WHY are cyclists riding at night ?

On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights
the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and
possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the
consumer would be inflated.

Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new
safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would
bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it
would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every
vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there
was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder
belts, side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some
of those were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.

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 ?

sms wrote:
On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights
the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and
possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the
consumer would be inflated.

Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new
safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would
bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it
would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every
vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there
was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder belts,
side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some of those
were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.

When I say here I don't mean the states.
--
duane

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.



--







- 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 ?

'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 Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:18:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
sms wrote:

On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:



snip



The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights

the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and

possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the

consumer would be inflated.



Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new

safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would

bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it

would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every

vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there

was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder belts,

side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some of those

were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.



When I say here I don't mean the states.

--

duane

thanks for the explanation,

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:07:41 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:



snip



The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights

the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and

possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the

consumer would be inflated.



Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new

safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would

bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it

would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every

vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there

was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder

belts, side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some

of those were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.

SMALL ? Fed regs for interstate transportation supports public interests in health and security with statutory administrative law.

But low cost ? I'll look but uh Suzui for example. Recent example but earlier English automakers like J.A.P. suffered ...Suzuki had a nice wagon early '90's but failed the low cost standards caws of the low costs involved were unpassable.

wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:18:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
sms wrote:

On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:



snip



The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights

the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and

possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the

consumer would be inflated.



Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new

safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would

bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it

would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every

vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there

was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder belts,

side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some of those

were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.



When I say here I don't mean the states.

--

duane

thanks for the explanation,

NP
--
duane

On 10/7/2014 5:18 PM, Duane wrote:

snip

When I say here I don't mean the states.

Wait, isn't Canada part of the U.S. yet?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfBbR6L0M

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:03:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:18:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

sms wrote:



On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:







snip







The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights



the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and



possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the



consumer would be inflated.







Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new



safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would



bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it



would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every



vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there



was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder belts,



side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some of those



were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.







When I say here I don't mean the states.



--



duane



thanks for the explanation,



NP

--

duane

Nasal Polyp ?

wrote:
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 9:03:16 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 8:18:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:

sms wrote:



On 10/7/2014 4:59 PM, Duane wrote:







snip







The argument seems to be that with government legislating mandatory lights



the cost would be less. I think this wouldn't be the case here and



possibly the opposite would happen. The costs or at least the cost to the



consumer would be inflated.







Look at motor vehicles. Every time the government has mandated some new



safety feature or emissions control feature the auto companies would



bitch and moan about the cost and make up wild stories about how much it



would increase the cost of the vehicle. But once they put it on every



vehicle the cost was very small and since everyone had to comply there



was no competitive disadvantage. Safety glass, seatbelts, shoulder belts,



side impact protection, airbags, ABS, TCS, TPMS, RBUC. etc. Some of those



were not even mandatory but they put them on anyway.







When I say here I don't mean the states.



--



duane



thanks for the explanation,



NP

--

duane

Nasal Polyp ?

Neutered poodle.
--
duane