On 4/8/2021 12:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2021 10:21 AM, sms wrote:

Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California.

Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack
a fluorescent jersey.
But I'm betting the "safety" people are telling them they should be
wearing fluorescent clothing. And if things progress as they did with
helmets, states will begin considering, then passing Mandatory
Fluorescent Laws. Please note, that happened in France. Cyclists are
legally required to wear safety vests on rural roads at least under
certain conditions.
As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational
cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because
some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with
whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or
online.
AFAIK, most of that paragraph is still false. But we know one of your
objectives is to make it true. Because one can never be too safe, right?

Were you beaten by a school crossing guard or something? What is the genesis of this recent anti-safety jihad?

The genesis of my complaints is rationality. As you've just
demonstrated, if someone questions the value of any purported "safety"
measure, they are likely to be taunted as "anti-safety."

I ride most every day, and nobody bugs me about not having a DRL or wearing a fluorescent jersey or really anything. I haven't seen a bicycle safety message in years, although I'm not looking and don't go to shops. Who are these "safety" people? Is this about helmets? Did somebody criticize you for not wearing a helmet?

When I go skiing, the liftys are neurotic about masks -- and I was mask shamed while out on a walk early in the pandemic, but that's about it for safety scolding. My neighbor panics and scolds me when I climb my 22' extension ladder because I'm an old dude and in the demographic for falls.

And your response? By arguing with me, you seem to be defending your
local nannies.

Ah, I have fallen prey to the walking safety thing, but not because of warnings or messages from regulators. My wife and I got reflective vests for walking at night because the Ninja walkers scare the snot out of us when we're driving at night -- and we have a ton of walkers in our neighborhood. Their are nights when it feels like a street fair with everyone standing in the street yaking or walking their dogs. I really like the lighted dog vests. I don't like the 30 foot reel
leashes. No French Nazi collaborators making us wear vests.

I'll submit that the proper response is for you to slow way, way down
when driving at night. There should be no expectation that pedestrians,
especially in a residential neighborhood, should kowtow to the
convenience of motorists. If pedestrians are likely to be around, cars
should be below 20 mph, and probably much below.

About DRLs, I'd say less than half the commuters pre-pandemic were using DRLs in real daylight. There were lots of them in drear or dusk, including me. I see club riders and even racers using them when I'm weekend riding -- again, probably 50% or less. I'll try to keep an accurate count next time. I don't think they're helpful in full sunlight, although a rear flasher is helpful in dappled sun-through-trees, at least according to the one panicked motorist who said he couldn't see me under the trees on Larch Mountain. He was a nice guy, and he was right because I was losing other cyclists in the hard shadows.

I'm convinced DRLs are a scam. As I've said before, there are a very few
times I've seen a bicyclist's DRL at a greater distance than I would
have seen the cyclist without the DRL. But there's _never_ been an
instance when that difference mattered. A cyclist riding properly on an
ordinary road is almost always visible enough, and the rare exception
(for example, the setting sun at equinox aligned with a west-facing
road) no DRL is bright enough to be effective.


I still don't take a flasher up there, however -- and one of the typical
dying Tinkerbell flashers wouldn't work in any event, and a lot of DRLs
do fall into that category. You ride up on someone and look down at the
fender or seat post and see this light once you get there. I do wonder
why people bother with those.

About your questions: First, nobody has yet bugged me in person about
not having a DRL, although both Scharf and Joerg have gone on about them
in this discussion group, portraying them as either absolutely necessary
or used by "all the riders with brains." But there have been ads pushing
DRLs for all riders, and I won't be surprised to see efforts to make
them mandatory, perhaps first on invitational rides. If those rules
catch on, there will be efforts to mandate them for other riding.

I'm sure you'll say Scharf and Joerg don't count. But please understand,
my main point is that paranoia tends to elevate the requirements for
"safe enough." You've just mentioned that (a bit?) less than half the
commuters are using DRLs. How long has that been true? Why was it not
true ten years ago? Think, Jay! It's because back then bicyclists felt
safe enough riding without a DRL. Now they don't. That's a very specific
example of the "inflation" trend I'm describing.

Is it also about helmets? Yes, those form another example. in 1970 no
recreational or transportational cyclists wore helmets; they were worn
only by a very few racers, and non-competitive cyclists felt safe enough
without them. But after a long-lived and massive promotion campaign,
"everybody knows" that you're not safe if you ride without a helmet. In
many states it's illegal for kids to ride without one, and Australian
fines for alternate hat choices approach $400. Do you not recognize that
this is an inflation in "safety" expectations? Do you seriously think
it's sensible? And if you do, would the next step - perhaps full-face
helmets - also be sensible?

And yes, I have been criticized for not wearing a helmet. I'm astonished
you have to ask, given the history of this group's discussions. I've
also been criticized quite harshly to my face, literally shouted at by
other cyclists in profanity-filled harangues. I've had motorists blare
horns at me yelling "Get off the road," and follow up with "Wear your
damned helmet."

But to repeat: This phenomena of "safety inflation" is NOT limited to
bicycling issues by any means. It's pervasive and it applies to probably
hundreds of activities.

My objection stems from what should be a bleedingly obvious fact: If we
pile on more and more and more restrictions or requirements or devices
or other measures in the name of "safety," we are bound to cross a line
where the measures do more harm than good. In many situations, we've
probably crossed that line. I believe bicycling is one victim.

And understand, I'm hardly alone in noting this. There have been serious
articles in major magazines discussing the silliness and the
consequences of the mindset. I have books on the topic. It's not
imaginary, and much of it is not reasonable.


--
- Frank Krygowski