PDA

View Full Version : Review My View on Bike Safety?


Jeff Napier
July 30th 04, 07:59 PM
I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since this
is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
Thanks,
- Jeff

Darin McGrew
July 30th 04, 09:03 PM
Jeff Napier > wrote:
> I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since this
> is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
> look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
> www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm

I think your "Don't ride at night" message is a bit extreme. During the
winter months (basically, when DST isn't in effect), it gets dark pretty
early, and riding for transportation purposes means riding at night at
least some of the time. But that's what lights are for.

In addition to the reflectors and blinking lights that you mention,
nighttime cyclists also need headlights. How much headlight you need
depends on your route. Any bicycle headlight will let others see you, and
identify you as a vehicle. But the cheap ones are good only for that, and
don't provide enough light to ride on unlit streets. The distance you can
see clearly is what limits (or what should limit) your speed.

Actually, that applies to daytime riding too. The worst bicycle accident
I've personally been familiar with was a daytime bicycle-bicycle head-on
collision in college, where two cyclists riding full-speed came around a
blind corner in opposite directions.
--
Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The handwriting on the wall may mean you need a notepad by the phone."

Mitch Haley
July 30th 04, 09:19 PM
Darin McGrew wrote:
> Actually, that applies to daytime riding too. The worst bicycle accident
> I've personally been familiar with was a daytime bicycle-bicycle head-on
> collision in college, where two cyclists riding full-speed came around a
> blind corner in opposite directions.


A friend of mine totalled his first nice bike that way.
One way street, he was going the correct way. His downtube
was crimped, her thick steel pipe frame survived.

Three years later, I almost had a head-on with a Cadillac
in early daylight on the same street.

Mitch.

Joshua Putnam
July 31st 04, 02:13 AM
In article <[email protected]_s02>, says...
> I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since this
> is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
> look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
> www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
> Thanks,
> - Jeff

1. "Don't ride at night" is silly -- properly lit, a bicycle is *more*
visible at night than in daylight on busy streets. "Properly lit" mainly
means (1) a large rear-facing reflector, not obstructed by other
equipment, and (2) a white headlight designed like a vehicle headlight,
not a generic flashlight pattern that wastes much of the light.

2. I'd put helmets at the bottom of the list, where they belong,
statistically speaking.

--
is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Books for Bicycle Mechanics and Tinkerers:
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/bike/bikebooks.html>

alan
July 31st 04, 04:18 PM
About reflectors: When state law specifically calls for a red rear
reflector, it means just that. I don't believe red reflective tape is an
adequate substitute. Besides, the tape and the CPSC specification
reflectors are comparatively dim when illuminated by motor vehicle
headlights. A DOT specification reflector is much brighter.

A reflector lets you meet the letter of the law, though to be honest, some
white reflective tape applied to the front and rear of the crank arms
instantly identify the vehicle up ahead as a bicycle.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."


"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since
this
> is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
> look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
> www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
> Thanks,
> - Jeff
>
>

Colin B.
July 31st 04, 08:57 PM
I find interesting "The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates
bicycles as among the most dangerous products in the home."

Well, people shouldn't be riding their bicycles in the home. I wonder
where they rank automobiles, or don't they consider them as "products
in the home? Many more people are killed and injured in automobiles or
as a result of automobiles than by any other product.

It makes me think that the CPSC considers bicycles to be toys and not
a transportation vehicle.


Colin

"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety.
Since this
> is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general
public, to
> look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc.
It's at
> www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
> Thanks,
> - Jeff
>
>

Jeff Napier
August 1st 04, 05:43 AM
Hi Folks,
Thanks for your comments and keep them coming. Yes, I think my comment
about simply not riding at night is too harsh. After all, bicycles are a
great tool for commuting, and people do want to get out and around at night.
So I will figure out a way to revise that. The other side of it is that even
if a bicycle is more visible at night than in the daytime, the motorists may
be more messed up on average - ranging from sleepy or emontional to
chemically impaired. As to reflective tape vs reflectors, I really haven't
seen any statistics, but have you ever seen a bike with reflective tape at
night? It really is noticeable! I think there's a good chance that
well-applied reflective tape could be more reflective than standard
reflectors.
- Jeff
All about bikes: www.bikewebsite.com


"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
> I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since
this
> is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
> look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
> www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
> Thanks,
> - Jeff
>
>

Doug Huffman
August 1st 04, 01:20 PM
You wrote 'tranny' as a pop-up? Why in the world? Do you imagine that
you're the first to consider bike safety. There are many older and wiser
heads than yours. 'Tranny' didn't make it past my security suite.


"Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s04...
| Hi Folks,
| Thanks for your comments and keep them coming. Yes, I think my comment
| about simply not riding at night is too harsh. After all, bicycles are a
| great tool for commuting, and people do want to get out and around at
night.
| So I will figure out a way to revise that. The other side of it is that
even
| if a bicycle is more visible at night than in the daytime, the motorists
may
| be more messed up on average - ranging from sleepy or emontional to
| chemically impaired. As to reflective tape vs reflectors, I really haven't
| seen any statistics, but have you ever seen a bike with reflective tape at
| night? It really is noticeable! I think there's a good chance that
| well-applied reflective tape could be more reflective than standard
| reflectors.
| - Jeff
| All about bikes: www.bikewebsite.com
|
|
| "Jeff Napier" > wrote in message
| news:[email protected]_s02...
| > I've posted a new page at www.bikewebsite.com on bicycle safety. Since
| this
| > is a rather important issue, I'd like to ask you, the general public, to
| > look it over, and let me know if I've said anything stupid, etc. It's at
| > www.bikewebsite.com/tyranny.htm
| > Thanks,
| > - Jeff
| >
| >
|
|

Rick
August 2nd 04, 12:56 AM
.... stuff deleted

Jeff wrote:

> The other side of it is that even if a bicycle is more visible at
night than in the
> daytime, the motorists may
> be more messed up on average - ranging from sleepy or emontional to
> chemically impaired.

IMO, there is really very little difference between a drunk driver and a
driver on a cell phone. I've seen both at all times of day, and the
percentages of thsee drviers don't seem to change with the clock. Those
who drink at night are often very seriously impaired during the day,
especially the mornings. Those that use other drugs, seem to do so
without much consideration of the time of day. I've seen many of my
coworkers nonfunctional long before 10 AM. The worst driving I routinely
see is that of parents dropping their offspring off at schools. For this
reason, I do avoid that time of day. Riding at night, with adequate
lighting, is a real pleasure, most of the time, due to the ease of
temperature regulation. Traffic problems seem to be, IMO, less of a
problem at night many drivers are much more cautious.

> As to reflective tape vs reflectors, I really haven't
> seen any statistics, but have you ever seen a bike with reflective tape at
> night? It really is noticeable! I think there's a good chance that
> well-applied reflective tape could be more reflective than standard
> reflectors.
> - Jeff

I have no reflectors on my bike. It didn't even come with them. If it
had, I would have removed them. They serve, IMO, little to no purpose.
Side relfectors work only when you are perpendicular to the front end of
a car. This is worse than useless as in an emergency situation, it is
already too late. The rear reflector is, generally, too far to the right
of the oncoming traffic to be much use, though pedal reflectors work
surprisingly well (not that I have those). The answer is lights, lights,
lights. I put one on the helmet (the head is a great location for a
light, though the helmet is probably useless otherwise). I also put one
on the rear of the bike in place of the reflector. Reflective tape may
be very effective, but I'm not going to invest effort into same.

Rick

Marc VanHeyningen
August 20th 04, 11:48 PM
Thus said "Colin B." >:
>I find interesting "The Consumer Product Safety Commission rates
>bicycles as among the most dangerous products in the home."
>
>Well, people shouldn't be riding their bicycles in the home. I wonder
>where they rank automobiles, or don't they consider them as "products
>in the home? Many more people are killed and injured in automobiles or
>as a result of automobiles than by any other product.

I suspect that they actually mean "among the products regulated by the
CPSC, there are more deaths and/or injuries involving bicycles than any
other product." Most motor vehicles, drugs, chemicals, guns, etc. are
regulated by other agencies.

I also suspect that they are ranking based on number of injuries, rather
than the injury rate. But I'll grant them that a bicycle is likely more
dangerous than most other CPSC-regulated items, like an ice cream scoop
or a pillow (both items discussed on their website.) Therefore, in
order to be safe, I'm going to stop riding this weekend and will instead
eat lots of ice cream and take a nap.

>It makes me think that the CPSC considers bicycles to be toys and not
>a transportation vehicle.

Yup.

Steven Goodridge
August 25th 04, 11:11 PM
(Marc VanHeyningen) wrote

> I suspect that they actually mean "among the products regulated by the
> CPSC, there are more deaths and/or injuries involving bicycles than any
> other product." Most motor vehicles, drugs, chemicals, guns, etc. are
> regulated by other agencies.
....
> >It makes me think that the CPSC considers bicycles to be toys and not
> >a transportation vehicle.
>
> Yup.


This is why I think that regulation of adult bicycles should be
removed from the CPSC and given to the same USDOT organizations that
regulate cars and motorcycles. That way we might get meaningful safety
regulations (like better standards for lights and reflectors than the
CPSC's toy reflectors) and less incompetent meddling with issues that
the CPSC is demonstrably unqualified to regulate.

-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org

Pete
August 26th 04, 03:33 AM
"Steven Goodridge" > wrote

>
> This is why I think that regulation of adult bicycles should be
> removed from the CPSC and given to the same USDOT organizations that
> regulate cars and motorcycles. That way we might get meaningful safety
> regulations (like better standards for lights and reflectors than the
> CPSC's toy reflectors) and less incompetent meddling with issues that
> the CPSC is demonstrably unqualified to regulate.
>

I think we should get both of them out of the business. Let the current laws
(lights required at night, etc) do their job.

The USDOT concept falls apart because a significant % of bikes are not used
for 'transportation'. And a bike can change roles from recreation to
transportation rapidly.

Pete

alan
August 28th 04, 01:39 AM
....and automobiles can likewise change from transportation to recreation
devices. There's no 'use' guideline for any other road-going vehicle.
Bicycles should have to meet uniform standards set by the federal DOT, just
like any other vehicle. We should have dependable lighting and rreflectors,
not toys.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."


"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> The USDOT concept falls apart because a significant % of bikes are not
used
> for 'transportation'. And a bike can change roles from recreation to
> transportation rapidly.
>
> Pete
>
>

alan
August 28th 04, 01:39 AM
....and automobiles can likewise change from transportation to recreation
devices. There's no 'use' guideline for any other road-going vehicle.
Bicycles should have to meet uniform standards set by the federal DOT, just
like any other vehicle. We should have dependable lighting and rreflectors,
not toys.

--

alan

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."


"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> The USDOT concept falls apart because a significant % of bikes are not
used
> for 'transportation'. And a bike can change roles from recreation to
> transportation rapidly.
>
> Pete
>
>

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home