Why not generator lights?

[Frank Krygowski]

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:39:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The good set of lights I use now is a quartz* halogen bulb, 2.4W or 3W,
>> driven by a generator. And everyone who has ever commented on it has
>>agreed it's perfectly sufficient for nighttime city riding. This
>>includes both those making spontaneous comments on my lights, and those
>>taking part in organized night-riding workshops for my bike club.
>>
>>* Actually, I can't be positive about the "quartz" part. Some halogen
>>bulbs use quartz envelopes and some don't. But AFAIK there's no
>>practical difference in the amount of light emanated.
>
>
> My understanding (from about 20 years ago, when they first were coming
> out), is that iodine (the preferred halogen) will etch common
> borosilicate glass. Fused quartz was the cheapest glass that would
> contain iodine at the working temperature of a lamp. So the odds are
> pretty good that yours is a _quartz_ halogen bulb.
>

It's possible. But, OTOH, maybe not. See
http://www.reflectalite.com/halogenpage.html

and the paragraph at the bottom regarding touching the glass. It reads
in part "These Halogen bulbs are not damaged by being touched as they
are made from hard glass, not quartz."

At least some of my bulbs have come from that source.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

>
> Bicycle lights are different than the various other gadgets with
> batteries, since good lights are essential for safety, and let you give
> up a much more wasteful transport mode.

I agree that good lights are essential for safety. That's why I use
them. But that statement has nothing to do with batteries!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Patrick Lamb]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Joe Haggadah wrote:
>
>> Mega-lights are not required. The so-called "mega-
>> lights," like the HID lights, while they do increase
>> safety, are an unnecessary expense, unless you want
>> the high-efficiency that they provide. There
>> are lights in between high power HID and toy lights
>> such as the 2.4W generator powered lights. I find
>> the 6W Performance light to provide very good
>> illumination, and there are 10W-20W battery
>> powered lights that achieve excellent illumination,
>> at low prices ($50 or so). Or you can build your
>> own for even less.
>
>
> Argh, I get so tired of the exaggerations, "stadium lights," putting
> nuclear power plants on your bike, and now "Mega-Lights." This need for
> such gross exaggeration is an attempt to justify the use of the very low
> power lights which are what so many posters in this, and other threads,
> have shown to be inadequate.

So glad you enjoyed the humor! Two points, though:

(1) As somebody else mentioned, Cateye did call their HIDs "stadium
lights." Weren't they the first ones to put HIDs out for mass market
cyclists?

(2) You missed the point that neither you nor anyone else has given any
reference other than their (your?) own personal preference to draw the
line at what power lamp is adequate for safe cycling. Some of us enjoy
making fun of the "more is better" school of thought. Surely a HID
light and two dozen blinkies are more conspicuous than 10W halogen and
only half a dozen blinkies!

>> The point of the thread was that the minimum legally
>> required amount of lighting has been proven to be
>> insufficient. And of course, as others have correctly
>> pointed out, the entire premise of the thread is faulty,
>> since asking people if the didn't see something is a pretty
>> stupid question to begin with. The fact that cyclists are
>> sometimes hit in broad daylight has nothing to do with
>> seeing cyclists at night. This is a ridiculous comparison.

Uhm, err, I didn't see that proof. From the tales we've read, I think
there are only four edge cases. One fog, one a** yelling at a bicyclist
(if you read his post, the cager saw the cyclist), one dim light of
questionable legality, and one left hook accident victim.

You're wrong; since we're trying to adduce how much light is needed, we
have to consider the fact that daylit left hooks occur to decide whether
this night incident is relevant. How do you propose to handle this
case? Should all cyclists be required to have something that will,
without fail, attract motorists' attention, even in daylight, since such
accidents occur then too? Should we all wear multiple dazzling lights
all the time, so nobody can ever claim they didn't see a cyclist? Shall
all cyclists be required to have an air horn? Shall we hook the horn up
to a battery so they're never silent, because we're never sure when
someone will come out of a driveway? (I tell you, I'm going to be
awfully unpopular if that happens, riding down a suburban street
sounding like a freight train.) Personally, I think "I didn't see the
cyclist" is more a confession by a cager than anything else. I don't
know if, in this particular night-time left hook, the driver couldn't
see the cyclist, which indicates more lighting was needed, or didn' see
him, indicating a poor driver who needs to have his license revoked.

Back to the larger question. My state law says the light has to be
visible 500 feet away. I'm interested in the minimum lighting levels
that are (a) legal and (b) safe for cycling. I've tried various
combinations from 25W down to 6W, battery powered halogen lights. They
seem to work, as far as car drivers seeing me. Others have chimed in
saying their 2.4W lights are adequate. Apparently you've drawn the line
at 6W. I'd still be interested if you have any evidence, studies,
reasoning based on observations, or personal experience to back up that
6W minimum. (Please note that "clearly," "it's been shown," and "it is
obvious" are conclusions that need to be backed up with solid evidence,
reasoning, or logical arguments.)

Pat

 

[Frank Krygowski]

David Damerell wrote:

> quoting Matt O'Toole <[email protected]>:
>
>>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Argh, I get so tired of the exaggerations, "stadium lights,"
>>>>
>>>>That's a Cateye trade name for their HIDs, not hyperbole from this
>>>>forum.
>>>
>>>Right. I would have thought everybody knew that!
>>
>>Especially the world's greatest expert...
>
>
> Hey, don't knock Scharf. He discovered the "SON tire dynamo" he posts
> about, which us lesser mortals have never heard of. That's expertise.

I think Scharf's making progress. He may now understand that cars do
have reflectors (now that I've pointed it out to him).

From what I can tell, though, he's still desparately confused about
what a "lumen" is. That's a very odd condition for the "world's
greatest expert" on lights!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> Back to the larger question. My state law says the light has to be
> visible 500 feet away. I'm interested in the minimum lighting levels
> that are (a) legal and (b) safe for cycling. I've tried various
> combinations from 25W down to 6W, battery powered halogen lights. They
> seem to work, as far as car drivers seeing me. Others have chimed in
> saying their 2.4W lights are adequate. Apparently you've drawn the line
> at 6W. I'd still be interested if you have any evidence, studies,
> reasoning based on observations, or personal experience to back up that
> 6W minimum.

AFAIK, no scientific studies have been undertaken.

You can see the observations of various cycling experts (Kifer,
Goodman), and statements from bicycle advocacy organizations at
"http://nordicgroup.us/s78/dynamo.html"

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> > This is also true. Too much self-discharge can ruin nicad and NiMH
> cells, even
> > if you do remember to recharge them. The worse mistake you can
> make
> is to turn
> > on a light that's been sitting awhile. If one cell has gone
> flatter than the
> > others, it can be ruined by charge reversal. So if your lights
> have been > sitting through the summer, charge them up before
> turning them on,
> even for a
> > second or two.
>
> Actually it doesn’t ruin Ni-Cads, since the battery can easily be
> recovered by zapping the internal short.

Not always, and most people aren't up to a task like this.

Matt O.

 

[Mark Janeba]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> I think that Ed [Kearney] inspired a whole industry, by showing the advantages of
> good lighting, versus what was available at the time.
>
> His rear light was not a "mega" light, other than the physical size.
> When I was manufacturing lighting systems I looked at the barrier
> lights, but thought they were just too large, and had too slow of a
> flash rate, though they did have the advantage of easy bulb replacement.

FWIW, the Kearney barricade flashers I have flash at about twice the
rate of the old Belt Beacons. I think more than size or brightness, it
helps because people quickly "recognize" it as a hazard. "People go
around you like a hole in the road." They *are* large, and mounting is
a moderate pain; a rear rack is pretty much required.

Kearney rated the flasher at 20 hours on 4 AA batteries. I've never
tested the rating directly; when we were riding randonneur stuff I
usually found it was several (overnight) rides per set of batteries; at
any rate, I don't remember changing batteries very often.

Currently I commute with the flasher rigged off the SLA battery that
powers my headlamp; the headlight is the limiting factor on runtime.

Mark Janeba

 

[David Damerell]

begin quoting Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]>:
>Patrick Lamb wrote:
>>saying their 2.4W lights are adequate. Apparently you've drawn the line
>>at 6W. I'd still be interested if you have any evidence, studies,
>>reasoning based on observations, or personal experience to back up that
>>6W minimum.
>AFAIK, no scientific studies have been undertaken.

*cough* UK Department for Transport. As you've been told.

[Patrick; the significant difference is between "lights" and "no lights",
even when "lights" includes sub-legal setups like yellow front blinkies.]

>You can see the observations of various cycling experts (Kifer,

It's easy to put words into the mouths of the dead; but tell me, what
lights did Ken Kifer actually _use_?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> Patrick Lamb wrote:
>
>> Back to the larger question. My state law says the light has to be
>> visible 500 feet away. I'm interested in the minimum lighting levels
>> that are (a) legal and (b) safe for cycling. I've tried various
>> combinations from 25W down to 6W, battery powered halogen lights.
>> They seem to work, as far as car drivers seeing me. Others have
>> chimed in saying their 2.4W lights are adequate. Apparently you've
>> drawn the line at 6W. I'd still be interested if you have any
>> evidence, studies, reasoning based on observations, or personal
>> experience to back up that 6W minimum.
>
>
> AFAIK, no scientific studies have been undertaken.

If that's "as far as you know," then it's _obviously_ time to drop the
"World's Greatest Expert" nonsense.

I posted data from such a study within the past two weeks. One version
of the resulting report is titled "Conspicuity for Pedestrians an
Bicyclists: Definition of the Problem, Development and Test of
Configurations" by Blomberg, Hale & Preusser. This is a US DOT report,
# DOT HS 806 563. I earlier quoted from a different report by the same
team.

In this test, drivers were spotting low power antique leg lights at a
mean distance of 1300 feet. These are the kind powered by two C-cells,
with non-halogen bulbs, with MUCH less than 6 watts. Various reflectors
were spotted over 800 feet away.


Scharf is often in error, but never in doubt!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 04:57:31 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Come on now. You charge your cell phone, your digital camera, your PDA,
>your notebook PC, etc. It's not something you give a second thought to.
>You get home, or get to work, and connect the device(s) to the charger,
>via a dock or a plug.

[snip]

Dear Steven,

If I had a cell phone, digital camera, PDA, or notebook
computer, I might remember to charge them.

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>I think Scharf's making progress. He may now understand that cars do
>have reflectors (now that I've pointed it out to him).

Dear Frank,

I expect that this has been discussed, but I don't recall
seeing much about it.

If bicycle lights that meet minimum requirements are
perfectly adequate for such small vehicles generally going
slower than traffic, should they also be adequate for cars
going as slowly in traffic?

If so, why are slow-moving cars usually adorned with
extremely bright flashing lights and huge orange warning
triangles?

Carl Fogel

 

[Matt O'Toole]

[email protected] wrote:

> If bicycle lights that meet minimum requirements are
> perfectly adequate for such small vehicles generally going
> slower than traffic, should they also be adequate for cars
> going as slowly in traffic?

Yes, which is why European cars have "city lights" barely as bright as a bike
light, for going through downtown areas. It keeps the headlight glare down when
the extra light is not needed, yet still presents the light signature of an
automobile.

> If so, why are slow-moving cars usually adorned with
> extremely bright flashing lights and huge orange warning
> triangles?

Because when other drivers see the light signature of a car or truck, they
expect that vehicle to be moving faster. When people see a single red blinkie,
they expect it to be moving slowly.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:28:17 -0500, "Matt O'Toole"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> If bicycle lights that meet minimum requirements are
>> perfectly adequate for such small vehicles generally going
>> slower than traffic, should they also be adequate for cars
>> going as slowly in traffic?
>
>Yes, which is why European cars have "city lights" barely as bright as a bike
>light, for going through downtown areas. It keeps the headlight glare down when
>the extra light is not needed, yet still presents the light signature of an
>automobile.
>
>> If so, why are slow-moving cars usually adorned with
>> extremely bright flashing lights and huge orange warning
>> triangles?
>
>Because when other drivers see the light signature of a car or truck, they
>expect that vehicle to be moving faster. When people see a single red blinkie,
>they expect it to be moving slowly.
>
>Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Does expectation matter more than the brightness that people
are debating?

That is, even though drivers would see the slow car or
bicycle at the same distance if both were using minimum code
bicycle lights, they would avoid the bicycle and smash into
the car?

If so, could width be a factor here beyond mere recognition?
That is, the bicycle is narrower than a car, so a last
moment swerve that avoids a bicycle would still smack into
half a car?

What do you think about slow motorcycles? Same signature as
bicycles, but I suspect that they have much higher lighting
requirements. Is it just the blinking?

On your other interesting point, are U.S. drivers being
blinded by the unnecessary glare in cities that you say
European drivers are avoiding?

Carl Fogel

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> writes:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Only if you choose to tie yourself down to all that malarkey.
>
> Yes, this is very true, though often much of it is not a choice if
> you want to have a decent job, at least where I am located.
>
>> I like a simple and, as much as I can manage it, ecologically
>> responsible life. Putting batteries in land fills (tips to you
>> Brits) is irresponsible IMHO.
>
> I agree. Rechargeable batteries should be used, and then recycled
> when they no longer work.
>
> Bicycle lights are different than the various other gadgets with
> batteries, since good lights are essential for safety, and let you
> give up a much more wasteful transport mode.

You're quite right, good lights are essential for safety when riding
at night. That's why I use a Lumotec Oval powered by a generator.

> The point was (and is) that connecting a charger to a device is not
> a complex task, even though it does require some discipline to
> remember to do it.

Complex? No. A waste of time and electicity when it is not
necessary? yes.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

[email protected] wrote:

> Does expectation matter more than the brightness that people
> are debating?

I think so, and so do people who work on lighting standards.

> That is, even though drivers would see the slow car or
> bicycle at the same distance if both were using minimum code
> bicycle lights, they would avoid the bicycle and smash into
> the car?

If the car had only one taillight, maybe.

> If so, could width be a factor here beyond mere recognition?
> That is, the bicycle is narrower than a car, so a last
> moment swerve that avoids a bicycle would still smack into
> half a car?

This kind of thing *does* happen -- drivers thinking a single light is a
motorcycle, and not giving it a wide enough berth. It's something to think
about if you're driving around with a headlight or taillight out. It's why the
police write tickets for such things. This stuff is important, and it's why we
have lighting standards.

> What do you think about slow motorcycles? Same signature as
> bicycles, but I suspect that they have much higher lighting
> requirements. Is it just the blinking?

Well, they are brighter, so the light signature isn't the same. So it's not
just the blinking, although most drivers these days wouldn't mistake a blinking
red light for anything but a bicycle, such lights having been the norm for
awhile.

> On your other interesting point, are U.S. drivers being
> blinded by the unnecessary glare in cities that you say
> European drivers are avoiding?

The Euro regs have more to do with light pollution. No one wants lights shining
in their eyes when they're sitting at a cafe, watching TV in their living room
with windows facing the street, or strolling down the sidewalk. Also, brighter
main lights are allowed in Europe to begin with.

Matt O.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On 04 Jan 2005 18:32:14 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[Patrick; the significant difference is between "lights" and "no lights",
>even when "lights" includes sub-legal setups like yellow front blinkies.]

I'd venture to disagree with you there -- I've come across a few
just-barely-lit cyclists that were almost invisible. I suspect most
of them needed new AA batteries...

>begin quoting Steven M. Scharf <[email protected]>:
>>You can see the observations of various cycling experts (Kifer,
>
>It's easy to put words into the mouths of the dead; but tell me, what
>lights did Ken Kifer actually _use_?

Umm, let's see. From :
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/commute/accessor.htm -
"I have been using generator lights for many years, and I find them
very suitable for riding in the country at night and on touring trips.
There are no batteries to fade or go bad, and the light gets brighter
while going downhill. The beam is very wide and thus visible from all
sides. On the other hand, a generator light is not very bright in city
traffic and goes out each time you stop at a red light. ... I have no
experience with bottle battery lights"

So Ken used a generator light, one of the older versions without an
LED standlight, and found it adequate for most of his riding.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[Steven M. Scharf]

Patrick Lamb wrote:

> So Ken used a generator light, one of the older versions without an
> LED standlight, and found it adequate for most of his riding.

That was one of Ken's great attributes. He could use a product, yet
recognize its limitations and clearly state them. As he stated, "a
generator light is not very bright in city traffic." I did not put words
into anyone's mouth.

Roughly the same statement has been made by others.

"Generators One of the oldest lighting systems is the generator. This
type of lighting works off a generator (or dynamo) that is powered when
it makes contact with the bicycle's tire. A generator system is often
set up to power a headlight and a taillight. These systems are reliable,
but often lack the power to really light up the road. Generators are
more popular in Europe than in the United States."

"For commuters, the best front light is the very bright rechargeable
lamp. For the day tourer, it's important to carry a small,
battery-powered lamp for the trip that ends up finishing after daylight
has ended. Unfortunately, many of the lights sold for this purpose are
inadequate. For long-distance travelers, those who ride long distances
in the country at night, or those whose habits are sporadic, a generator
front light is bright and always available for use." (Kifer)

"...a cyclist operating at 15 mph can see well enough with less than 600
candlepower (e.g. 12 Watt halogen), and a cyclist operating at 7.5 mph
can see far enough in with less than 150 candlepower (e.g. 3 Watt
halogen). The light provided by a bicycle headlamp may be focused into a
narrow beam for maximum range, or may be spread out for better
peripheral vision. A three Watt lamp can be focused into a beam suitable
for high speed cycling on the darkest roads, but will not give much
illumination of turns."

 

[Frank Krygowski]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I think Scharf's making progress. He may now understand that cars do
>>have reflectors (now that I've pointed it out to him).
>
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> I expect that this has been discussed, but I don't recall
> seeing much about it.
>
> If bicycle lights that meet minimum requirements are
> perfectly adequate for such small vehicles generally going
> slower than traffic, should they also be adequate for cars
> going as slowly in traffic?
>
> If so, why are slow-moving cars usually adorned with
> extremely bright flashing lights and huge orange warning
> triangles?
>
> Carl Fogel

Actually, bikes do have an advantage or two in this regard. First, they
are easier to avoid because of their narrowness. Second, nearly all
night bikes have moving reflectors on pedals and/or wheels, or
(recently) twinking LEDs. The changing pattern of these devices gives
more conspicuity, plus a well-recognized signal that a bicycle is ahead
- as opposed to a reflectorized mailbox.

But there is a good test of your idea. Amish buggies abound within 30
miles of my house. I know by experience that they usually move somewhat
slower than cycling enthusiasts. (It's fun to race them.) They are
used at all hours of day and night.

They typically use lights that appear similar to, or dimmer than, car
taillights. And I know they have problems with nighttime car-buggy
collisions. But I don't know the data on collision frequency versus
that of cars & bikes. Perhaps you'd like to search for that?

It may be that Amish buggies would benefit from LED blinkies, or from
moving reflectors on their wheels. They could be made to reflect
backwards, not merely to the (less useful) sides.

The problem is that Amish attitudes are (to me, anyway) very
unpredictable. Amish rules vary parish by parish, from what I've been
told by their neighbors, etc. Some parishes have fought valiantly to
avoid requirements for reflective "slow moving vehicle" triangles, for
religious reasons. OTOH, I was told of one parish that allowed its
members to drive cars, as long as the cars were used only for
work-related transportation and were painted completely black, including
the "chrome" parts.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom Sherman wrote:

>
>>
>> What about the back wheel?
>
>
> Not any better: <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df10.jpg>.
>

I think it would work on your back wheel. The central hole in the
mounting disk is bored to match a standard front (not rear) axle, but
that could be fixed in five minutes.

The disk with the hole is stationary. It clamps between the left axle's
cone locknut and the inside of the dropout, held in place by the quick
release or axle nut's clamping action. You can see pictures at
http://20999.web.agrinet.ch/shop/artikel_detail.asp?grp=120

BTW, this is a detail, but: I previously called the part that rotates
(driven by the tab in the spokes) a "disk." It's better described as a
ring.

The FER 2002 is a pretty unusual mechanism, and thus a little hard to
describe.

And as an aside, if you're riding a trike of any kind, you won't have
any problem with the unusual appearance of the FER 2002! ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:13:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:41:18 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>I think Scharf's making progress. He may now understand that cars do
>>>have reflectors (now that I've pointed it out to him).
>>
>>
>> Dear Frank,
>>
>> I expect that this has been discussed, but I don't recall
>> seeing much about it.
>>
>> If bicycle lights that meet minimum requirements are
>> perfectly adequate for such small vehicles generally going
>> slower than traffic, should they also be adequate for cars
>> going as slowly in traffic?
>>
>> If so, why are slow-moving cars usually adorned with
>> extremely bright flashing lights and huge orange warning
>> triangles?
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Actually, bikes do have an advantage or two in this regard. First, they
>are easier to avoid because of their narrowness. Second, nearly all
>night bikes have moving reflectors on pedals and/or wheels, or
>(recently) twinking LEDs. The changing pattern of these devices gives
>more conspicuity, plus a well-recognized signal that a bicycle is ahead
>- as opposed to a reflectorized mailbox.
>
>But there is a good test of your idea. Amish buggies abound within 30
>miles of my house. I know by experience that they usually move somewhat
>slower than cycling enthusiasts. (It's fun to race them.) They are
>used at all hours of day and night.
>
>They typically use lights that appear similar to, or dimmer than, car
>taillights. And I know they have problems with nighttime car-buggy
>collisions. But I don't know the data on collision frequency versus
>that of cars & bikes. Perhaps you'd like to search for that?
>
>It may be that Amish buggies would benefit from LED blinkies, or from
>moving reflectors on their wheels. They could be made to reflect
>backwards, not merely to the (less useful) sides.
>
>The problem is that Amish attitudes are (to me, anyway) very
>unpredictable. Amish rules vary parish by parish, from what I've been
>told by their neighbors, etc. Some parishes have fought valiantly to
>avoid requirements for reflective "slow moving vehicle" triangles, for
>religious reasons. OTOH, I was told of one parish that allowed its
>members to drive cars, as long as the cars were used only for
>work-related transportation and were painted completely black, including
>the "chrome" parts.

Dear Frank,

This recent article came to mind, so I looked it up:

http://www.chieftain.com/life/1104576681/1

Damned if I can tell whether it was dark when the truck hit
the buggy from behind and killed the pregnant Amish mother
and her son--a good example of bad reporting. It was
Halloween, they were heading south, it was near the
Cottonwood Club, and so on, but nothing about whether it was
pitch dark or broad daylight.

Interestingly, another buggy from the same area in the top
picture clearly has what a bicyclist would call a huge red
tail light. And it's getting on toward twilight in the
picture.

The husband, who survived his injuries, reads letters of
sympathy by fuel lamp.

An unrelated point occurs to me. If minimum code bicycle or
even car lights are perfectly adequate, why do we spend
enormous amounts of money on street lights?

Carl Fogel