On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:46:28 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/15/2017 7:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/14/2017 11:15 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:09:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
But the point I was discussing was whether too brief or too dim
standlights really kill or seriously injure _stationary_ bicyclists.
I've never heard of such a case. I think it's yet another exaggerated
danger.

Bicycle lighting seems to be divided into "see where your going" and
"be seen" parts. Standlights are in the "be seen" part. If so, then
using a relatively narrow forward facing headlight is inadequate and a
poor substitute for all around "be seen" type lighting.

So far, no driver has tried to kill me while I'm stationary, but it's
possible. To help prevent such a threat, I would need all around
illumination because I don't know from what direction the driver might
approach and I do NOT need to see where I'm going (because I'm not
going anywhere). Some kind of flashing headband, flashing arm bands,
or maybe downward facing flood lights to illuminate an area. Maybe an
LED illuminated vest, which is now popular among highway workers:
https://www.amazon.com/HIGH-VISIBILITY-VEST-COMPLIANT-REFLECTIVE/dp/B01L2US0EY
https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP08L-Illuminated-Flashing-Feature/dp/B008WAE2XQ
https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP07L-Flashing-Illuminated-Safety/dp/B004J663A2
I don't know which type of "be seen" lighting might be most effective,
but any of the aformentioned would be better than a dim forward facing
standlight.

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

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.

I have worked in area where it is probable that no one has ever cut
down a tree until we arrived and there never was a problem with dead
or diseased trees falling down.

One problem with cutting down trees that "could" fall down is that in
a hurricane many perfectly healthy trees get blown down. Perhaps the
cutting of all trees taller than the average human "could" lives.

And, of course, banning the ownership of bicycles "could" save ~900
lives a year.


A bicycle ban?
How's that 100-year worldwide Heroin ban working?

Works great! Allows a considerable number of common ordinary people to
make a "decent" living.

True the demand does seems to be decreasing but the widening the
demand for amphetamines, which can be made at home rather than waiting
for a crop to ripen and getting all bound up with buying futures and
warehousing raw materials.

As an aside, do you think anyone wants the "war on drugs" to be won?

Examples:

U.S. Coastguard budget (numbers adjusted to 2013 dollars):
1950 - $1,439,312,446
2013 - $ 7,051,054,000

The total DEA budget is difficult to ascertain but:
The total budget of the DEA from 1972 to 2014, according to the
agency website, was $50.6 billion. The agency had 11,055 employees in
2014. For the year 2014 the average cost per arrest made was $97,325.

An estimate by The Cato Institute, in 2010, states that the legalizing
of drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government
expenditure. Or to put it a different way, The War on Drugs is costing
the U.S. an estimated $41.3 billion dollars a year.

Do you think that anyone wants all that lovely lolly to disappear?
--
Cheers,

John B.