Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2024 12:59 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2024 5:11 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2024 4:42 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For that matter, I don't see how it's likely that a tree branch could be
>>>>>> so low in the road as to take you off the bike but not cause damage to
>>>>>> every passing SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ride in the middle of the traffic lane, you're correct. If you
>>>>> "stay to the right," whether on the shoulder or in a painted or
>>>>> protected bike lane, the SUV is not going to be there (at least they're
>>>>> not supposed to be there).
>>>>>
>>>>> "Taking the lane" sounds good in theory, but realistically, most
>>>>> cyclists stay to the right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Do you not have buses? Most residential streets in London and even some of
>>>> the bigger cities will have large bus networks which use residential
>>>> streets as well that’s where the people are, And with London are double
>>>> deckers in most cases. Are places where the bus has to driver further out
>>>> but they are uncommon enough to require signs warning buses!
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can't speak to Santa Clara or London specifically, but
>>> most places the bus routes are on arterials while savvy
>>> cyclists are a block over on a less busy parallel street
>>
>> That sounds subpar ie public transport only works if convenient
>
>
> Why, Roger, are you suggesting good ole' USAian public transportation
> infrastructure is sub-par?

Heh would seem so!
>
> , certainly
>> in london arterials which tend to be big bypasses built in the 20/30’s
>> probably with a parallel cycleway if not converted into a side road, but
>> will not be on a bus route or have any bus stops or train stations etc as
>> it’s not where people are.
>>
>> For cars bypasses work ie longer distances but bigger road.
>>
>> It also doesn’t work for bike infrastructure ie folks will not ride a mile
>> or so to ride along and so on, hence the old cycleways are in general very
>> lightly used as not direct or convenient.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
Roger Merriman

On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>
> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
> multi-use/recreational trails.

Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
differently and the branches know not to encroach.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>
>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>
> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
> differently and the branches know not to encroach.

Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.

But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.

Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>
>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>
> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>
> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.

By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.

>
> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
>

--
Add xx to reply

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>
>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>
>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>
>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>
> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>
>>

Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
maintenance.

A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
cope with mud wet roots and so on.

Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
branches aren’t likely to be high priority.

Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
chalk road.

But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
etc.

>> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
>>
>
Roger Merriman

On 4/3/2024 2:59 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to
>>>> encroach on multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>
>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The
>>> trees grow differently and the branches know not to
>>> encroach.
>>
>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about
>> roads.
>>
>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging
>> so low as to be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A
>> branch low enough to hit the head of a typical cyclist
>> would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>
> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have
> infrastructure to deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my
> area, complaints for trail maintenance depend on how bored
> the local DPW is.
>
>>
>> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by
>> Scharfian photos of all those terribly dangerous branches.
>> Google Streetview preferred.
>>
>

Reminds me of the ancient quip, "What's orange and sleeps
three?"

"A County truck"
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:59:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>
>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>
>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>
>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>
>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>
>>>
>
>Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
>maintenance.
>
>A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
>have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
>commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
>some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
>cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>
>Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
>branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>
>Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
>managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
>the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
>maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
>chalk road.
>
>But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
>the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
>etc.
>
>>> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
>>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
>>>
>>
>Roger Merriman
>

The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
trail.

On 4/3/2024 6:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:59:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>>
>>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>>
>>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
>> maintenance.
>>
>> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
>> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
>> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
>> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
>> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>>
>> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
>> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>>
>> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
>> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
>> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
>> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
>> chalk road.
>>
>> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
>> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
>> etc.
>>
>>>> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
>>>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
>>>>
>>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
> had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
> recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
> dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
> me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
> trail.

Happens. Like this morning for example:
https://www.channel3000.com/news/driver-injured-after-tree-branch-breaks-off-falls-on-vehicle-in-beaver-dam/article_568edc5e-f211-11ee-a6c8-3fb6e729f073.html
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:59:59 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>>
>>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>>
>>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
>> maintenance.
>>
>> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
>> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
>> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
>> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
>> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>>
>> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
>> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>>
>> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
>> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
>> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
>> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
>> chalk road.
>>
>> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
>> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
>> etc.
>>
>>>> Anyway, this perennial discussion would be improved by Scharfian photos
>>>> of all those terribly dangerous branches. Google Streetview preferred.
>>>>
>>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
> had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
> recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
> dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
> me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
> trail.
>

Stuff more like what you use, in uk, is likely to be fairly well maintained
though probably not by the government be that national or local but since
it’s largely some vegetation cut back etc it’s not a financially large
burden, as without motor vehicles the surface will last many decades.

Roger Merriman

On 4/3/2024 4:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

<snip>

> The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
> had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
> recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
> dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
> me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
> trail.

I've been tempted to bring along a small tree pruner to cut the
low-hanging branches that I regularly encounter. But because the problem
trees are almost "city trees," cutting them yourself is not allowed. If
a homeowner trimmed a low-hanging branch on a city tree then nothing
would likely happen, but someone cycling along cutting branches would
likely invite some trouble.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:23:29 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/3/2024 4:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
>> had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
>> recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
>> dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
>> me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
>> trail.
>
>I've been tempted to bring along a small tree pruner to cut the
>low-hanging branches that I regularly encounter. But because the problem
>trees are almost "city trees," cutting them yourself is not allowed. If
>a homeowner trimmed a low-hanging branch on a city tree then nothing
>would likely happen, but someone cycling along cutting branches would
>likely invite some trouble.

I don't think I'd get in trouble for doing that if that if it really
needed to be done, but I've not seen anywhere it needed to be done.
After seeing other people complaints, I am greatly impressed with how
well the bike trails around here are taken care of.

On 4/4/2024 12:23 PM, sms wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 4:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The bike trails I ride are maintained by either county or state. I've
>> had not seen any maintenance or cleaning problem. I did have, on my
>> recent very windy ride on the Withlacoochee trail, a pretty good sized
>> dead branch fall in the trail about 50 feet ahead of me. Had it hit
>> me, I'd have been injured. Of course, I stopped and drug it off the
>> trail.
>
> I've been tempted to bring along a small tree pruner to cut the
> low-hanging branches that I regularly encounter. But because the problem
> trees are almost "city trees," cutting them yourself is not allowed. If
> a homeowner trimmed a low-hanging branch on a city tree then nothing
> would likely happen, but someone cycling along cutting branches would
> likely invite some trouble.

If you "regularly encounter" on-road branches that hang so low as to be
a hazard to cyclists, why not post a Google StreetView link?

And explain how Ford F-150s and Amazon vans drive by without damage.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>
>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>
>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>
>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>
>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>
>>>
>
> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
> maintenance.
>
> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>
> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.

As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly regarding
public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic walking path crosses
an English farmer's land, he cannot prevent people using it. (Correct me
if I'm wrong.) But in America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."

To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news recently. He
lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some young guys said they were
on adjacent property, planning to hunt. Our senator said no, they were
across the boundary and on his property. They claimed he shot at them.
He said it was just a warning shot.

> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
> chalk road.
>
> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
> etc.

We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike, from normal
vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike lanes, "protected" bike
lanes, paved bike paths, walking paths, rocky mountain bike challenges,
etc.

But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights with a proper
StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road use - and specifically,
that one was very unlikely to smack one's head on a substantial low
hanging branch.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2024 1:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to
>>>>>> encroach on
>>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The
>>>>> trees grow
>>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>>
>>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about
>>>> roads.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch
>>>> hanging so low as to
>>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low
>>>> enough to hit the
>>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall
>>>> pedestrian to have to duck.
>>>
>>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have
>>> infrastructure to
>>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints
>>> for trail
>>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and
>> responsibility for
>> maintenance.
>>
>> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one
>> I do pass and
>> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not
>> intended for
>> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you
>> need a bike with
>> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the
>> bare minimum to
>> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>>
>> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way
>> accessible but low
>> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>
> As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly
> regarding public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic
> walking path crosses an English farmer's land, he cannot
> prevent people using it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) But in
> America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."
>
> To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news
> recently. He lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some
> young guys said they were on adjacent property, planning to
> hunt. Our senator said no, they were across the boundary and
> on his property. They claimed he shot at them. He said it
> was just a warnng shot.
>
>> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though
>> Sustrans have
>> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity
>> they don’t have
>> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the
>> surfaces vary ie
>> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced
>> old railway to a
>> chalk road.
>>
>> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not
>> encountered low branches,
>> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal
>> leisure cyclist,
>> etc.
>
> We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike,
> from normal vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike
> lanes, "protected" bike lanes, paved bike paths, walking
> paths, rocky mountain bike challenges, etc.
>
> But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights
> with a proper StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road
> use - and specifically, that one was very unlikely to smack
> one's head on a substantial low hanging branch.
>

He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.

If there is an immediate credible threat to human life,
one's own or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the
threat, as the general rule, is viewed as reasonable self
defense (some States limit the circumstance, some severely.
None are more expansive).

A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as
negligent discharge, escalation or even provocation.
Depending on how connected this guy is in our much degraded
judicial system, he may well be charged. I think he ought to be.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>>
>>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>>
>>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
>> maintenance.
>>
>> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
>> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
>> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
>> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
>> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>>
>> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
>> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>
> As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly regarding
> public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic walking path crosses
> an English farmer's land, he cannot prevent people using it. (Correct me
> if I'm wrong.) But in America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."
>
Correct that a right of way is legally protected do get some landowners
being arse but create too much noise and eventually the council etc will
get involved and as you have no right to block.

Likewise trespassing is has little legal right you can ask someone to not
but that’s largely it.

> To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news recently. He
> lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some young guys said they were
> on adjacent property, planning to hunt. Our senator said no, they were
> across the boundary and on his property. They claimed he shot at them.
> He said it was just a warning shot.
>
>> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
>> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
>> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
>> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
>> chalk road.
>>
>> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
>> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
>> etc.
>
> We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike, from normal
> vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike lanes, "protected" bike
> lanes, paved bike paths, walking paths, rocky mountain bike challenges,
> etc.
>
> But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights with a proper
> StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road use - and specifically,
> that one was very unlikely to smack one's head on a substantial low
> hanging branch.
>
urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
and doesn’t need anything that powerful.

Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
overkill in terms of cost.

Roger Merriman

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:53:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2024 3:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2024 3:02 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>> On 4/1/2024 5:31 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not uncommon in this area for low branches to encroach on
>>>>>> multi-use/recreational trails.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things are different in the Youngstown Ohio area. The trees grow
>>>>> differently and the branches know not to encroach.
>>>>
>>>> Those with memories know I've been talking mostly about roads.
>>>>
>>>> But I wonder: If a recreational trail had a branch hanging so low as to
>>>> be a hazard, why wouldn't it be cleared? A branch low enough to hit the
>>>> head of a typical cyclist would cause any tall pedestrian to have to duck.
>>>
>>> By whom, and under what impetus? In europe they have infrastructure to
>>> deal with it. Anywhere I've seen in my area, complaints for trail
>>> maintenance depend on how bored the local DPW is.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Rather depends on the trail, and who owned the land and responsibility for
>> maintenance.
>>
>> A council park trail would be reasonable quick, though one I do pass and
>> have grazed the helmet on the branches is realistic not intended for
>> commuters or bike at all, has multiple areas where you need a bike with
>> some volume in the tires ie need a CX/Gravel/hybrid at the bare minimum to
>> cope with mud wet roots and so on.
>>
>> Private land owners is a duty to keep the right of way accessible but low
>> branches aren’t likely to be high priority.
>
>As I understand it, British and American laws vary greatly regarding
>public rights-of-way. I've read that if a historic walking path crosses
>an English farmer's land, he cannot prevent people using it. (Correct me
>if I'm wrong.) But in America, the default seems to be "No Trespassing."

As it should be.

>To illustrate: Our local state senator was in the news recently. He
>lives in a rural area, on some acreage. Some young guys said they were
>on adjacent property, planning to hunt. Our senator said no, they were
>across the boundary and on his property. They claimed he shot at them.
>He said it was just a warning shot.

If he did that, he's a dumb shit.

>> Is also Sustrans “national cycle network” which though Sustrans have
>> managed to get access, sign posts installed as a charity they don’t have
>> the funds for maintenance nor often own the land so the surfaces vary ie
>> maybe anything from a sign on a road to tarmac surfaced old railway to a
>> chalk road.
>>
>> But certainly urban and suburban trails I’ve not encountered low branches,
>> the one near Hounslow Heath is arguably beyond your normal leisure cyclist,
>> etc.
>
>We can discuss an entire spectrum of places to ride bike, from normal
>vehicle lanes (which I prefer) through bike lanes, "protected" bike
>lanes, paved bike paths, walking paths, rocky mountain bike challenges,
>etc.
>
>But please recall, I was talking about whether bike lights with a proper
>StVZO cutoff beam was adequate for normal road use - and specifically,
>that one was very unlikely to smack one's head on a substantial low
>hanging branch.

On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
> to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
> outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
> probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
> and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
>
> Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
> overkill in terms of cost.

About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really
outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B).

But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a fiction/TeeVee/film
> creation, unsupported in law.
>
> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own or
> others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the general rule,
> is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States limit the
> circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
>
> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
> discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how connected
> this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may well be
> charged. I think he ought to be.

He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.

The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story only
recently.

And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve for
local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a months-old
incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
>> fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
>>
>> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life,
>> one's own or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the
>> threat, as the general rule, is viewed as reasonable self
>> defense (some States limit the circumstance, some
>> severely. None are more expansive).
>>
>> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as
>> negligent discharge, escalation or even provocation.
>> Depending on how connected this guy is in our much
>> degraded judicial system, he may well be charged. I think
>> he ought to be.
>
> He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
>
> The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out
> the incident was months ago. The young guys in question told
> the story only recently.
>
> And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real
> nerve for local law enforcement to go after a state senator
> regarding a months-old incident, even if his own statements
> about it are damning.
>

Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a fiction/TeeVee/film
>>> creation, unsupported in law.
>>>
>>> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own or
>>> others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the general
>>> rule, is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States limit the
>>> circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
>>>
>>> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
>>> discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how connected
>>> this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may well be
>>> charged. I think he ought to be.
>>
>> He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
>>
>> The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
>> incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story
>> only recently.
>>
>> And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve for
>> local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a
>> months-old incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.
>>
>
>
> Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.

Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an idiot firing a
shotgun in the general direction of someone who wasn't a threat.

And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to the
contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic pedophile cult
being run on the basement of a pizza shop (which, interestingly enough,
doesn't have a basement).

Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......

--
Add xx to reply

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
>> to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
>> outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
>> probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
>> and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
>>
>> Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
>> overkill in terms of cost.
>
> About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
> were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
> lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
> used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
> quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really
> outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
> was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B).
>
> But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
> stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
> more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
> improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.
>
The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least
compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.

I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.

For the commute would a dynamo light be fine? Probably though even so I’d
probably miss even thats lights ability to light up the woods on high that
would mainly be beam shape than absolute power, as some dynamo lights
aren’t too far behind though most seem to be in the 200 ish lumen range.

I’ve had lights in that range in the past, and that’s fine but what I have
is a better fit certainly for my commute, ie a mix of well lit roads and
unlit woods.

Unless the cost of the dynamo system is built into the cost of the bike as
new, it’s a relatively hard sell, note the rise of E bike lights, ie they
plug into the main battery.

Roger Merriman

On 4/4/2024 4:51 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
>>>> fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
>>>>
>>>> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life,
>>>> one's own or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the
>>>> threat, as the general rule, is viewed as reasonable
>>>> self defense (some States limit the circumstance, some
>>>> severely. None are more expansive).
>>>>
>>>> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as
>>>> negligent discharge, escalation or even provocation.
>>>> Depending on how connected this guy is in our much
>>>> degraded judicial system, he may well be charged. I
>>>> think he ought to be.
>>>
>>> He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
>>>
>>> The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns
>>> out the incident was months ago. The young guys in
>>> question told the story only recently.
>>>
>>> And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take
>>> real nerve for local law enforcement to go after a state
>>> senator regarding a months-old incident, even if his own
>>> statements about it are damning.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
>
> Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an
> idiot firing a shotgun in the general direction of someone
> who wasn't a threat.
>
> And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to
> the contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic
> pedophile cult being run on the basement of a pizza shop
> (which, interestingly enough, doesn't have a basement).
>
> Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......
>
We can agree Mr Cheney should not be handling firearms.
Negligence IMHO and he's lucky the victim recovered.

Mr Foster's death, like the death of Seth Rich, was
amazingly convenient...
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
>>> to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
>>> outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
>>> probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
>>> and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
>>>
>>> Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
>>> overkill in terms of cost.
>>
>> About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
>> were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
>> lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
>> used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
>> quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really
>> outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
>> was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B).
>>
>> But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
>> stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
>> more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
>> improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.
>>
> The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least
> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
> to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
> yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
>
> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.

I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?

>
> For the commute would a dynamo light be fine? Probably though even so I’d
> probably miss even thats lights ability to light up the woods on high that
> would mainly be beam shape than absolute power, as some dynamo lights
> aren’t too far behind though most seem to be in the 200 ish lumen range.
>
> I’ve had lights in that range in the past, and that’s fine but what I have
> is a better fit certainly for my commute, ie a mix of well lit roads and
> unlit woods.
>
> Unless the cost of the dynamo system is built into the cost of the bike as
> new, it’s a relatively hard sell, note the rise of E bike lights, ie they
> plug into the main battery.

About the cost of the dynamo: Two of my bikes have hub dynamos. I built
the wheels myself. But at least four other family bikes have B&M
headlamps powered by bottle or roller dynamos. Most of those were given
to me, so they don't have to be expensive. New ones of good quality are
available for ~$40.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2024 9:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 4:51 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 4/4/2024 4:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 3:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/4/2024 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He's an idiot as regards 'warning shot' That's a
>>>>> fiction/TeeVee/film creation, unsupported in law.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there is an immediate credible threat to human life, one's own
>>>>> or others, deadly force sufficient to stop the threat, as the
>>>>> general rule, is viewed as reasonable self defense (some States
>>>>> limit the circumstance, some severely. None are more expansive).
>>>>>
>>>>> A 'warning shot' is most often viewed by the courts as negligent
>>>>> discharge, escalation or even provocation. Depending on how
>>>>> connected this guy is in our much degraded judicial system, he may
>>>>> well be charged. I think he ought to be.
>>>>
>>>> He may be an idiot, but he's a successful idiot.
>>>>
>>>> The account appeared recently in the paper, but it turns out the
>>>> incident was months ago. The young guys in question told the story
>>>> only recently.
>>>>
>>>> And the shooter is well connected indeed. It would take real nerve
>>>> for local law enforcement to go after a state senator regarding a
>>>> months-old incident, even if his own statements about it are damning.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone is quite aware of the Vincent Foster Rule.
>>
>> Please explain how a suicide is in any way related to an idiot firing
>> a shotgun in the general direction of someone who wasn't a threat.
>>
>> And yes, Fosters death was a suicide. Conspiracy theories to the
>> contrary are on par with stories of a democrat satanic pedophile cult
>> being run on the basement of a pizza shop (which, interestingly
>> enough, doesn't have a basement).
>>
>> Perhaps you meant the Cheney rule......
>>
> We can agree Mr Cheney should not be handling firearms. Negligence IMHO
> and he's lucky the victim recovered.
>
> Mr Foster's death, like the death of Seth Rich, was amazingly convenient...

Watch out, Mr. Muzi. The deep state is doubtlessly monitoring every post
you make to r.b.tech!

(Might as well go all in with the fantasies!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 7:16 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/4/2024 3:53 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> urban roads small usb powered lights would be fine, as you don’t need light
>>>> to see by, I only flick mine to high beam in the woods/parks but I’m a
>>>> outlier, though london does have a fair bit of Green areas that you’d
>>>> probably want a light that you’d see by. Though in most it’s fairly mild
>>>> and doesn’t need anything that powerful.
>>>>
>>>> Quite frankly anything StVZO is like my exposure light likely to be
>>>> overkill in terms of cost.
>>>
>>> About the cost: For a long time I got by fine with various lights that
>>> were very inexpensive. I experimented a bit with many headlights and
>>> lighting arrangements, including rechargeables and home brews. I mostly
>>> used dynamo halogen lamps by Union and Soubitez that focused the beam
>>> quite well and were adequate for all my road riding, but not really
>>> outstanding. The only setup that I considered a significant improvement
>>> was two halogen lamps powered by my dynamo, and switchable (A or B or A+B).
>>>
>>> But when I got my first B&M Cyo, I considered the problem solved and
>>> stopped experimenting. It's a little pricey (~$100?) but I've spent far
>>> more on other bike equipment. I can afford it, and it's such an
>>> improvement. For me, it gives a luxurious amount of illumination.
>>>
>> The lamps as far as I can see are relatively speaking inexpensive, at least
>> compared roughly to batteries powered units, the expensive bit would seem
>> to be a Dynamo hub and wheel even if your building and installation
>> yourself, which is probably a technical hurdle beyond most.
>>
>> I’m really not a good fit for such lights, mainly that I want lights with
>> more power with the MTB/Gravel bike can get at least one dynamo lights with
>> a off road beam shaped but even so with a 3w limit it’s power output is
>> lacking for that purpose ie 800 lumens at 17mph+ my light kicks out at
>> least double that with potentially up to 3 times that, as it uses how fast
>> how much the bars are moving to gauge the light needed.
>
> I'm curious: What light is that, and what did it cost?
>
The MTB Dynamo is the Exposure Revo hasn’t changed in at least a decade,
unlike the battery powered models which I assume is related to power output
as with battery powered models the lumens increases slightly incrementally
each year.

It’s about £250 for

https://www.exposure-use.com/Brands/Exposure-Lights/Products/2024-Bike-Range/Dynamo

>>
>> For the commute would a dynamo light be fine? Probably though even so I’d
>> probably miss even thats lights ability to light up the woods on high that
>> would mainly be beam shape than absolute power, as some dynamo lights
>> aren’t too far behind though most seem to be in the 200 ish lumen range.
>>
>> I’ve had lights in that range in the past, and that’s fine but what I have
>> is a better fit certainly for my commute, ie a mix of well lit roads and
>> unlit woods.
>>
>> Unless the cost of the dynamo system is built into the cost of the bike as
>> new, it’s a relatively hard sell, note the rise of E bike lights, ie they
>> plug into the main battery.
>
> About the cost of the dynamo: Two of my bikes have hub dynamos. I built
> the wheels myself. But at least four other family bikes have B&M
> headlamps powered by bottle or roller dynamos. Most of those were given
> to me, so they don't have to be expensive. New ones of good quality are
> available for ~$40.
>

Most folks don’t have the wheel building experience, so would need a hub
built into a wheel or buy a wheel.

Which raises the cost this said hubs are good £100 or so new I’d park
bottles as well they need a tire track and so on.

Roger Merriman