View Single Post
  #191  
Old March 18th 17, 07:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default More About Lights

On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much stationary "be
seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen" safety inflation
mentality.


True, but you're thinking like engineering, not marketing. Modern
devices and electronics are crammed full of useless features. For
example, my smartphone has hidden features that I don't know exist,
much less know how to use them. Same with my fancy scientific
calculator, where 99% of my use is simple arithmetic. If you could
customize a product to do only what you need, only what's necessary,
or only what is useful, it wouldn't sell. People buy products based
on features, even if they're useless, not needed, and un-necessary. In
some market sectors, marketing a product is an exercise in feature
pollution. In the trade press, products are compared with tables of
features. Failure to check the a box because some useless feature is
missing will produce an inferior reviewer rating.

A standlight, flashing light, blinding intensity, programmable
settings, battery indicator, laser bug zapper, etc are all useless
features that nobody needs. Yet, they sell products, so they are
included. If you read the Oculus patent (BarryBeams):
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8662697B2/en
you'll find that he threw in a horn and siren, items which are of
dubious value. Why? Because they provided the necessary product
differentiation that makes his light different from the competitors.

If there is a feature of dubious value, it won't be the safety
statistics that determine whether it gets included or trashed. It
will be the sales statistics. If it sells, it's good, no matter how
dumb or useless. It appears that the Pet Rock of bicycling may
eventually be the bicycle lighting system. I can't wait.

We're facing the same mentality regarding our local forest preserve.
Some people want to cut down every dead or dying tree within 100 feet of
any trail because, well, it _could_ fall on somebody and kill them. Sheesh.


Yep. We had a popular local river park closed because it was deemed
hazardous even though the only injury was a drunk transient who tried
to cross the river by doing a balancing act on the very narrow steel
dam.

It's not the falling tree that does the damage. It's the subsequent
litigation.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home