On 2/17/2018 8:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:

DRL

Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela):

As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident
data to conclute that.

Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow!

Even if there were a double-blind study, with a huge statistical sample,
it would make zero difference because those that did not like the
results would still fabricate some narrative, however ridiculous, to
dismiss it. It's like explaining to an NRA member that selling AR-15s to
teenagers might not be a good idea--the response will be a nonsensical
diatribe about prescription drugs, mental illness, the removal of prayer
from public schools, the lack of worshiping Gods, the citing of knife
attacks, and of course "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

You have to remember that there aren't organizations, with piles of
money, chomping at the bit to fund studies that measure crashes versus
number of lumens, crashes of StVZO versus non StVZO compliant lights,
crashes per solid DRL versus crashed per flashing DRL versus crashes
versus no DRL, or any of the various studies that are demanded by those
that desperately argue against cyclists using adequate lights.

At some point, it's necessary to employ logic, extrapolation, and common
sense. For example, we all are aware of the benefits of DRLs on
motorcycles, and they are mandatory in many states. In Canada and some
other northern countries, DRLs are also mandatory for all motor
vehicles. Do the benefits of DRLs extend to other vehicles like
bicycles? Are you better off being more visible to other road users?

Any time an equipment manufacturer conducts a study, or makes any
statement about the positive effects of a product that they sell, there
will be those that insist that the only reason they are doing those
studies or making those statements, is to increase sales of their
product. Of course the reality is that when Trek states the benefits of
a DRL on their web site,
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/daytime_running_lights/ the reality
is that the reader is just as likely to buy some other brand of DRL if
they start doing any comparison shopping based on run-time, cost, and
effectiveness. The same goes with Reelights. The same thing holds if a
helmet manufacturer cites one of the many studies showing the benefits
of helmets in crashes; it might encourage the purchase of a helmet, but
not necessarily one from the manufacturer citing the study.

No one can dispute the safety benefits of products like helmets or DRLs,
so is it really unacceptable for manufacturers of those products to cite
studies that prove the benefits?