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

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

On Sep 25, 2:05 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net>­ wrote:

... although the temptation is immense...

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.

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

since about 1977.

- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast­.net> wrote in message

news:qPudnW3oteB0k­2TbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@­comcast.com...

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.

In my opinion.

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.

On Sep 26, 4:32 am, "Greens" <p...@adelphia.net>­ wrote:

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

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:19:54 -0400, "Greens" <prbj@adelphia.net>­

wrote:

Interestingly enough, at least two stores (REI and Performance, IIRC)

have been labeling their lights something like "seeing" and "be seen."

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.

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.

Supposedly you promote cycling with the time you donate lecturing.

I agree completely. Let's put a regulation in place that usenet

trolls like "Greens" should not be allowed to ride a bicycle.

On Sep 26, 2:34 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.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.

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.

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 beam just eliminated rust on the reflector.

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

don't want to make crap?

Joseph

I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,

etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.

I was thinking mostly about longevity, and resistance to vibration,

etc. But anyway, sealed beam is NOT better and the DOT specs are crap.

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.

On Sep 26, 8:46 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geem­ail.com> wrote:

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!"

"vey" <junker@ericvey.com­> wrote in message

news:fdebd4$il4$1@n­ews.datemas.de...

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

that's his problem.

Clive George wrote:

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.

I LIKE RIDING AT NIGHT BECUASE I CAN RIDE ACROOS THE INETRSTATE OR

THRU EVRY INTERSECTION INTON AGAINST THE LIGHTS AND NOBODY SEEZ ME.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:11:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geem­ail.com>

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.

Pat

Email address works as is.

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!

On Sep 26, 8:33 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayha­rt.com> wrote:

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"!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Patrick Lamb wrote:

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.

vey 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.

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.

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.

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

C'mon. now you are getting stupid. Headlights burn out. Does this mean

cars shouldn't come with headlights?

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.

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.