Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: connected lights
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:40:25 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <0un6ejt9tqtc56insillmc0je5mo7pl6oh@4ax.com>
References: <NfYDO.437045$VK2e.110808@fx01.ams4> <vbq12l$3376h$1@dont-email.me> <5l0EO.497929$v0Jd.164943@fx06.ams4> <vbqnm3$37v20$1@dont-email.me> <emkEO.201680$kpic.80347@fx15.ams4> <rpr3ejt34mgh4ok31fm079ea1pppce4tvh@4ax.com> <vbsvph$3pk1g$5@dont-email.me> <vbt2df$3qi08$1@dont-email.me> <vbt2s6$3qjev$2@dont-email.me> <vbuo7u$8isg$2@dont-email.me> <vbvi1o$d607$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 23:40:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="55e223d8d038155e7bbdda7f2f24aa9c";
	logging-data="478677"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+IOhHP37mxU25Qq3f5K9Wlu9UMkZc3JYE="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q2xNxzEFkV1vpGIcTCIW+lG4I6Q=
Bytes: 4431

On Thu, 12 Sep 2024 16:13:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 9/12/2024 8:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/11/2024 4:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2024 5:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/2024 3:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/2024 3:37 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:23:22 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
>>>>>> <roger@sarlet.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is also the fact I like lights that can kick out more oomph 
>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>> Dynamo can do, and I’m not wild on such cut off beams, while my 
>>>>>>> commute
>>>>>>> light has a low wide beam on low, ie fine around town and so on, 
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> High Beam to give a bit more punch in the woods and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my experience, a modern, StVZO-conforming LED based headlight is 
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> than good enough for riding in city traffic. More power usually only
>>>>>> serves to blind other cyclists and still can't compete with car
>>>>>> headlights. Riding in the woods and in the dark, on the other hand, is
>>>>>> better done using a weaker, but wider beam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only reasonable need I see for more powerful headlights is when
>>>>>> driving on unlit rural roads. Here you need a powerful low beam and
>>>>>> sometimes also a high beam.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree woods riding is different than road riding. But I've done 
>>>>> lots of unlit road riding with dyno lights and no problems. So have 
>>>>> countless randonneurs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Night vision varies, I'm sure; but I believe the general desire for 
>>>>> more and more and more lumens is caused by the same mechanism the 
>>>>> triggers the desire for more and more rear cogs, less and less bike 
>>>>> weight, bigger and bigger pickup trucks, etc. After a while, people 
>>>>> are chasing advertising copy or quickly diminishing returns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've repeated that for years, implying that unlike mere mortals you 
>>>> are magically immune to the evil spell of marketers. OK, that could 
>>>> be true.
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe other people actually ride offroad and actually need 
>>>> brighter lights than you.
>>>
>>> Read again, Andrew. See where I said "I agree woods riding is 
>>> different than road riding"?
>>>
>> 
>> And all the others inbetween who may very rarely ride offroad without 
>> ambient streetlights but want the capacity, people who use the wondrous 
>> little things for car repair and the like (me, just not on my bicycle), 
>> people who just want 'the best one' and yes some amount of the Veblen 
>> effect.
>> 
>> As with most consumer decisions, sorting out motive is a fool's errand 
>> as people sincerely misstate motive as they sometimes don't have any 
>> conscious logical process.
>
>Understood. Your near-default point is "Everyone's decision is correct."
>
>My frequent point is "You don't need to go to extremes to be safe, 
>especially on a bike."

My frequent point is that safe is a subjective evaluation.

I feel safe on a bicycle sidepath, you don't.

I feel safe having guns in my home, you don't.

--
C'est bon
Soloman