From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Should lights be req. Std. Equipment?
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:38:25 GMT

In <69215@cup.portal.com> SteveSgt@cup.portal.com (Steven Eugene Sergeant) writes:

>	Actually, the DIN_49848-T2 standard that is law in much of Europe
>specifies a generator powered system.  The standard specifies that the
>minimum speed for full light output be no higher than 15_kph (9 mph). 
>Most Europeans I talk to find the idea of battery lights scary because
>of the fear that they might be stuck without lighting when the
>batteries die.
>	
>[Stuff Deleted]
>> As others have pointed out, a high-quality system (one that
>> provides convenience at the level of automobile lighting) would
>> simply be too expensive compared to the rest of a bicycle.

>	I think that the example of Germany, France, Denmark, and the
>Netherlands, among others, prove otherwise.	The DIN standard specifies
>a minimum on-axis luminosity and a set of acceptable dispersion curves
>that ensure the effectiveness of the system.  

I've never seen a generator system capable of putting out
even 10 watts.  Any generator system would be an expensive
piece of garbage that I would need to remove before
installing a safe and effective lighting system.  Surely the
remote risk of battery failure is not as scary as the
knowledge that a generator light is inadequate when
functioning up to specifications.

Also, what sort of generator do you suggest for commuters
who ride on muddy roads with big, knobby mountain bike or
cyclocross tires?  Sidewall and bottom bracket generators
are very difficult to use with really aggressive tread.

>	After reading the replies to my post, I still feel strongly that the
>following two unrefuted reasons why a certain minimum performance
>lighting system should be required equipment on all street licensed
>bicycles at the time of sale:

>1.	NTSB* statistics show that one of the two most common causes
>	of bicycle accidents is preventable by the provision of
>	additional safety equipment on bicycles (lighting).  It is
>	the right thing to do to make our favorite form of
>	transportation safer.

The question, then, is how best to accomplish this.  Require
every bike sold to have a $30+ accessory that most people
will never use, or educate people about the dangers of
riding at night without lights?

>2.	Requiring lighting will provide incentive for the manufacturers
>	of bicycle lighting systems to improve the  performance and the
>	cost effectiveness of their products.  The products available
>	to the public right now are a far cry from what is technically
>	possible.  If the R & D effort and mass production could be put
>	into more advanced lighting systems, the prices for our "minimum
>	system" would most certainly come down significantly.

Since cycling is already commonly accepted as transportation
in Europe, and you cite European requirements as an example,
why has this increased R&D not already given us the high
tech lights you suggest are possible?  Are Americans the
only cost-conscious consumers who can influence
manufacturers?  European manufacturers like Union and
Soubitez have improved their lights a lot, but they are
still dim and inconvenient compared to a good battery
system.

>	Please understand that I'm not advocating taking away your right to
>choose the kind of lighting you can get on your bike (even when you
>first buy it).  I'm just trying to make sure that people don't get
>caught out there on the road at night without it.

OK, how about letting me get *no* lighting system on my bike
when I first buy it, since the lighting system I already own
would cost well over $100 to produce commercially, and
anything less powerful would just take up landfill space.
(Reminds me of the Basso I once saw in a shop, with pedal
reflectors and spoke reflectors because some busybody had
complained to whoever enforces these stupid requirements.)
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:24:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Risk ratio (was: Ticketing illegal cycling)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard SSG/CCSY-PWD, UK.