomforts, we will strongly support the BPSC for the purpose of reducing cyclist's death."
I responded:
e) According to the many articles found on the web (such as written by John Forester), the CPSC's
statement is doubtful.
f) Virtually, all utility bicycles operated in Japan were already equipped with rear reflector and
a set of pedal reflectors, the CPSC reflector argument is irrelevant to the Japanese bicycle.
The final answer from one of the BPSC supporting people was "You are an all-or-nothing perfectionist
without your own opinion. You are a net-junky. BPSC is already on the way because 'Rin-kai' supports
it. We will support the BPSC for better safety and future of bicycle consumers!"
I can't understand why I was called as above.
Sorry for being so long. Then my questions are,
************THE QUESTIONS.**************** Do CPSC regulations on bicycle any good for US people? Is
there any objective evidence that the CPSC regulations (including and/or other than the reflector
regulation) reduce the number of accidents?
******************************************
As I wrote above, I know classic arguments such as John Forester's one (google search is handy). So
please refrain from the unnecessary repetitions if possible. Analysis of the article on the CPSC
site is welcome. I will appreciate positive opinions about CPSC regulations (criticisms are welcome,
of course).
Finally, I must apologize that I don't use my real name for this post. As in the middle of the
discussion on the Japanese bulletin board, someone repetitively wrote to me "You should LITTERARY
DIE". I've got a little nervous.
FYI, above-mentioned discussion had been carried out at
http://sports.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/bicycle/1045231826/ Unfortunately, due to the **** bulletin
board system, you cannot read them (past discussion) unless you register (and pay fee) to the
system. I have a full (Japanese) text (about 250KB) of the discussion at hand and can send it by
E-mail by request (my account is E-mail reachable).
Jitensha Norio (not a real name), a Japanese cyclist. Had been identified as No. 73 on the
above-mentioned board.