From: SteveSgt@cup.portal.com (Steven Eugene Sergeant)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Should lights be req. Std. Equipment?
Date: Mon,  9 Nov 92 23:34:50 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

On 8 Nov 92, ed@titipu.resun.com (Edward Reid) wrote:
> josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam) writes:
> > I can't think of any standard lighting system that would not
> > be a burden on almost all cyclists.  The majority do not
> > ride in the dark, so the lighting is wasted money.  Those of
> > us who ride in the dark a lot would throw away whatever
> > cheap system was used to squeeze past the requirements
> 
> Perhaps most significantly, the group that is most at risk is the
> un-knowledgeable -- those who don't understand the danger, or
> don't care about it.  Requiring lights as standard equipment on
> automobiles works, because those people always have lights
> available at the flip of a switch. But the "cheap system that
> squeezed past the requirements" is certain to be one that uses
> non-rechargeable batteries,

	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.  The idea is that the
standard mandates a certain performance and it's up to manufacturers to
find the least expensive way to implement it.

> 
> It would be great if by requiring simple equipment,
> we could ensure everyone's safety.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	That, of course, is never really possible.

[Stuff Deleted]
> 
> Perhaps the only argument in favor of lights as standard
> equipment is that the US CPSC requires a bunch of near-useless
> reflectors which do little except to lull people into thinking
> the bike is night-safe, so they should instead require equipment
> which actually makes the bike night-safe.  I don't buy it.

	For the first couple of years, people will grumble about how the cost
of bicycles has risen slightly because of the new lighting
requirements.  But the top two causes of accidents between bicycles and
automobiles are: 1) Riding the wrong way in traffic, and 2) riding at
night without lighting.
	The average person who is ignorant of such statistics will always tend
to buy whatever is cheapest, even if lacks the basic requirements for
their safety.  If there only choices have the minimum acceptable safety
equipment, they will most likely use it.  After they get use to it,
many may even decide to upgrade to something better.

[Remainder of Edward's message Deleted]
------

	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.

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.

	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.

------
* National Transportation Safety Board, Annual Transportation Safety
Review for 1990, issued March 1991.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Sergeant            Internet:  SteveSgt@torrent.sj.ca.us
3266 Tulipwood Ln.           Radio:  KC6ZKT [@N0ARY.#NOCAL.US.NA]
San Jose, CA  95132          GEnie:  STEVSERGEANT
(408) 945-0395                 FAX:  (408) 945-0543
Audio Engineering, Music, Macintosh, Bicycles, Backcountry, Japan
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc