WHY are cyclists riding at night ?

Am 08.10.2014 14:36, schrieb :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:00:39 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:
My point is mandating dynamos for bikes here isn't likely to reduce
their costs.

Actually, if EVERY bike sold in, or imported into, quebec had to
meet the standards one of 2 things would happen. The price of meeting
the standards would drop, or people would stop buying bicycles at the
(low ) rate they are buying them now.

If Bikes for the markets with such requriements (Germany, Netherlands)
already meet all other Quebec standards, the price of meeting those
standards would be zero. The price point in Taiwan for a container of
bicycles with hub dynamoes is pretty much the same at that for a
container of bicycles without lights. Importing a single bike with a
different standard into Quebec is prohibitievly expensive, importing all
bikes with the same changed standards does not induce measurable exta
costs.

On 10/8/2014 9:30 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 08.10.2014 14:36, schrieb :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:00:39 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:
My point is mandating dynamos for bikes here isn't likely to reduce
their costs.

Actually, if EVERY bike sold in, or imported into, quebec had to
meet the standards one of 2 things would happen. The price of meeting
the standards would drop, or people would stop buying bicycles at the
(low ) rate they are buying them now.

If Bikes for the markets with such requriements (Germany, Netherlands)
already meet all other Quebec standards, the price of meeting those
standards would be zero. The price point in Taiwan for a container of
bicycles with hub dynamoes is pretty much the same at that for a
container of bicycles without lights. Importing a single bike with a
different standard into Quebec is prohibitievly expensive, importing all
bikes with the same changed standards does not induce measurable exta
costs.


The only standards that I know of regarding sale of bikes in Quebec are
those requiring brakes and reflectors. And most bike shops don't
install the reflectors.

The law requires bikes to have lights when used at night but not that
the bike is sold with lights. It's perfectly legal to ride a bike in the
daytime without lights.

On 10/8/2014 6:30 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 08.10.2014 14:36, schrieb :
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:00:39 +0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:
My point is mandating dynamos for bikes here isn't likely to reduce
their costs.

Actually, if EVERY bike sold in, or imported into, quebec had to
meet the standards one of 2 things would happen. The price of meeting
the standards would drop, or people would stop buying bicycles at the
(low ) rate they are buying them now.

If Bikes for the markets with such requriements (Germany, Netherlands)
already meet all other Quebec standards, the price of meeting those
standards would be zero. The price point in Taiwan for a container of
bicycles with hub dynamoes is pretty much the same at that for a
container of bicycles without lights.

Wrong. Go to Taipei Cycle someday and price the difference in cost. It's
about $3 per hub difference.

Importing a single bike with a
different standard into Quebec is prohibitievly expensive, importing all
bikes with the same changed standards does not induce measurable exta
costs.

Passed on from the factory to the bicycle company to the dealer the
extra cost double to about $6. But to buy a new wheel, at retail, with
that $4 dynamo costs about $100. The cost of the lights is similar. But
there is just no way that the bicycle company is going to spec hub
dynamos and lights when almost no one wants them unless the government
requires it, and that's never going to happen.

On 10/8/2014 10:05 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/8/2014 6:30 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


If Bikes for the markets with such requriements (Germany, Netherlands)
already meet all other Quebec standards, the price of meeting those
standards would be zero. The price point in Taiwan for a container of
bicycles with hub dynamoes is pretty much the same at that for a
container of bicycles without lights.

Wrong. Go to Taipei Cycle someday and price the difference in cost. It's
about $3 per hub difference.

Importing a single bike with a
different standard into Quebec is prohibitievly expensive, importing all
bikes with the same changed standards does not induce measurable exta
costs.

Passed on from the factory to the bicycle company to the dealer the
extra cost double to about $6. But to buy a new wheel, at retail, with
that $4 dynamo costs about $100. The cost of the lights is similar. But
there is just no way that the bicycle company is going to spec hub
dynamos and lights when almost no one wants them unless the government
requires it, and that's never going to happen.

I agree it's very unlikely to happen. But here's how it might happen,
even though it's unlikely:

Some group (Safe Bikers, Inc.?) might start exaggerating the number of
tragedies coming from riding without lights. They could express it in
billions of dollars of cost to the health care system (being careful to
never compare it with costs from other problems). They could feature
heart-rending stories of photogenic people hurt by not being forced to
have lights. They would, of course, completely ignore other methods of
solving the problem they're exaggerating (like, educating people to use
readily available lights).

If Safe Bikers, Inc. were to become motivated to embark on such a
campaign, it would almost certainly be due to large "donations" from
some company selling the equipment that would "solve" the "problem."

Anyway, they could print and distribute lots of brochures talking about
the tragedies and the "It's so simple!" solution. They could recruit
medicos to testify about the great number of no-lights injuries they see
(again, careful to never compare to other injuries). They could send
lots of dedicated moms to plead before legislators, along with lots of
teary-eyed kids telling how they fell off their bike because they
weren't force to have a headlight, and - as they say - Bob's your uncle!
A new regulation!

Don't scoff. It's worked with other "safety" devices.

(And I say all the above as a person who strongly believes cyclists
should never ride at night without proper lights.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:55:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

... as a person who strongly believes cyclists
should never ride at night without proper lights.)

Clarifying question: If someone hasn't any lights (proper -
whatever that means - or otherwise), they should not ride?

How about other sorts of riding that you, Frank, consider
improper? Don't give me any "they should do it properly";
simple question: Ride? Or not ride.

If I make you feel that inferior, Gene Daniels, stop reading my posts, stop trying to attract my attention, grow up.

Andre Jute
Out of patience with the pimply teenage stalkers

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 1:09:24 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 6:50:32 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:12:41 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski to Andre Jute:

I simply decided you were not worth
my time, so I skip reading almost all your posts. I think my judgment
has been confirmed.

- Frank Krygowski

I'm quoted on bicycles in the Wall Street Journal, and you, Krygowski, can't even persuade anyone on your home newsgroup that the sun shines outside. The comparison is a perfect judgement on your futile dream of being a "bicycle spokesman".

Andre Jute
I let others brag about "perfect judgement". I just get the job done right.

the 'religion of ergonomics' ? by art critic Jute ?

beats me...You have no credentials as a scientist or artist nor art critic. WSJ mentioning you soils WSJ's image.

eyehehahhahhah.....

The groups discussions invariably deteriorate into...I think this...whithout entering a logical or humorous foundation. Or as...'skiing in Russia' I try a reference to Jute as Nalopleon.

I was genuinely curious about the foundations of dynamo lighting but in the end nothing more than the usual small minded bickering.

I asked yalw to think and....you refused.

This is no big deal tho....Frank, SMS, Muzi are articulate on the subject and in general. Communication takes practice and education. You would believe this state is common but no itsnot.

the religion of ergonomics...like the Lancia ?

Wasn't posting once enough, Gene Daniels? What does your added xenophobia benefit anyone's happiness? Lord Valve explained to you over five years ago that your posts about me tell us more about you than about me:
***
On May 18, 5:23*pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Q: How is it that Jute owns some poor assholes so completely they write thousands
* * of words about him?

A: *It is the destiny of assholes to be owned. *In fact, a convincing argument
* * can be mounted that they are uncomfortable in the extreme without chains
* * of some sort, or at least without an object on which to focus their worship.
***
What are you, Daniels, a masochist? If I make you feel inferior, stop reading my posts, stop trying to attact my attention, and you won't hurt so much.. It ain't rocket science.

Andre Jute
Charisma just is

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 1:29:13 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:09:24 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 6:50:32 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:12:41 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski to Andre Jute:

I simply decided you were not worth
my time, so I skip reading almost all your posts. I think my judgment
has been confirmed.

I'm quoted on bicycles in the Wall Street Journal, and you, Krygowski, can't even persuade anyone on your home newsgroup that the sun shines outside. The comparison is a perfect judgement on your futile dream of being a "bicycle spokesman".

Andre Jute
I let others brag about "perfect judgement". I just get the job done right.

the 'religion of ergonomics' ? by art critic Jute ?

beats me...You have no credentials as a scientist or artist nor art critic. WSJ mentioning you soils WSJ's image.

eyehehahhahhah.....

The groups discussions invariably deteriorate into...I think this...whithout entering a logical or humorous foundation. Or as...'skiing in Russia' I try a reference to Jute as Nalopleon.

I was genuinely curious about the foundations of dynamo lighting but in the end nothing more than the usual small minded bickering.

I asked yalw to think and....you refused.

This is no big deal tho....Frank, SMS, Muzi are articulate on the subject and in general. Communication takes practice and education. You would believe this state is common but no itsnot.

the religion of ergonomics...like the Lancia ?

'The Rise of the Designer Bike: RBT expert quoted by Wall Street'
the title is a RBT newsgroup subject title. If you search for background on the quote (?) 'religion of ergonomics', Google shows up with the title and Benoit, a Jute fellow traveler no doubt, Benoit-Jute-Rothschild- ....

tricky no ?

The phenomena is fascinating. Here we have another foreigner, no slur intended, in a USA discussion group, attacking us on not cycle grounds. Ugly.

Why would a learned man of this projected background be here doing these things ?

Why not engag on home ground ?

When I have the opportunity, I'll try coaxing a ride on a dynamo express. I'm convinced yawl suffer from Benzomania, or the Religion of Euro Elitism....a move beyond the safety bicycle.

Maybe get a Franz Josef T shirt for the occasion

On 10/8/2014 9:27 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:55:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

... as a person who strongly believes cyclists
should never ride at night without proper lights.)

Clarifying question: If someone hasn't any lights (proper -
whatever that means - or otherwise), they should not ride?

How about other sorts of riding that you, Frank, consider
improper? Don't give me any "they should do it properly";
simple question: Ride? Or not ride.

My opinion is that they should not ride without lights that at least
allow other road users to see them.

If they want to use improper lights for seeing the road and environment
around them, then that is okay. If Frank really believed that cyclists
should not ride without _proper_ lights then he would not be riding at
night.

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 5:27:52 PM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:55:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip



... as a person who strongly believes cyclists

should never ride at night without proper lights.)



Clarifying question: If someone hasn't any lights (proper -

whatever that means - or otherwise), they should not ride?



How about other sorts of riding that you, Frank, consider

improper? Don't give me any "they should do it properly";

simple question: Ride? Or not ride.

This is interesting. Krygowski claims to have ridden at night for decades. Yet the first "proper" lamps for cycles were the IQ Fly and Cyo which arrived a handful of years ago (George Clive knows precisely when and will now refuse to tell us because we will use the information to corner his beau ideal, Franki-boy Krygowski...). So, Franki-boy what lamps precisely did you ride with before? Halogens in MR16 shells, as Scharfie recommended? Car headlamps on a plank bolted to the bike, as Scharfie actually did at one stage? Improper lamps, but at least specifically made for bicycles? Which?

Andre Jute
Relentless rigor -- Gaius Germanicus

On 08/10/2014 19:21, Andre Jute wrote:

This is interesting. Krygowski claims to have ridden at night for decades.
Yet the first "proper" lamps for cycles were the IQ Fly and Cyo which
arrived a handful of years ago (George Clive knows precisely when and
will now refuse to tell us because we will use the information to corner
his beau ideal, Franki-boy Krygowski...).

Well, I just checked my 1895 CTC handbook. It says cyclists should carry
a lamp when riding at night, but doesn't go into more detail.

Thus it seems likely to me that "proper" lamps for cycles were around
then. Certainly predating Frank.

FWIW I've been riding at night lit by dynamo lighting since the early
80s - I think that counts as decades too.