High powered lighting on cycles

[ash[_2_]]

As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
from dazzling.

It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

[SW[_3_]]

On 16/11/2010 09:54, ash wrote:
> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> from dazzling.

The danger on the roads comes from cars, not bikes.

>
> It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

Yes it would.

[FrengaX]

On Nov 16, 9:54*am, ash > wrote:
> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> from dazzling.
>
> It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

How's that going to help? A car headlight, once adjusted, will tend to
stay put. Cycle lights are removable and adjustable. Test it one day,
it'll have moved the next, rendering the whole thing pointless.

[JMS]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:26:50 +0000, SW > wrote:

>On 16/11/2010 09:54, ash wrote:
>> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
>> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
>> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
>> from dazzling.
>
>The danger on the roads comes from cars, not bikes.
--

Pyscholist Rule Number 6

In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.

[PhilO]

On Nov 16, 12:52*pm, JMS > wrote:
> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>
That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?

PhilO

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 12:31*pm, FrengaX > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:54*am, ash > wrote:
>
> > As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> > advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> > lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> > from dazzling.
>
> > It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> > maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.
>
> How's that going to help? A car headlight, once adjusted, will tend to
> stay put. Cycle lights are removable and adjustable. Test it one day,
> it'll have moved the next, rendering the whole thing pointless.

It is fairly obvious that as part of the test, the bracket would be
checked to ensure that it is securely fixed for correct alignment and
cannot be easily displaced. If it means that a standard for this type
of light is implemented like a car or motorcyle has to conform to,
then so be it.

Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:

> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !

If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
taking into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the
cost will be high and the benefits un-noticable.

[bugbear]

ash wrote:
> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> from dazzling.
>
> It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

Obviously with a lumens or lux threshold below which dazzling is
deemed "not a risk".

BugBear

[JMS]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), PhilO >
wrote:

>On Nov 16, 12:52*pm, JMS > wrote:
>> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>>
>That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?
>
>PhilO



Don't be so stupid - of course it is one of the true rules.

I wonder about you sometimes.

--

Pyscholist Rule Number 6

In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 1:25*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>
> > Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
> > in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>
> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
> taking into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the
> cost will be high and the benefits un-noticable.

How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2010 13:37, ash wrote:
> On Nov 16, 1:25 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>
>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>
>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
>> taking into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the
>> cost will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>
> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?

Same as if any other number of improbable things happens.

How much of a problem is ths this? Have you got any numbers? If you
don't, we don't have enough evidence to proceed.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 1:47*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 13:37, ash wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 1:25 pm, Clive > *wrote:
> >> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>
> >>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
> >>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>
> >> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
> >> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
> >> taking into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the
> >> cost will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>
> > How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
> > caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>
> Same as if any other number of improbable things happens.
>
> How much of a problem is ths this? Have you got any numbers? If you
> don't, we don't have enough evidence to proceed.

If it were not a problem they would not insist on motor vehicles to
have this as part of their MOT. This thread is in reference to new
technology emerging for cycles not your old sturmey archer lamp
pushing out 2 candle power, and yes I have personally been dazzled by
cyclists with badly misaligned ultrabright front lights. If I am
getting dazzled, then so are others.

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"PhilO" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 16, 12:52 pm, JMS > wrote:
>> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>>
> That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?
>
> PhilO

It's becoming an established rule.

[SW[_3_]]

On 16/11/2010 12:52, JMS wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 12:26:50 +0000, > wrote:
>
>> On 16/11/2010 09:54, ash wrote:
>>> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
>>> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
>>> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
>>> from dazzling.
>>
>> The danger on the roads comes from cars, not bikes.
> --
>
> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>
> In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
> It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.

Troll Rule Number 1

When unable to answer a valid point made by another poster, resort
immediately to ad hominem.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

ash > wrote:

> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?

Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
ever? Or is your imagination running away with you?

--
Tony

[SW[_3_]]

On 16/11/2010 13:58, Mr. Benn wrote:
> "PhilO" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Nov 16, 12:52 pm, JMS > wrote:
>>> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>>>
>> That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?
>>
>> PhilO
>
> It's becoming an established rule.

Only to people with mental health issues who believe that repeating
things makes them true.

[bugbear]

Tony Raven wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>
> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
> ever? Or is your imagination running away with you?
>

Was this dazzling caused by a straw man that was on fire? ;-)

BugBear

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 2:05*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> ash > wrote:
> > How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
> > caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>
> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
> ever? *Or is your imagination running away with you?
>
> --
> Tony

When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my journeys
like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour, so the answer
is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was noteworthy and
substantially more of a problem than any other vehicle around it.

There are lies damned lies and statistics. Which do you belive to be
true Tony ?

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2010 13:55, ash wrote:
> On Nov 16, 1:47 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 16/11/2010 13:37, ash wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 1:25 pm, Clive > wrote:
>>>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>
>>>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>>>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>
>>>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
>>>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
>>>> taking into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the
>>>> cost will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>>
>>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
>>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>>
>> Same as if any other number of improbable things happens.
>>
>> How much of a problem is ths this? Have you got any numbers? If you
>> don't, we don't have enough evidence to proceed.
>
> If it were not a problem they would not insist on motor vehicles to
> have this as part of their MOT. This thread is in reference to new
> technology emerging for cycles not your old sturmey archer lamp
> pushing out 2 candle power, and yes I have personally been dazzled by
> cyclists with badly misaligned ultrabright front lights. If I am
> getting dazzled, then so are others.

So you don't have any numbers. If you want to propose some regulation,
you'll need to provide hard evidence to justify it. Otherwise it's just
hot air.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

ash wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> ash > wrote:
>>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
>>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
>> ever? Or is your imagination running away with you?
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>
> When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my journeys
> like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour, so the answer
> is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was noteworthy and
> substantially more of a problem than any other vehicle around it.
>
> There are lies damned lies and statistics. Which do you belive to be
> true Tony ?

Or any news report on the matter would do. Surely with all the
attention they give to cyclists there would be a headline somewhere
about being dazzled by a cyclist's light causing an accident. Lots of
Google hits on cyclists being hit by drivers dazzled by the sun or
cyclists being dazzled by cars but none on cyclists dazzling drivers let
alone causing an accident as a result.

Can you come up with any evidence at all that it has ever happened or
shall we just bin it as your fevered imagination and less likely than
being hit on the head by a meteorite?

Tony

[bugbear]

ash wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Tony > wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
>>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>>
>> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
>> ever? Or is your imagination running away with you?
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>
> When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my journeys
> like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour, so the answer
> is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was noteworthy and
> substantially more of a problem than any other vehicle around it.

If it doesn't pass Judith's test (peer reviewed paper)
it didn't happen.

Apparently.

BugBear

[FrengaX]

On Nov 16, 1:17*pm, ash > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:31*pm, FrengaX > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:54*am, ash > wrote:
>
> > > As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> > > advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> > > lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> > > from dazzling.
>
> > > It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> > > maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.
>
> > How's that going to help? A car headlight, once adjusted, will tend to
> > stay put. Cycle lights are removable and adjustable. Test it one day,
> > it'll have moved the next, rendering the whole thing pointless.
>
> It is fairly obvious that as part of the test, the bracket would be
> checked to ensure that it is securely fixed for correct alignment and
> cannot be easily displaced. *If it means that a standard for this type
> of light is implemented like a car or motorcyle has to conform to,
> then so be it.
>
> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !

Utter rubbish. It's perfectly clear that you have this strange notion
that introducing burdensone licensing and regulation for cycles and
their riders will somehow solve all the problems you perceive with
them, much as certain other posters here.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 3:14*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> ash wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >> ash > wrote:
> >>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
> >>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
> >> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
> >> ever? *Or is your imagination running away with you?
>
> >> --
> >> Tony
>
> > When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my journeys
> > like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour, so the answer
> > is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was noteworthy and
> > substantially more of a problem than any other vehicle around it.
>
> > There are lies damned lies and statistics. Which do you belive to be
> > true Tony ?
>
> Or any news report on the matter would do. *Surely with all the
> attention they give to cyclists there would be a headline somewhere
> about being dazzled by a cyclist's light causing an accident. *Lots of
> Google hits on cyclists being hit by drivers dazzled by the sun or
> cyclists being dazzled by cars but none on cyclists dazzling drivers let
> alone causing an accident as a result.
>
> Can you come up with any evidence at all that it has ever happened or
> shall we just bin it as your fevered imagination and less likely than
> being hit on the head by a meteorite?
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yet again you are being selective to dismiss anything which falls
outside your belief system. They were discussing it here 2 years ago
- read the comments and then tell me it is a figment of my
imagination



http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/gadget-master/2008/11/ultrabright-and-ultradurable-l.html

I would say you are in denial over this problem. consider those around
you affected by your actions and point your light at the road where it
belongs - if you use one Tony

[Phil Cook]

ash wrote:

>On Nov 16, 12:31*pm, FrengaX > wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 9:54*am, ash > wrote:
>>
>> > As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
>> > advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
>> > lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
>> > from dazzling.
>>
>> > It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
>> > maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

>Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !

Oh yes, of course, but the number of times I have to use my dipping
mirror or the handy peak on my cap when driving to avoid being blinded
by car headlights illustrates the pointlessness of an MOT test in
reducing the problem. Passing an MOT test means that the car or
whatever vehicle passes the test at that time. If the driver goes out
and dinks it bending the alignment of the lights or whatever then it
won't then pass the test but still has an MOT certificate.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

[Mr Pounder]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), PhilO >
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 16, 12:52 pm, JMS > wrote:
>>> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>>>
>>That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?
>>
>>PhilO
>
>
>
> Don't be so stupid - of course it is one of the true rules.
>
> I wonder about you sometimes.
>
> --
>
> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>
> In an argument - if the going gets really tough - fall back on the "But
> what about motorists, they are much worse ...."
> It does no good to the actual argument - but it shows you up as a real
> prat - and hence you are living up to the psycholist creed.

Don't you think you have wound these prats up enough with Rule Number 6
Judith?

Mr Pounder
>

[Mr Pounder]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>
>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>
> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights, taking
> into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the cost
> will be high and the benefits un-noticable.

Cost cost.
Are all cyclists free loading skint merchants?

Mr Pounder
>

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2010 18:13, Mr Pounder wrote:
> "Clive > wrote in message
> o.uk...
>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>
>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>
>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights, taking
>> into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the cost
>> will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>
> Cost cost.
> Are all cyclists free loading skint merchants?

What's free loading about not wanting to present a burden on the state?

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 08:10:00 -0800 (PST), ash > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:14Â*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> > ash wrote:
> > > On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> > >> ash > wrote:

> > >>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the
> > >>> other way caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into
> > >>> you ?
> > >>
> > >> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly
> > >> happened ever? Â*Or is your imagination running away with you?
> > >
> > > When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my
> > > journeys like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour,
> > > so the answer is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was
> > > noteworthy and substantially more of a problem than any other
> > > vehicle around it.
> >
> > Can you come up with any evidence at all that it has ever happened
> > or shall we just bin it as your fevered imagination and less
> > likely than being hit on the head by a meteorite?
>
> Yet again you are being selective to dismiss anything which falls
> outside your belief system. They were discussing it here 2 years
> ago - read the comments and then tell me it is a figment of my
> imagination
>
> http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/gadget-master/2008/11/ultrabright-and-ultradurable-l.html

It's a figment of your imagination.

There is no account (or other evidence) in the information on the page
you quoted of any accident resulting from a road user being dazzled by
lights on a bicycle.

We seem to have gone from why don't any cyclists ever have lights on
to why are all cyclists always dazzling everyone else, with hardly a
pause to draw breath. Perhaps someone could clarify - are cyclists a
menace because they are dressed in black and have no lights, or are
they a menace because they resemble the noon-day sun and burn out the
retinas of all who gaze upon them?

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

ash > wrote:

> Yet again you are being selective to dismiss anything which falls
> outside your belief system. They were discussing it here 2 years ago
> - read the comments and then tell me it is a figment of my
> imagination
>
>
>
> http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/gadget-master/2008/11/ultrabright-and-ultradurable-l.html
>
> I would say you are in denial over this problem. consider those around
> you affected by your actions and point your light at the road where it
> belongs - if you use one Tony

Nope, read it and the comments and there is nothing about a "dazzling
idiot coming the other way caused someone else in a bus or lorry to
swerve into you ?"

So I repeat do you have any evidence that it's anything other than a
figment of your imagination?

--
Tony

[JMS]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:10:17 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
> wrote:

<snip>


>Don't you think you have wound these prats up enough with Rule Number 6
>Judith?
>
>Mr Pounder
>>
>



Yes - you are right.

I will fish out the official rule book tomorrow and see if there are
any more which are relevant.

[DavidR[_2_]]

"ash" > wrote

> As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> from dazzling.

It's merely to keep up in the lighting arms race.

> It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.

Today there was a heavy mist (some might have called it fog). Coming home
ths evening took a long time because I had to pass a crash. I bet the person
involved had been dazzled or disorientated by all the unnecessary and
excessively bright lighting that's being carried around on cars.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

bugbear wrote:
> ash wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2:05 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> How much is your life worth if a dazzling idiot coming the other way
>>>> caused someone else in a bus or lorry to swerve into you ?
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence of that having happened or even nearly happened
>>> ever? Or is your imagination running away with you?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony
>>
>> When you say 'evidence' do you mean like me filming all my journeys
>> like some cyclists do - that is Doug sort of behaviour, so the answer
>> is no, my memory serves me correctly and it was noteworthy and
>> substantially more of a problem than any other vehicle around it.
>
> If it doesn't pass Judith's test (peer reviewed paper)
> it didn't happen.
>
> Apparently.
>

You've misunderstood Judith's test I fear. Its actually that anything
that Judith says is unimpeachable and anything anyone else says that
disagrees with Judith's world view is made up and deserves abuse.

Tony

[DavidR[_2_]]

"ash" > wrote

> If it were not a problem they would not insist on motor vehicles to
> have this as part of their MOT. This thread is in reference to new
> technology emerging for cycles not your old sturmey archer lamp
> pushing out 2 candle power, and yes I have personally been dazzled by
> cyclists with badly misaligned ultrabright front lights. If I am
> getting dazzled, then so are others.

If we're looking to solve problems, how about overhauling the regulations
covering brightness of motor vehicle lights first?

[Mr Pounder]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:10:17 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>Don't you think you have wound these prats up enough with Rule Number 6
>>Judith?
>>
>>Mr Pounder
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> Yes - you are right.
>
> I will fish out the official rule book tomorrow and see if there are
> any more which are relevant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

Rule Number 6 is there.
Cyclists are not obeying the other Rules.

Mr Pounder
>
>

[Mr Pounder]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
> On 16/11/2010 18:13, Mr Pounder wrote:
>> "Clive > wrote in message
>> o.uk...
>>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>>
>>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
>>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
>>> taking
>>> into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the cost
>>> will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>>
>> Cost cost.
>> Are all cyclists free loading skint merchants?
>
> What's free loading about not wanting to present a burden on the state?

Answer the question.
Yes or no.
It's not that difficult a question

Mr Pounder
>

[PhilO]

On Nov 16, 8:37*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
> I will fish out the official rule book tomorrow and see if there are
> any more which are relevant.

Oooh! The "official" rule book. I'm looking forward to that, but
first, official in what way?

Or is that a definition of official out of you "special" version of
the OED?

PhilO

Judith Rue Number 5
Make something up, claim its a rule and repeat.
(it's number 5, so it's more important than rule six, my official rule
book says so)

[PhilO]

On Nov 16, 10:48*pm, PhilO > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:37*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I will fish out the official rule book tomorrow and see if there are
> > any more which are relevant.
>
> Oooh! The "official" rule book. I'm looking forward to that, but
> first, official in what way?
>
> Or is that a definition of official out of you "special" version of
> the OED?
>
> PhilO
>
> Judith Rue Number 5
> Make something up, claim its a rule and repeat.
> (it's number 5, so it's more important than rule six, my official rule
> book says so)

That's Judith Rule Number 5, of course. My keyboard rejects sense when
it comes to Judith.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 16, 5:53*pm, Phil Cook > wrote:
> ash wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 12:31 pm, FrengaX > wrote:
> >> On Nov 16, 9:54 am, ash > wrote:
>
> >> > As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> >> > advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> >> > lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> >> > from dazzling.
>
> >> > It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> >> > maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.
> >Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
> >in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>
> Oh yes, of course, but the number of times I have to use my dipping
> mirror or the handy peak on my cap when driving to avoid being blinded
> by car headlights illustrates the pointlessness of an MOT test in
> reducing the problem. Passing an MOT test means that the car or
> whatever vehicle passes the test at that time. If the driver goes out
> and dinks it bending the alignment of the lights or whatever then it
> won't then pass the test but still has an MOT certificate.
> --
> Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

And if the car is stopped and the police think there is a problem
which they think is dangerous to others, it could be impounded and
sent for testing.

there are already adequate laws covering construction and use of a
car, there is very little to ensure a bicycle is roadworthy, and given
the dangers presenting with new technology, regulation is long
overdue.

[Clive George]

On 16/11/2010 22:46, Mr Pounder wrote:
> "Clive > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 16/11/2010 18:13, Mr Pounder wrote:
>>> "Clive > wrote in message
>>> o.uk...
>>>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated whether
>>>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>>>
>>>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation. Can
>>>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
>>>> taking
>>>> into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the cost
>>>> will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>>>
>>> Cost cost.
>>> Are all cyclists free loading skint merchants?
>>
>> What's free loading about not wanting to present a burden on the state?
>
> Answer the question.
> Yes or no.
> It's not that difficult a question

I'm guessing no. Is Alan Sugar a free loading skint merchant?

[CJ[_2_]]

On 16 Nov, 23:21, ash > wrote:
>
> there are already adequate laws covering construction and use of a
> car, there is very little to ensure a bicycle is roadworthy, and given
> the dangers presenting with new technology, regulation is long
> overdue.
>
According to my up-to-date copy of the Road Vehicles Lighting
Regulations, every kind of light on every kind of vehicle, including
pedal cycles, is covered by a catch-all prohibition on causing "undue
dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road". Enforcement of
this is a matter for the police, however I expect that they have more
serious priorities.

I nevertheless agree that some cycle lights are now so bright, and
emit light in such a vaguely un-focussed beam that it is impossible to
light the road without inadvertently dazzling other road users. I
speak as a keen cyclist, part of whose job it is to test and write
about cycling equipment. In the course of testing these lights, on my
homeward commute down dark country lanes, I've occasionally caused an
oncoming driver to brake to a complete halt. Some of you on here may
be tempted to cry RESULT, but I don't think it improves my safety to
have blinded people driving cars towards me! So when I'm given one of
these anti-social bike lamps to test I try to shield the thing with a
hand when there's a car coming, but that's not always easy to do.

My usual bike lamps do not sacrifice brightness in order to avoid
dazzling other road users. They also employ state-of-the-art LEDs, but
with a more sophisticated optical system that focusses the light
precisely where its needed, with a well-defined horizontal cut-off.
The anti-social lights are just lazy design.

It is also true that the amount of light a dipped car headlamp is
allowed to emit above the horizontal has also ratcheted upwards with
the addition of each new technology to the ECE standards. The limit
now stands at 625 candela, a figure which many experts consider to be
too high. We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
addressed on several fronts.

[bugbear]

CJ wrote:
> We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
> addressed on several fronts.

That was an entirely reasonable, well informed, and well expressed post.

You do *know* this is uk.rec.cycling don't you?

BugBear

[CJ[_2_]]

On 17 Nov, 11:47, bugbear > wrote:
> CJ wrote:
> > *We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
> > addressed on several fronts.
>
> That was an entirely reasonable, well informed, and well expressed post.
>
> You do *know* this is uk.rec.cycling don't you?
>
> * *BugBear

Yeah, I mostly just lurk and despair, but sometimes I feel moved to
shed some light in dark places!

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 11:40*am, CJ > wrote:
> On 16 Nov, 23:21, ash > wrote:
>
> > there are already adequate laws covering construction and use of a
> > car, there is very little to ensure a bicycle is roadworthy, and given
> > the dangers presenting with new technology, regulation is long
> > overdue.
>
> According to my up-to-date copy of the Road Vehicles Lighting
> Regulations, every kind of light on every kind of vehicle, including
> pedal cycles, is covered by a catch-all prohibition on causing "undue
> dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road". Enforcement of
> this is a matter for the police, however I expect that they have more
> serious priorities.
>
> I nevertheless agree that some cycle lights are now so bright, and
> emit light in such a vaguely un-focussed beam that it is impossible to
> light the road without inadvertently dazzling other road users. I
> speak as a keen cyclist, part of whose job it is to test and write
> about cycling equipment. In the course of testing these lights, on my
> homeward commute down dark country lanes, I've occasionally caused an
> oncoming driver to brake to a complete halt. Some of you on here may
> be tempted to cry RESULT, but I don't think it improves my safety to
> have blinded people driving cars towards me! So when I'm given one of
> these anti-social bike lamps to test I try to shield the thing with a
> hand when there's a car coming, but that's not always easy to do.
>
> My usual bike lamps do not sacrifice brightness in order to avoid
> dazzling other road users. They also employ state-of-the-art LEDs, but
> with a more sophisticated optical system that focusses the light
> precisely where its needed, with a well-defined horizontal cut-off.
> The anti-social lights are just lazy design.
>
> It is also true that the amount of light a dipped car headlamp is
> allowed to emit above the horizontal has also ratcheted upwards with
> the addition of each new technology to the ECE standards. The limit
> now stands at 625 candela, a figure which many experts consider to be
> too high. We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
> addressed on several fronts.

The problem is that the very vast majority of cycling accessories come
from the far east where shifting boxes at minimum cost to anyone who
will buy them is more important than making quality goods to fit a
given and specific criteria.

You may be able to regulate the specification ad quality for goods
sold in UK cycle shops, but when people buy direct from China or Hong
Kong through Ebay, anything goes.

I cannot see any alternative for tighter legislation and enforcement
of cycle construction and use in the next 10 years and whilst most
other things on a cycle which only mostly affect the rider themselves,
very bright lights which dazzle other will as you say continue to be a
growing problem.

The scenario of a car being dazzled by a badly made ultra bright
cycle lamp on my own cycle (yes I do have one) and subsequently taking
out another cyclist using regular lighting or pedestrian is not
something I'd want on my conscience,. Most people buying these lamps
would not consider that others are being dazzled because it is only a
'cycle lamp' isn't it !

[CJ[_2_]]

On 17 Nov, 12:05, ash > wrote:
>
> The problem is that the very vast majority of cycling accessories come
> from the far east where shifting boxes at minimum cost to anyone who
> will buy them is more important than making quality goods to fit a
> given and specific criteria.
>
Actually, some of the most embarrassingly bright offenders are made
right here in UK. These lamps are often quite sophisticated in the
electronic department, but optically naive, employing off-the-shelf
lenses designed for handheld torches rather than vehicular use. Since
these manufacturers are too small to invest in customised lenses and
reflectors, I think the solution we should seek is to provide the user
with a simple and reliable means of dimming the light to a non-
dazzling level.

These lamps often do have such a mode, energy-saving, for use under
street lighting, but accessed in a sequence of button-pressing that
includes other modes, flashing etc., or even off! Users are obviously
disinclined to go through all that whenever a car comes the other way.
What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
same circumstances.

[ash[_2_]]

On Nov 17, 1:07*pm, CJ > wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 12:05, ash > wrote:
>
> > The problem is that the very vast majority of cycling accessories come
> > from the far east where shifting boxes at minimum cost to anyone who
> > will buy them is more important than making quality goods to fit a
> > given and specific criteria.
>
> Actually, some of the most embarrassingly bright offenders are made
> right here in UK. These lamps are often quite sophisticated in the
> electronic department, but optically naive, employing off-the-shelf
> lenses designed for handheld torches rather than vehicular use. Since
> these manufacturers are too small to invest in customised lenses and
> reflectors, I think the solution we should seek is to provide the user
> with a simple and reliable means of dimming the light to a non-
> dazzling level.
>
> These lamps often do have such a mode, energy-saving, for use under
> street lighting, but accessed in a sequence of button-pressing that
> includes other modes, flashing etc., or even off! Users are obviously
> disinclined to go through all that whenever a car comes the other way.
> What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
> that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
> same circumstances.

Which makes perfect sense !

[FrengaX]

On Nov 16, 10:06*pm, "DavidR" > wrote:
> "ash" > wrote
>
> > As the technology moves rapidly forward in cycle lighting with the
> > advent of CREE and HID, there is a real risk that badly adjusted
> > lights (when fitted) will become a real danger to other road users
> > from dazzling.
>
> It's merely to keep up in the lighting arms race.
>
> > It would not be unreasonable to introduce MOT type tests for cycles to
> > maintain standards of roadworthiness given this growing problem.
>
> Today there was a heavy mist (some might have called it fog). Coming home
> ths evening took a long time because I had to pass a crash. I bet the person
> involved had been dazzled or disorientated by all the unnecessary and
> excessively bright lighting that's being carried around on cars.

That's a bold bet to make, given you have zero evidence for that.

[bugbear]

FrengaX wrote:

>> Today there was a heavy mist (some might have called it fog). Coming home
>> ths evening took a long time because I had to pass a crash. I bet the person
>> involved had been dazzled or disorientated by all the unnecessary and
>> excessively bright lighting that's being carried around on cars.
>
> That's a bold bet to make, given you have zero evidence for that.

There's clear evidence that car drivers can't operate
lights appropriately. After some fog, it normally takes
3-4 days before everybody has worked out that they've
stupidly left their fog lights on.

BugBear

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"CJ" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Nov, 11:47, bugbear > wrote:
>> CJ wrote:
>> > We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
>> > addressed on several fronts.
>>
>> That was an entirely reasonable, well informed, and well expressed post.
>>
>> You do *know* this is uk.rec.cycling don't you?
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Yeah, I mostly just lurk and despair, but sometimes I feel moved to
> shed some light in dark places!

Please feel free to post more frequently. Your sensible input is
appreciated.

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"bugbear" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> FrengaX wrote:
>
>>> Today there was a heavy mist (some might have called it fog). Coming
>>> home
>>> ths evening took a long time because I had to pass a crash. I bet the
>>> person
>>> involved had been dazzled or disorientated by all the unnecessary and
>>> excessively bright lighting that's being carried around on cars.
>>
>> That's a bold bet to make, given you have zero evidence for that.
>
> There's clear evidence that car drivers can't operate
> lights appropriately.

Some car drivers.

After some fog, it normally takes
> 3-4 days before everybody has worked out that they've
> stupidly left their fog lights on.

Everybody? I don't think it's everybody who does this but I also find at
annoying. Especially when some drivers use front fog lamps because they
think it makes their car look cool. BMW drivers, please take note. Front
fog lamps can be quite dazzling to oncoming road users when the road is wet.

[SW[_3_]]

On 17/11/2010 13:13, ash wrote:
> On Nov 17, 1:07 pm, > wrote:
>> What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
>> that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
>> same circumstances.
>
> Which makes perfect sense !

http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/

[SW[_3_]]

On 17/11/2010 15:25, Mr. Benn wrote:
> "CJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Yeah, I mostly just lurk and despair, but sometimes I feel moved to
>> shed some light in dark places!
>
> Please feel free to post more frequently. Your sensible input is
> appreciated.

The CTC generally know what they're talking about when it comes to bikes!

[martynh]

On 17 Nov, 18:14, SW > wrote:
> On 17/11/2010 13:13, ash wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 1:07 pm, > *wrote:
> >> What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
> >> that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
> >> same circumstances.
>
> > Which makes perfect sense !
>
> http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/

Perfect nonsense for anyone who doesn't want to ride down the north
face of the Eiger in the dark, and then come home on the road. As CJ
made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered). There may be a niche
market for people who need floods like this for off-roading in the
dark, and then want to tame them. But for most people, it's a question
of graduating from cheap bad lights to slightly more expensive good
ones: dip switches have no useful part in that.

[Mr Pounder]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> On 16/11/2010 22:46, Mr Pounder wrote:
>> "Clive > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 16/11/2010 18:13, Mr Pounder wrote:
>>>> "Clive > wrote in message
>>>> o.uk...
>>>>> On 16/11/2010 13:17, ash wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Using high powered lighting on the roads needs to be regulated
>>>>>> whether
>>>>>> in cars or on cycles for the safety of others don't you agree !
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is a problem in practice, then yes, let's consider regulation.
>>>>> Can
>>>>> you put forward a proper case for such regulation of cycle lights,
>>>>> taking
>>>>> into account cost of regulation and benefits of it? I believe the cost
>>>>> will be high and the benefits un-noticable.
>>>>
>>>> Cost cost.
>>>> Are all cyclists free loading skint merchants?
>>>
>>> What's free loading about not wanting to present a burden on the state?
>>
>> Answer the question.
>> Yes or no.
>> It's not that difficult a question
>
> I'm guessing no. Is Alan Sugar a free loading skint merchant?

You actually answered my question!!!!!!!!!!
I'll answer yours then.
Alan Sugar is not a free loading skint merchant. But he is a **** who pushed
out some of the biggest crap ever to hit the market. Then, he is Lord Sugar.
One hell of a joke.

Mr Pounder

[JMS]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:40:05 -0800 (PST), CJ >
wrote:

>On 16 Nov, 23:21, ash > wrote:
>>
>> there are already adequate laws covering construction and use of a
>> car, there is very little to ensure a bicycle is roadworthy, and given
>> the dangers presenting with new technology, regulation is long
>> overdue.
>>
>According to my up-to-date copy of the Road Vehicles Lighting
>Regulations, every kind of light on every kind of vehicle, including
>pedal cycles, is covered by a catch-all prohibition on causing "undue
>dazzle or discomfort to other persons using the road". Enforcement of
>this is a matter for the police, however I expect that they have more
>serious priorities.
>
>I nevertheless agree that some cycle lights are now so bright, and
>emit light in such a vaguely un-focussed beam that it is impossible to
>light the road without inadvertently dazzling other road users. I
>speak as a keen cyclist, part of whose job it is to test and write
>about cycling equipment. In the course of testing these lights, on my
>homeward commute down dark country lanes, I've occasionally caused an
>oncoming driver to brake to a complete halt. Some of you on here may
>be tempted to cry RESULT, but I don't think it improves my safety to
>have blinded people driving cars towards me! So when I'm given one of
>these anti-social bike lamps to test I try to shield the thing with a
>hand when there's a car coming, but that's not always easy to do.
>
>My usual bike lamps do not sacrifice brightness in order to avoid
>dazzling other road users. They also employ state-of-the-art LEDs, but
>with a more sophisticated optical system that focusses the light
>precisely where its needed, with a well-defined horizontal cut-off.
>The anti-social lights are just lazy design.
>
>It is also true that the amount of light a dipped car headlamp is
>allowed to emit above the horizontal has also ratcheted upwards with
>the addition of each new technology to the ECE standards. The limit
>now stands at 625 candela, a figure which many experts consider to be
>too high. We have a growing problem with dazzle that needs to be
>addressed on several fronts.



What a sensible and refreshing post

[SW[_3_]]

On 17/11/2010 18:19, martynh wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 18:14, > wrote:
>>
>> http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/
>
> Perfect nonsense for anyone who doesn't want to ride down the north
> face of the Eiger in the dark, and then come home on the road. As CJ
> made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered). There may be a niche
> market for people who need floods like this for off-roading in the
> dark, and then want to tame them. But for most people, it's a question
> of graduating from cheap bad lights to slightly more expensive good
> ones: dip switches have no useful part in that.

Perfect sense for people who use unlit tracks and tow paths as well as
roads on their commute, of which there are many. I find that the
ability of these lights to flood the entire field of vision is hugely
beneficial. I wouldn't use a dip function as I prefer the 'pulse' mode
under street lights which I don't believe is capable of dazzling anyone.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

"Mr. Benn" > wrote:

> Everybody? I don't think it's everybody who does this but I also find
> at annoying. Especially when some drivers use front fog lamps because
> they think it makes their car look cool. BMW drivers, please take
> note. Front fog lamps can be quite dazzling to oncoming road users
> when the road is wet.

Especially as using them when visibility is good is illegal.

236
You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously
reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure
your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.
[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]


--
Tony

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:07:13 -0800 (PST), CJ >
wrote:

>On 17 Nov, 12:05, ash > wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that the very vast majority of cycling accessories come
>> from the far east where shifting boxes at minimum cost to anyone who
>> will buy them is more important than making quality goods to fit a
>> given and specific criteria.
>>
>Actually, some of the most embarrassingly bright offenders are made
>right here in UK. These lamps are often quite sophisticated in the
>electronic department, but optically naive, employing off-the-shelf
>lenses designed for handheld torches rather than vehicular use. Since
>these manufacturers are too small to invest in customised lenses and
>reflectors, I think the solution we should seek is to provide the user
>with a simple and reliable means of dimming the light to a non-
>dazzling level.
>
>These lamps often do have such a mode, energy-saving, for use under
>street lighting, but accessed in a sequence of button-pressing that
>includes other modes, flashing etc., or even off! Users are obviously
>disinclined to go through all that whenever a car comes the other way.
>What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
>that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
>same circumstances.

I have always thought that the "embarrassingly bright offenders" were
designed for off-road use.

I have had a Cateye Stadium for some years; it only has an on or off
'mode'. I have always used it in off mode when cycling on roads after
reading a report of a motorist who claimed dazzle was the cause of her
killing a cyclist.

[martynh]

On 17 Nov, 20:22, SW > wrote:
> On 17/11/2010 18:19, martynh wrote:
>
> > On 17 Nov, 18:14, > *wrote:
>
> >>http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/
>
> > Perfect nonsense for anyone who doesn't want to ride down the north
> > face of the Eiger in the dark, and then come home on the road. As CJ
> > made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> > designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> > need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> > monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> > Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered). There may be a niche
> > market for people who need floods like this for off-roading in the
> > dark, and then want to tame them. But for most people, it's a question
> > of graduating from cheap bad lights to slightly more expensive good
> > ones: dip switches have no useful part in that.
>
> Perfect sense for people who use unlit tracks and tow paths as well as
> roads on their commute, of which there are many. *I find that the
> ability of these lights to flood the entire field of vision is hugely
> beneficial. *I wouldn't use a dip function as I prefer the 'pulse' mode
> under street lights which I don't believe is capable of dazzling anyone.

I'm sure it's reassuring to light everything up like Wembley stadium,
if you've got the budget for it. But what exactly are you looking for?
I'm happy to use a Lyt on as rough a track as you'ld want to do on a
road bike. It happens to be the one which takes me home, so I know it
well. But a Cyo gives enough light on the road, and thereabouts, to
deal with any road or track, known or not, unless you think that
killer zombies are going to swing down from the trees above. Is that
really very likely, or are you just in love with the tech?

[martynh]

On 17 Nov, 22:32, Tom Crispin > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 05:07:13 -0800 (PST), CJ >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 17 Nov, 12:05, ash > wrote:
>
> >> The problem is that the very vast majority of cycling accessories come
> >> from the far east where shifting boxes at minimum cost to anyone who
> >> will buy them is more important than making quality goods to fit a
> >> given and specific criteria.
>
> >Actually, some of the most embarrassingly bright offenders are made
> >right here in UK. These lamps are often quite sophisticated in the
> >electronic department, but optically naive, employing off-the-shelf
> >lenses designed for handheld torches rather than vehicular use. Since
> >these manufacturers are too small to invest in customised lenses and
> >reflectors, I think the solution we should seek is to provide the user
> >with a simple and reliable means of dimming the light to a non-
> >dazzling level.
>
> >These lamps often do have such a mode, energy-saving, for use under
> >street lighting, but accessed in a sequence of button-pressing that
> >includes other modes, flashing etc., or even off! Users are obviously
> >disinclined to go through all that whenever a car comes the other way.
> >What should be provided is a simple toggle between main beam and dim,
> >that can be used as easily as the dip switch in a car and in all the
> >same circumstances.
>
> I have always thought that the "embarrassingly bright offenders" were
> designed for off-road use.
>
> I have had a Cateye Stadium for some years; it only has an on or off
> 'mode'. I have always used it in off mode when cycling on roads after
> reading a report of a motorist who claimed dazzle was the cause of her
> killing a cyclist.

As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
at high speed with blown minds. I was sold on good quality on-road
lights (eg Busch and Muller; there may be others but I haven't had to
research them) when I found that you can see your way with them, and
make oncoming drivers recognize your existence, without dazzling them
in a way which prejudices your own safety. Without moving them (mine
are fixed at the fork crown) or pushing any buttons. What more would
you want?

But you do have to set them up: the best time for setting the beam
isn't the best time for screwing up the fittings (he said with
feeling).

[thirty-six]

On Nov 17, 8:19*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> > Everybody? *I don't think it's everybody who does this but I also find
> > at annoying. *Especially when some drivers use front fog lamps because
> > they think it makes their car look cool. *BMW drivers, please take
> > note. *Front fog lamps can be quite dazzling to oncoming road users
> > when the road is wet.
>
> Especially as using them when visibility is good is illegal.
>
> 236
> You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously
> reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure
> your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.
> [Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]
>
> --
> Tony

How obout just using one foglight? Does not da5rkness introduce a
serious reduction in visibility? Is there something obvious missing
from the regs?

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

martynh wrote:

>
> As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
> seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
> at high speed with blown minds.

I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. Usually the
opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car
headlights. The worst case is thinking that's a nice bright light
they've got and wondering which one it is.

On virtually every trip I make I am dazzled by car headlights whether
I'm in a car or on a bicycle and either because they are badly adjusted
or left on main beam. I have a choice of either a high power LED light
or a HID light on my bicycles and in neither choice have I ever been
flashed by a car for having a dazzling light.

Tony

[Derek C]

On Nov 18, 6:12*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> martynh wrote:
>
> > As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
> > seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
> > at high speed with blown minds.
>
> I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. *Usually the
> opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car
> headlights. *The worst case is thinking that's a nice bright light
> they've got and wondering which one it is.
>
> On virtually every *trip I make I am dazzled by car headlights whether
> I'm in a car or on a bicycle and either because they are badly adjusted
> or left on main beam. *I have a choice of either a high power LED light
> or a HID light on my bicycles and in neither choice have I ever been
> flashed by a car for having a dazzling light.
>
> Tony

As a motorist I much prefer the flashing LED type cycle lamps, as they
show up very well and clearly identify the vehicle as being a push
bike, so so know what to expect in terms of relative speeds. As a
cyclist I also need a steady and reasonably bright white front light
to illuminate the road ahead on dark nights.

Derek C

[Derek C]

On Nov 18, 6:12*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> martynh wrote:
>
> > As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
> > seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
> > at high speed with blown minds.
>
> I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. *Usually the
> opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car
> headlights. *The worst case is thinking that's a nice bright light
> they've got and wondering which one it is.
>
> On virtually every *trip I make I am dazzled by car headlights whether
> I'm in a car or on a bicycle and either because they are badly adjusted
> or left on main beam. *I have a choice of either a high power LED light
> or a HID light on my bicycles and in neither choice have I ever been
> flashed by a car for having a dazzling light.
>
> Tony

As a motorist I much prefer the flashing LED type cycle lamps, as they
show up very well and clearly identify the vehicle as being a push
bike, so I know what to expect in terms of relative speeds. As a
cyclist I also need a steady and reasonably bright white front light
to illuminate the road ahead on dark nights, so I can see the potholes
in modern day UK roads!.

Derek C

[JMS]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 06:12:47 +0000, Tony Raven >
wrote:

>martynh wrote:
>
>>
>> As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
>> seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
>> at high speed with blown minds.
>
>I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light.



What a typical post by Raving.

The CTC expert has said that it is a recognised problem - but of
course Raving will not want to admit to that - and any motorist who
has said that they have been dazzled will be lying.


--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"SW" > wrote in message
...
> On 17/11/2010 15:25, Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "CJ" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Yeah, I mostly just lurk and despair, but sometimes I feel moved to
>>> shed some light in dark places!
>>
>> Please feel free to post more frequently. Your sensible input is
>> appreciated.
>
> The CTC generally know what they're talking about when it comes to bikes!

The CTC are to cyclists what the Association of British Drivers are to
Motorists. Loonies.

[bugbear]

martynh wrote:
>. As CJ
> made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered).

Which lights did you have in mind?

BugBear

[martynh]

On 18 Nov, 11:02, bugbear > wrote:
> martynh wrote:
> >. As CJ
> > made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> > designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> > need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> > monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> > Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered).
>
> Which lights did you have in mind?
>
> * * BugBear

The expensive ones were in CW's post

http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/

at £245 a pop. The cheaper ones are (for example) Busch and Muller's
range available at (for example) bike.24.com. If you have a dynamo,
the Lyt is good for all but the most demanding on-road use at 20-euros
odd. Cyo is brighter but more expensive, as is the Ixon IQ if you need
battery power.

[bugbear]

martynh wrote:
> On 18 Nov, 11:02, > wrote:
>> martynh wrote:
>>> . As CJ
>>> made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
>>> designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
>>> need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
>>> monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
>>> Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered).
>>
>> Which lights did you have in mind?
>>
>> BugBear
>
> The expensive ones were in CW's post
>
> http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/
>
> at £245 a pop. The cheaper ones are (for example) Busch and Muller's
> range available at (for example) bike.24.com. If you have a dynamo,
> the Lyt is good for all but the most demanding on-road use at 20-euros
> odd. Cyo is brighter but more expensive, as is the Ixon IQ if you need
> battery power.

Ah - my bad. I thought you meant the B&M were expensive,
and had a 20x cheaper alternative!

BugBear

[martynh]

On 18 Nov, 14:56, martynh > wrote:
> On 18 Nov, 11:02, bugbear > wrote:
>
> > martynh wrote:
> > >. As CJ
> > > made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> > > designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> > > need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> > > monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> > > Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered).
>
> > Which lights did you have in mind?

> > * * BugBear
>
> The expensive ones were in CW's postrr
>
> http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/
>
> at £245 a pop. The cheaper ones are (for example) Busch and *Muller's
> range available at (for example) bike.24.com. If you have a dynamo,
> the Lyt is good for all but the most demanding on-road use at 20-euros
> odd. Cyo is brighter but more expensive, as is the Ixon IQ if you need
> battery power.

Apologies. It was SW, not CW, who offered the £245 lights for our
approval.

[bugbear]

SW wrote:
> On 16/11/2010 13:58, Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "PhilO" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Nov 16, 12:52 pm, JMS > wrote:
>>>> Pyscholist Rule Number 6
>>>>
>>> That's not a rule - it's just something you made up, isn't it Judith?
>>>
>>> PhilO
>>
>> It's becoming an established rule.
>
> Only to people with mental health issues who believe that repeating
> things makes them true.

"Great is the power of steady misrepresentation, but the history of science shows that this power does not long endure"
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 6th edition

BugBear

[martynh]

On 18 Nov, 15:07, bugbear > wrote:
> martynh wrote:
> > On 18 Nov, 11:02, > *wrote:
> >> martynh wrote:
> >>> . As CJ
> >>> made clear in his earlier post, you can now use LED lights with well-
> >>> designed optics which give excellent light for any on-road use, don't
> >>> need dipping, and cost about a twentieth of the price of these
> >>> monsters (for example, Busch and Muller Lyts, or for a bit more their
> >>> Cyo, or Ixon IQ if you're battery-powered).
>
> >> Which lights did you have in mind?
>
> >> * * *BugBear
>
> > The expensive ones were in CW's post
>
> >http://www.exposurelights.com/product/000054/strada-mk.2/
>
> > at 245 a pop. The cheaper ones are (for example) Busch and *Muller's
> > range available at (for example) bike.24.com. If you have a dynamo,
> > the Lyt is good for all but the most demanding on-road use at 20-euros
> > odd. Cyo is brighter but more expensive, as is the Ixon IQ if you need
> > battery power.
>
> Ah - my bad. I thought you meant the B&M were expensive,
> and had a 20x cheaper alternative!
>
> * BugBear

The B and M are expensive as bike-lights go. But they deliver bangs
for the buck, and I'd be disappointed if I ever needed to replace them
(unless the scallys round here realize that they are worth nicking,
and equip themselves with the minimal tools needed to do so). The
difficult step, if you are as tight and lazy as I am, is buying and
fitting the dynamo hubs to power them. But once you've got used to
lights which are always there when you want them, you'll wonder why it
took you so long. If you're lucky enough to live somewhere where bikes
are taken seriously as transport, they come with the bike. As it is I
have a selection of serviceable non-dyno front wheels cluttering up my
work-space. No reasonable offer refused.

[SW[_3_]]

On 18/11/2010 00:38, martynh wrote:
> I'm sure it's reassuring to light everything up like Wembley stadium,
> if you've got the budget for it. But what exactly are you looking for?
> I'm happy to use a Lyt on as rough a track as you'ld want to do on a
> road bike. It happens to be the one which takes me home, so I know it
> well. But a Cyo gives enough light on the road, and thereabouts, to
> deal with any road or track, known or not, unless you think that
> killer zombies are going to swing down from the trees above. Is that
> really very likely, or are you just in love with the tech?

No killer zombies but pedestrians or other cyclists emerging from side
paths are a possibility. The full field illumination and brightness
means I can ride down unlit tracks at night with the same speed and
confidence as during the day.

As for the tech, yes I do love the fact that the unit is totally
self-contained so I can switch it from bike to bike or drop it in a
pocket when leaving the bike outside the pub, while the fuel gauge means
I will never be left stranded half-way there.

[SW[_3_]]

On 18/11/2010 14:14, martynh wrote:
>
> Apologies. It was SW, not CW, who offered the £245 lights for our
> approval.

I paid £180 for the 3 LED version a couple of years ago. I fully expect
it to last 10 years minimum so no more than £18/year. Worth every penny.

[SW[_3_]]

On 18/11/2010 09:36, Mr. Benn wrote:
> "SW" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 17/11/2010 15:25, Mr. Benn wrote:
>>> "CJ" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I mostly just lurk and despair, but sometimes I feel moved to
>>>> shed some light in dark places!
>>>
>>> Please feel free to post more frequently. Your sensible input is
>>> appreciated.
>>
>> The CTC generally know what they're talking about when it comes to bikes!
>
> The CTC are to cyclists what the Association of British Drivers are to
> Motorists. Loonies.

Loonies whose 'sensible input' you appreciate, apparently.

[martynh]

On 18 Nov, 17:49, SW > wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 14:14, martynh wrote:
>
>
>
> > Apologies. It was SW, not CW, who offered the 245 lights for our
> > approval.
>
> I paid 180 for the 3 LED version a couple of years ago. *I fully expect
> it to last 10 years minimum so no more than 18/year. *Worth every penny..

If you've got it and it suits you and you use it responsibly, then
obviously you stick with it. For anyone starting from scratch, there
are excellent lights which cover all the points you mention (I took my
Cyo for a little ride just to check, which I enjoyed, thank you) for a
lot less than £245 or even £180.

The choice between self-contained and removable or bolted-on is
interesting and worth some thought. I used to use an Ixon IQ for
exactly the advantages you mention, and it's an excellent light if
you're organized: you've got it with you when you need it; the bike
you want to use has the right fitting attached; it's charged when it
needs to be. But I'm not organized enough to be worthy of it: I found
that it was often in the wrong country, or not charged up, or trying
to fit onto a bracket which didn't match. For my purposes, and
weaknesses, I find that dynamo power and fixed lights are the way to
go: two new dynamo wheels and three new LED lights still come in at
less than your £180, and I don't have to remember to take them off
when I go to the pub.

[JMS]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:49:53 +0000, SW > wrote:

>On 18/11/2010 14:14, martynh wrote:
>>
>> Apologies. It was SW, not CW, who offered the £245 lights for our
>> approval.
>
>I paid £180 for the 3 LED version a couple of years ago. I fully expect
>it to last 10 years minimum so no more than £18/year. Worth every penny.



I bet Porky Chapman paid more than you.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 18, 6:12*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> martynh wrote:
>
> > As CJ said in his first post, blowing an oncoming driver's mind may
> > seem like a result until you realise that they are coming towards you
> > at high speed with blown minds.
>
> I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. *Usually the
> opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car
> headlights. *The worst case is thinking that's a nice bright light
> they've got and wondering which one it is.
>
> On virtually every *trip I make I am dazzled by car headlights whether

Fit a white front single panel reflector (as for trailers).

> I'm in a car or on a bicycle and either because they are badly adjusted
> or left on main beam. *I have a choice of either a high power LED light
> or a HID light on my bicycles and in neither choice have I ever been
> flashed by a car for having a dazzling light.
>
> Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 18/11/2010 21:45, Phil W Lee wrote:

> >:
>> FrengaX wrote:

>>>> Today there was a heavy mist (some might have called it fog). Coming home
>>>> ths evening took a long time because I had to pass a crash. I bet the person
>>>> involved had been dazzled or disorientated by all the unnecessary and
>>>> excessively bright lighting that's being carried around on cars.

>>> That's a bold bet to make, given you have zero evidence for that.

>> There's clear evidence that car drivers can't operate
>> lights appropriately. After some fog, it normally takes
>> 3-4 days before everybody has worked out that they've
>> stupidly left their fog lights on.

> FSVO "everybody" which excludes those who don't care, drive around
> with them on all the time, or think they should be used at the first
> sign of a rain spot.
> When you consider that many motorists won't even drive in conditions
> that make the use of foglights legal (visibility less than 100
> metres), it raises the question as to why they were ever made a
> mandatory fitment.

Do you really have such difficulty with the concept of spending actual real
money on a safety contingency?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 18/11/2010 06:12, Tony Raven wrote:
> I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. Usually the
> opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car headlights.

I can, in Hyde Park last week.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5aeAAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/0TkIAJv2cFMwcRYrKC6EBCbyWbxm
OXw94x6Mj7EBA7TzRGMD89oWmZ2iso6absesiKyfeWcG8RQZui 18mfDqvCHrxcOh
GGq1GT5fePtJErTlIbud2ktBcM9RCFvtGrvdIr7wc9BTto3EQ+ 4lId7HqE/odS/V
3hVONTXNDxkpesG6wtM2UE4kzMkFOQ2ZY3I3Al8MV9fKAzC32u z8veRu8CdKir3r
wqCY5v/RT9RCQWPR4OP1rQK8ii0bEh9o83mJU1WmllDP5hBG7RIvkNMq+ N5X+cPN
9Xm4BCX0WToG84TL+ru2mEdK4FQw41k5E7ieR6FAzP6qHFQ6xw 2PvpEQMfLRQgM=
=X04S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 18/11/2010 21:45, Phil W Lee wrote:
>> There's clear evidence that car drivers can't operate
>> >lights appropriately. After some fog, it normally takes
>> >3-4 days before everybody has worked out that they've
>> >stupidly left their fog lights on.
>> >
> FSVO "everybody" which excludes those who don't care, drive around
> with them on all the time, or think they should be used at the first
> sign of a rain spot.

I met someone who used to call them "motorway lights" and always used
them when driving at speed.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5afCAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/jaIH/2P0a5VH5+h7b/uFHF99EbF9
HqVclnFOe8KFIQG2qBEfBlsi0wGPKRMhFfwq6ituYShce1SYOW lBXKoNix4xNf68
bKuTk/K+1Go3aL+1N30Czl7WoZHLSH72HS9j8kgnwlxrcQ0xTEBdSy4r LolNnsP0
1s7dqSxvhFOuh0xh89neV5vmIIEvw2X1P1XptuKXzNgrF2DkdQ f/IHQ6xNjGru6C
Byd7a/bIOjkV1citX3xG1g7qOiCj2RtURhj5SkMmx2Kv4toQMf49R+xg azjgqNlD
LK0W8O49XQcH8+Dfusr1qqDhb+ZiJjsp8nVEz643riWlFE44i1 ki/gjQtMi7mPw=
=txZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JMS]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:25:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 18/11/2010 21:45, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> There's clear evidence that car drivers can't operate
>>> >lights appropriately. After some fog, it normally takes
>>> >3-4 days before everybody has worked out that they've
>>> >stupidly left their fog lights on.
>>> >
>> FSVO "everybody" which excludes those who don't care, drive around
>> with them on all the time, or think they should be used at the first
>> sign of a rain spot.
>
>I met someone who used to call them "motorway lights" and always used
>them when driving at speed.



One of your famous friends perhaps?

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

[SW[_3_]]

On 18/11/2010 19:19, martynh wrote:
>
> If you've got it and it suits you and you use it responsibly, then
> obviously you stick with it. For anyone starting from scratch, there
> are excellent lights which cover all the points you mention (I took my
> Cyo for a little ride just to check, which I enjoyed, thank you) for a
> lot less than £245 or even £180.
>
> The choice between self-contained and removable or bolted-on is
> interesting and worth some thought. I used to use an Ixon IQ for
> exactly the advantages you mention, and it's an excellent light if
> you're organized: you've got it with you when you need it; the bike
> you want to use has the right fitting attached; it's charged when it
> needs to be. But I'm not organized enough to be worthy of it: I found
> that it was often in the wrong country, or not charged up, or trying
> to fit onto a bracket which didn't match. For my purposes, and
> weaknesses, I find that dynamo power and fixed lights are the way to
> go: two new dynamo wheels and three new LED lights still come in at
> less than your £180, and I don't have to remember to take them off
> when I go to the pub.
>

I was at the stage where I had multiple light sets with incompatible
mounts and batteries and no idea how much charge remaining. Now I have
one light, 3 identical bike mounts and no faffing with batteries -
couldn't be simpler. As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.

[Clive George]

On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:

> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.

Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)

[martynh]

On 19 Nov, 00:26, SW > wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 19:19, martynh wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you've got it and it suits you and you use it responsibly, then
> > obviously you stick with it. For anyone starting from scratch, there
> > are excellent lights which cover all the points you mention (I took my
> > Cyo for a little ride just to check, which I enjoyed, thank you) for a
> > lot less than £245 or even £180.
>
> > The choice between self-contained and removable or bolted-on is
> > interesting and worth some thought. I used to use an Ixon IQ for
> > exactly the advantages you mention, and it's an excellent light if
> > you're organized: you've got it with you when you need it; the bike
> > you want to use has the right fitting attached; it's charged when it
> > needs to be. But I'm not organized enough to be worthy of it: I found
> > that it was often in the wrong country, or not charged up, or trying
> > to fit onto a bracket which didn't match. For my purposes, and
> > weaknesses, I find that dynamo power and fixed lights are the way to
> > go: two new dynamo wheels and three new LED lights still come in at
> > less than your £180, and I don't have to remember to take them off
> > when I go to the pub.
>
> I was at the stage where I had multiple light sets with incompatible
> mounts and batteries and no idea how much charge remaining. *Now I have
> one light, 3 identical bike mounts and no faffing with batteries -
> couldn't be simpler. *As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.

Well of course it can be simpler, in two ways. First, you can have a
light which is permanently fixed to your bike (which I have). And you
can have one which switches on automatically at dusk (which I have
been too mean for).. For the rest, I haven't fitted a hub dynamo to my
tourer yet (I hesitate to describe anything I ride as "fast"). But
Clive George is right: if you've got a pannier in each hand, it must
be helpful not to find a third hand to deal with the light. And the
resistance is negligible: even for cheap Shimanos, like mine, it's a
matter of a few metres elevation in each km run.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 18, 11:34*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>
> > As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
> > wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>
> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)

You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?

[Clive George]

On 19/11/2010 03:34, thirty-six wrote:
> On Nov 18, 11:34 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>>
>>> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
>>> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>>
>> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)
>
> You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
> just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?

I could happily include any of those in that list. I could also include
a suitably equipped galaxy in there - compared to what some tour on,
it's fast.

OTOH what SW means by "fast touring" might be different - we don't know.

[bugbear]

thirty-six wrote:
> On Nov 18, 11:34 pm, Clive > wrote:
>> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>>
>>> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
>>> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>>
>> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)
>
> You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
> just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?

I don't think any our your terms or Clive's terms have a
universally accepted definition tight enough
to be worth arguing over.

BugBear

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:40:45 +0000, JMS wrote:


>
>
>
> I bet Porky Chapman paid more than you.

You see, the hagfish enters other creatures and then eats them from the
inside out. And that’s not even the absolute worst part. The hagfish has
no way to penetrate the skin, so it has to find some way to get into the
fish. That would be the fish’s orifices. And all orifices are up for
grabs.
That’s right, the hagfish will not only eat its prey alive, it’ll anally
violate it first.

>
> --

<snip>


--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[martynh]

On 19 Nov, 10:48, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:40:45 +0000, JMS wrote:
>
> > I bet Porky Chapman paid more than you.
>
> You see, the hagfish enters other creatures and then eats them from the
> inside out. And that’s not even the absolute worst part. The hagfish has
> no way to penetrate the skin, so it has to find some way to get into the
> fish. That would be the fish’s orifices. And all orifices are up for
> grabs.
> That’s right, the hagfish will not only eat its prey alive, it’ll anally
> violate it first.
>
>
>
> > --
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> 67.4% of statistics are made up.

Well yes. But this particular effort seemed so feeble and sad that I
felt quite sorry for her. As always, obviously: but that time I meant
it kindly.

[SW[_3_]]

On 19/11/2010 00:34, martynh wrote:
>
> Well of course it can be simpler, in two ways. First, you can have a
> light which is permanently fixed to your bike (which I have). And you
> can have one which switches on automatically at dusk (which I have
> been too mean for).. For the rest, I haven't fitted a hub dynamo to my
> tourer yet (I hesitate to describe anything I ride as "fast"). But
> Clive George is right: if you've got a pannier in each hand, it must
> be helpful not to find a third hand to deal with the light. And the
> resistance is negligible: even for cheap Shimanos, like mine, it's a
> matter of a few metres elevation in each km run.

I was thinking more of the weight really, especially on big climbs which
I do a lot of.

[Clive George]

On 19/11/2010 19:44, SW wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 00:34, martynh wrote:
>>
>> Well of course it can be simpler, in two ways. First, you can have a
>> light which is permanently fixed to your bike (which I have). And you
>> can have one which switches on automatically at dusk (which I have
>> been too mean for).. For the rest, I haven't fitted a hub dynamo to my
>> tourer yet (I hesitate to describe anything I ride as "fast"). But
>> Clive George is right: if you've got a pannier in each hand, it must
>> be helpful not to find a third hand to deal with the light. And the
>> resistance is negligible: even for cheap Shimanos, like mine, it's a
>> matter of a few metres elevation in each km run.
>
> I was thinking more of the weight really, especially on big climbs which
> I do a lot of.

There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it. Ok, I wouldn't
put one on a out-and-out lightweight racer, but I'd not put racks and
other touring kit on one of those either.

[SW[_3_]]

On 19/11/2010 04:14, Clive George wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 03:34, thirty-six wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 11:34 pm, Clive > wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>>>
>>>> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
>>>> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>>>
>>> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)
>>
>> You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
>> just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?
>
> I could happily include any of those in that list. I could also include
> a suitably equipped galaxy in there - compared to what some tour on,
> it's fast.
>
> OTOH what SW means by "fast touring" might be different - we don't know.

I've always taken 'tourer' to mean anything built for road use which
isn't obviously a racer or a commuter. A 'fast tourer' would be
lightweight with skinny-ish tyres and would exclude a Galaxy. Some
people would call it an audax bike but as I don't ride any, I don't.
Not sure what a clubman's is or whether you have to be in a club to ride
one.

[SW[_3_]]

On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>
> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.

Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!

[Clive George]

On 19/11/2010 20:09, SW wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>>
>> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.
>
> Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!

Just get a sticker saying "Helium/carbon composite" and stick it to the
hub - that'll solve that problem :-)

[Clive George]

On 19/11/2010 20:18, Clive George wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 20:09, SW wrote:
>> On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>>>
>>> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.
>>
>> Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!
>
> Just get a sticker saying "Helium/carbon composite" and stick it to the
> hub - that'll solve that problem :-)

Following up from that - I originally planned to run the hub dynamo in
winter, and replace with a faster wheel for summer. It was sufficiently
good that I never bothered - and that was an old Shimano NX-10,
notorious for being the draggiest of dynohubs.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 19/11/2010 06:40, Tosspot wrote:
> On 18/11/10 22:24, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 18/11/2010 06:12, Tony Raven wrote:
>>> I cannot recall ever being dazzled by a cyclist's light. Usually the
>>> opposite - its a case of them getting lost in the clutter of car headlights.
>>
>> I can, in Hyde Park last week.
>
> Yep, it does happen. Misaligned car headlights are far worse, but these
> days of high lux lights, a badly mounted one is annoying.

The big problem is the use of decor lights in bike lighting. Dynamo
lights usually come with a well-designed lens that keeps the beam where
it's wanted, power-to-burn off-road lights very often have conical beams
and spill far more light upwards and into the eyes of oncoming riders.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM5vc/AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W//JoH/3dVZLbHRvvfbo9mNCr+BuAe
yQQ6Unwk/OTt7AZ5aL6nhfga4KL+JszK22TSAUcJGVcul6n5awyAhOIoJFv EYmck
9Et3PIASDAfi4q0cphiELBjU/NRdEysjhHg1SGAICv6Zb3dnRUDwZYl8EqnbMIIT
zlUBRTrZ50pFo1vOgwEUHGDpHplkSMsoZgiPVAmankbH7x6QfL gIUrjrW/g2zQ9S
cm81GVlILm+JsLMMamiDp35pGHqceq42O7Oh+hL9Cdui1Dq/svK/+R19fkUWeUvv
AZgUWCuHqjoDnPnnQPTy+UpSmdQOHrtFSaD+4GARmrGEgJK8HZ FM8atqb7fG+dQ=
=9+Su
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 03:49:40 -0800, martynh wrote:


>
> Well yes. But this particular effort seemed so feeble and sad that I
> felt quite sorry for her. As always, obviously: but that time I meant it
> kindly.

yes she has my sympathies.
Obsessive love for someone can do strange things to a person.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 19, 8:00*pm, SW > wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 04:14, Clive George wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19/11/2010 03:34, thirty-six wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 11:34 pm, Clive > wrote:
> >>> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>
> >>>> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
> >>>> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>
> >>> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)
>
> >> You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
> >> just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?
>
> > I could happily include any of those in that list. I could also include
> > a suitably equipped galaxy in there - compared to what some tour on,
> > it's fast.
>
> > OTOH what SW means by "fast touring" might be different - we don't know..
>
> I've always taken 'tourer' to mean anything built for road use which
> isn't obviously a racer or a commuter. *A 'fast tourer' would be
> lightweight with skinny-ish tyres and would exclude a Galaxy. *Some
> people would call it an audax bike but as I don't ride any, I don't.
> Not sure what a clubman's is or whether you have to be in a club to ride
> one.

It's an old term for probably what you are thinking. Lightweight road
bike with high pressure (narrow, wired-on) tyres, mudguards and good
tyre clearance. Can be stripped down for racing (wheel swap) or carry
a saddlebag for day tours. Is also just big enough to take racks and
panniers, although wouldn't have braze-ons (except for front lamp).
The good tyre clearance meant wider full touring tyres could be
fitted. The bike was a good all-rounder and would also be used for
personal transport of the commuting variety and although being a
member of a club would not be a necessity to own one, at the time the
descriptive term was popular, nearly all owners of such machines would
be in a cycle club (post WWII). The same machine would also be
converted for cyclo-cross (remember the decent tyre clearance.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 19, 4:14*am, Clive George > wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 03:34, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 11:34 pm, Clive > *wrote:
> >> On 18/11/2010 23:26, SW wrote:
>
> >>> As you say though, each to his own - I certainly
> >>> wouldn't wish to put a hub dynamo on my fast touring bike.
>
> >> Weirdo - that's exactly the sort of bike which ought to sport one :-)
>
> > You don't mean a touring bike do you, more a clubman's or audax, or
> > just a road(not racing specific) bike (drop bars)?
>
> I could happily include any of those in that list. I could also include
> a suitably equipped galaxy in there - compared to what some tour on,
> it's fast.
>
> OTOH what SW means by "fast touring" might be different - we don't know.

Sorry, my post was supposed to be directed at SW. It's only because I
hve ex-racing wheels and the wheel experiment was made with the
cheapest possible components that I don't run a hub dynamo on either
my ex-racing bike or clubman's. If and when I break or wear out a
front, I'll very likely select a dynamo hub for a new wheel. If there
comes on the market a cheap and neat generator that is attached to the
spokes with enough power to drive a goood lamp then I may go wwith
that. Been done before, but not seen anything recently.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 19, 8:18*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 20:09, SW wrote:
>
> > On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>
> >> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.
>
> > Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!
>
> Just get a sticker saying "Helium/carbon composite" and stick it to the
> hub - that'll solve that problem :-)

Yep, paint it black with graphite thread hilights.

[martynh]

On 20 Nov, 05:30, thirty-six > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 8:18*pm, Clive George > wrote:
>
> > On 19/11/2010 20:09, SW wrote:
>
> > > On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>
> > >> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.
>
> > > Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!
>
> > Just get a sticker saying "Helium/carbon composite" and stick it to the
> > hub - that'll solve that problem :-)
>
> Yep, paint it black with graphite thread hilights.

They look quite good even without tarting-up: much more so than the
cheap plain hubs they replaced. As for tourers, I've had the same
experience as Clive George: I fitted a dynamo hub for touring (and
marathon plus tyres) with the thought of switching to lighter wheels
in the summer, close to home. But in practice I almost never bother to
switch. But then, I go a long way, literally as well as figuratively,
to avoid big climbs, or small ones if I can help it.

[SW[_3_]]

On 19/11/2010 20:18, Clive George wrote:
> On 19/11/2010 20:09, SW wrote:
>> On 19/11/2010 19:51, Clive George wrote:
>>>
>>> There really isn't that much - you wouldn't notice it.
>>
>> Oh but I would - it would be right in front of my nose!
>
> Just get a sticker saying "Helium/carbon composite" and stick it to the
> hub - that'll solve that problem :-)

Not a bad idea! The real issue of course is that every sensible method
of reducing weight has been followed, so mudguards but no racks or bags.
A hub dynamo is not compatible with that strategy.

[SW[_3_]]

On 20/11/2010 16:01, martynh wrote:
> But then, I go a long way, literally as well as figuratively,
> to avoid big climbs, or small ones if I can help it.

That's where we differ - I will go a long way to find some big climbs.

[SW[_3_]]

On 20/11/2010 04:15, thirty-six wrote:
>
> It's an old term for probably what you are thinking. Lightweight road
> bike with high pressure (narrow, wired-on) tyres, mudguards and good
> tyre clearance. Can be stripped down for racing (wheel swap) or carry
> a saddlebag for day tours. Is also just big enough to take racks and
> panniers, although wouldn't have braze-ons (except for front lamp).
> The good tyre clearance meant wider full touring tyres could be
> fitted. The bike was a good all-rounder and would also be used for
> personal transport of the commuting variety and although being a
> member of a club would not be a necessity to own one, at the time the
> descriptive term was popular, nearly all owners of such machines would
> be in a cycle club (post WWII). The same machine would also be
> converted for cyclo-cross (remember the decent tyre clearance.

That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 21, 4:38*pm, SW > wrote:
> On 20/11/2010 04:15, thirty-six wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's an old term for probably what you are thinking. *Lightweight road
> > bike with high pressure (narrow, wired-on) tyres, mudguards and good
> > tyre clearance. *Can be stripped down for racing (wheel swap) or carry
> > a saddlebag for day tours. *Is also just big enough to take racks and
> > panniers, although wouldn't have braze-ons (except for front lamp).
> > The good tyre clearance meant wider full touring tyres could be
> > fitted. The bike was a good *all-rounder and would also be used for
> > personal transport of the commuting variety and although being a
> > member of a club would not be a necessity to own one, at the time the
> > descriptive term was popular, nearly all owners of such machines would
> > be in a cycle club (post WWII). *The same machine would also be
> > converted for cyclo-cross (remember the decent tyre clearance.
>
> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.

So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
some people prefer to call it).

[SW[_3_]]

On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>>
>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>
> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?

I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides
and climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
various styles of riding that I use it for.

> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
> some people prefer to call it).

Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.

[thirty-six]

On Nov 21, 10:51*pm, SW > wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
> >> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>
> > So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
> > comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>
> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
> perfectly designed for the job. *I also use it for 130 mile day rides
> and climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
> important. *Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
> various styles of riding that I use it for.

Now I'm understanding you.

>
> > Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
> > some people prefer to call it).
>
> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. *My tyre choice (32mm
> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
#
Unless it's an out and out race geometry that should allow you to
bumble along for hours quite comfortably.

[SW[_3_]]

On 21/11/2010 23:08, thirty-six wrote:
> Unless it's an out and out race geometry that should allow you to
> bumble along for hours quite comfortably.
>

I know I said speed wasn't important but I'm not sure I like the word
'bumble'!

[Clive George]

On 21/11/2010 22:51, SW wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
>>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>>
>> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
>> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>
> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
> perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides and
> climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
> important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
> various styles of riding that I use it for.
>
>> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
>> some people prefer to call it).
>
> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.

If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
for hill climbing anyway.

There are plenty of reasons to not use a dynohub if you don't want to,
but weight on the sort of bike you're riding isn't one of them.

[SW[_3_]]

On 21/11/2010 23:42, Clive George wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 22:51, SW wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
>>>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>>>
>>> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
>>> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>>
>> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
>> perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides and
>> climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
>> important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
>> various styles of riding that I use it for.
>>
>>> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
>>> some people prefer to call it).
>>
>> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
>> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
>
> If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
> of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
> for hill climbing anyway.

That depends how you look at it - there are probably lots of different
ways of reducing weight which you wouldn't notice individually but add
up to something significant in total. If you are trying to build a
lightweight, multi-purpose bike, a dynohub just doesn't make sense - the
tyres are a compromise worth making (for the comfort), the hub isn't
(nothing to gain).

[thirty-six]

On Nov 22, 12:08*am, SW > wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 23:42, Clive George wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21/11/2010 22:51, SW wrote:
> >> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
> >>> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>
> >>>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
> >>>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>
> >>> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
> >>> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>
> >> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
> >> perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides and
> >> climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
> >> important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
> >> various styles of riding that I use it for.
>
> >>> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
> >>> some people prefer to call it).
>
> >> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
> >> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
>
> > If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
> > of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
> > for hill climbing anyway.
>
> That depends how you look at it - there are probably lots of different
> ways of reducing weight which you wouldn't notice individually but add
> up to something significant in total. *If you are trying to build a
> lightweight, multi-purpose bike, a dynohub just doesn't make sense - the
> tyres are a compromise worth making (for the comfort), the hub isn't
> (nothing to gain).

peace of mind, knowing that you can spend an extra hour out when you
feel good and have a reliable lamp from which you can safely navigate
your way home.

[SW[_3_]]

On 22/11/2010 00:20, thirty-six wrote:
> On Nov 22, 12:08 am, > wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 23:42, Clive George wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 21/11/2010 22:51, SW wrote:
>>>> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
>>>>>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>>
>>>>> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
>>>>> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>>
>>>> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
>>>> perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides and
>>>> climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
>>>> important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
>>>> various styles of riding that I use it for.
>>
>>>>> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
>>>>> some people prefer to call it).
>>
>>>> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
>>>> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
>>
>>> If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
>>> of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
>>> for hill climbing anyway.
>>
>> That depends how you look at it - there are probably lots of different
>> ways of reducing weight which you wouldn't notice individually but add
>> up to something significant in total. If you are trying to build a
>> lightweight, multi-purpose bike, a dynohub just doesn't make sense - the
>> tyres are a compromise worth making (for the comfort), the hub isn't
>> (nothing to gain).
>
> peace of mind, knowing that you can spend an extra hour out when you
> feel good and have a reliable lamp from which you can safely navigate
> your way home.

All of which is available with a good quality removable light.

[Clive George]

On 22/11/2010 00:08, SW wrote:
> On 21/11/2010 23:42, Clive George wrote:
>> On 21/11/2010 22:51, SW wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2010 18:09, thirty-six wrote:
>>>> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a pretty close description - it is actually a cyclo-cross frame
>>>>> so it has the clearance and could take racks if necessary.
>>>>
>>>> So you are not using the frame as intended, when crossing you're
>>>> comparatively slow to road use, so why not fit a hub generator?
>>>
>>> I use it on unsurfaced tracks as well as roads so a cross bike is
>>> perfectly designed for the job. I also use it for 130 mile day rides and
>>> climbing 1:4 hills so cutting the weight down is actually quite
>>> important. Having removable lights makes the bike more adaptable to the
>>> various styles of riding that I use it for.
>>>
>>>> Stick a bigger front tyre on and it wont be so twitchy (or fast as
>>>> some people prefer to call it).
>>>
>>> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
>>> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
>>
>> If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
>> of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
>> for hill climbing anyway.
>
> That depends how you look at it - there are probably lots of different
> ways of reducing weight which you wouldn't notice individually but add
> up to something significant in total. If you are trying to build a
> lightweight, multi-purpose bike, a dynohub just doesn't make sense - the
> tyres are a compromise worth making (for the comfort), the hub isn't
> (nothing to gain).

Gain = bike which you can reliably use all the time, not just daylight
hours. Come to a tunnel? No problem. Fog? Yup, just switch the lights on.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 22/11/2010 00:08, SW wrote:

>>> Speed is not something I'm too concerned about. My tyre choice (32mm
>>> Marathons) is a compromise between comfort and rolling resistance.
>>
>> If you're running tyres like that you _really_ won't notice the weight
>> of a dynohub. Even on a 1:4 hill. Bodyweight matters more than anything
>> for hill climbing anyway.
>
> That depends how you look at it - there are probably lots of different
> ways of reducing weight which you wouldn't notice individually but add
> up to something significant in total. If you are trying to build a
> lightweight, multi-purpose bike, a dynohub just doesn't make sense - the
> tyres are a compromise worth making (for the comfort), the hub isn't
> (nothing to gain).

I reckon a dynohub weighs less than a battery pack. It also has the
always-ready advantage which is important to me as a cycle commuter.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM6uWfAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/ZMoH/RLWlnMV0rx9zM7lEm6/AmCO
7qaIbFYY9pd07x7RBRrdoItf72SrghMZGbAJkQFmJ0nH0Za/11k4poxjYtV/WJYD
NGwo3bRaHVgU7mO6hA30zA+5JvlD2pYGTnwxZh6T9Sp/LZsqHTEH+ZggcjDREzsf
NCZz1HjeEdvf+dQ9+4HNmLOh7KiWbxr3PJHVgqnIfBrfjPwKLE JLKnTRZ62kv61b
+s7r4hWYA6NSU9srj9PFcTLl0nLyeBQxZYFuUONgx6GekKPX/dBQFSSOzJk9rn38
USqhHSgBj5c3kE6h5UCJ8WogOGpAJqHRlvVtwScP0zRHSxb+yj dryrwzF3UPs6o=
=Ne9g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----