On 2/16/2018 12:33 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/16/2018 9:03 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-15 12:16, sms wrote:
On 2/15/2018 9:35 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â* ... Of course
we will soon see claims that this is all self-interest by Trek, whose
sole aim is to sell more lights.


Everybody should know that such articles aren't very suited to foster
sales of their own products but lights in general.

True. But it's a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings of such
article. Even though Trek is not a major supplier of bicycle lights,
you
can already predict the narrative that will spew forth. You saw it
already with the Odense study.


Yep, afterwards the usual denialist stuff roll in.

Any study showing that a little mag-dyno blinky decreased daytime solo
accidents by 27% is suspicious on its face. If that doesn't raise an
eye-brow, you don't have eye-brows.

I think, that as a lawyer, you likely understand that the fact that the
DRL is powered by a magnetic dynamo is irrelevant in terms of its
effectiveness.

The "magnetic dynamo" is one or two isolated magnets attached to the
spokes and passing a coil built into the light. You get either one or
two tiny pulses of electricity per wheel revolution. It's like a 4th
grade science fair project.

It can't possibly put out anywhere near the power of a real bike dynamo.
Yet you're the person who has spent years claiming that real bike
dynamos are completely insufficient.

Are you getting a commission on these things too?

--
- Frank Krygowski