Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark

In uk.rec.cycling Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005 15:20:49 -0800, said in
.com:

Obviously there are occasions when a bright jacket is not enough but
the probability is that the lighter/brighter the more likely it is to
be seen. Even better if the cyclist also has a big bright back light
preferably not flashing, and as much reflective material as possible.
Seems one has to keep repeating the obvious in this discussion!

You'd think so, wouldn't you? As an enthusiastic advocate of lights
and bright clothing I've devoted some energy to finding actual proof
of the above, to no avail.

Of course lights and light-coloured clothing makes you more easily
seen than if camouflaged in dark clothing, but the problem with night
time streets is the illumination war between motorised vehicles is
already quite far advanced. Some of the lights modern cars use in
well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.
There is so much competition from glaring light sources all over the
place that even white clothing can be obscured, and cyclists simply
can't carry enough power to compete with motorised vehicle light
power.

That's the *huge* advantage of reflective material -- it directionally
bounces back a good fraction of the light aimed at it, in effect
borrowing some the light power of the motorised vehicle, and greatly
reducing the effect of the inverse square law on distance. Almost
everyone greatly underestimates the visibility adantages of reflective
materials, possibly because their optical behaviour is so
counter-intuitive that we find it hard to believe what they actually
do.

--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article .com,
"crabsallover" wrote:

Pedalites or Safeways Power Pedals are designed to replace.. pedals.
http://www.beseenonabike.com

If they're like the ones sold at Target in the US (the pedals on the left
look to be), most adult riders will find them unacceptable due the the
narrowness of the platform.

I found that my fifth and to some extent fourth metatarsal bones were
unsupported, resulting in a v.uncomfortable ride. I removed these pedals
from my bike after two commutes. They're more suited to children's bikes.

..max

in message t, max
') wrote:

In article .com,
"crabsallover" wrote:

Pedalites or Safeways Power Pedals are designed to replace.. pedals.
http://www.beseenonabike.com

If they're like the ones sold at Target in the US (the pedals on the
left look to be), most adult riders will find them unacceptable due the
the narrowness of the platform.

I found that my fifth and to some extent fourth metatarsal bones were
unsupported, resulting in a v.uncomfortable ride. I removed these
pedals
from my bike after two commutes. They're more suited to children's
bikes.

They look excellent for children's bikes, though.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

Chris Malcolm typed


Some of the lights modern cars use in
well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.

So it's not just me, then?

There is so much competition from glaring light sources all over the
place that even white clothing can be obscured, and cyclists simply
can't carry enough power to compete with motorised vehicle light
power.

Quite.

That's the *huge* advantage of reflective material -- it directionally
bounces back a good fraction of the light aimed at it, in effect
borrowing some the light power of the motorised vehicle,

Unfortunately, reflective materials vary vastly in their reflective
performance, with some, especially soft plastic materials, deteriorating
markedly in use.

and greatly
reducing the effect of the inverse square law on distance. Almost
everyone greatly underestimates the visibility adantages of reflective
materials, possibly because their optical behaviour is so
counter-intuitive that we find it hard to believe what they actually
do.

I am a great believer in good reflectives (but I have no real evidence
that they prevent accidents. I have good evidence they work as
described.)

A head torch is instructive, camera with a flash likewise.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

in message , Helen Deborah Vecht
') wrote:

Chris Malcolm typed


Some of the lights modern cars use in
well-lit urban streets not only blind me but actually hurt my eyes.

So it's not just me, then?

No, they're positively dangerous. They're even more dangerous on poorly
lit rural roads, because the contrast is so great you can literally see
nothing else at all.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
....snip...

I am a great believer in good reflectives (but I have no real evidence
that they prevent accidents. I have good evidence they work as
described.)
....snip...

I was at a seminar given by a member of the corporate security for
Canadian Pacific Rail a few weeks ago. He mentioned that they had
started putting reflective material on the backside of railway crossing
signs (they already had it on the front) and that the effect was
statistically fewer car-train collisions at those locations.

It is direct evidence that reflectives prevent accidents in that case.

Take it as you will concerning car-bike collisions.

Jeff

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Rod King" wrote: (clip) Every time we promote a one sided recomendation
that cyclists need to be careful that they can be seen by cars going too
fast for the circumstances then we are reinforcing the idea that the
responsibility is on the cyclist rather than the driver. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bicycles generally go slower than cars, present a narrower profile, and
have
fewer watts of lighting. It's not a question of BLAME. It's a matter of
survival. You can define excess speed as that which leads to car to rear
end a cyclist in the dark--we could discuss it as a philosophical
question--but, I, for one, recognize that my life is at stake, so I choose
to protect myself against those drivers who may be "wrong" by your
definition.

Solely for the sake of emphasis, I suggest you visualize riding in the
dark
on a straight stretch of highway where the speed limit is, say, 65 MPH.
And, to be sure you don't give up any of your rights, TAKE THE LANE.


Leo

I do take that lane. And the reason is that its the safest place to be.

With life, comes risk. We all weigh up the risk of our actions against both
the consequences and the alternatives. When cycling, experience tells us
that it is often when you appear to be most vulnerable, ie, in the centre of
a lane, that one is the safest. Equally, cycle helmets and conspicuous
clothing are a comfort and fashion thing that will always depend on the
circumstances. If I am racing a cyle then I wear a helmet. If I was riding
off road downhill, I would wear a a helmet. If I cycle on the roads I never
wear a helmet. If I was cycling at night and wanted to be conspicuous then I
would wear a reflective band, however, there are circumstances when I would
not want to or need to use these if cycling along a well lit road within a
slow speed envirionment.

What I am arguing is that the choice of whether to dress up in reflective
clothing, or wear a helmet is a personal one and should be based upon an
objective and experienced assessment of the risks rather than a knee-jerk
"all cyclusts must wear reflective clothing or they are irresponsible".

Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale. In other
communities, "The Netherland and Germany" cycling is much closer to an
alternative to walking rather than a form of exercise or sport. Hence most
people would not dream of weraing anything other than what they would walk
in. I accept that in different communities then there will be different
risk.

I support your right to wear whatever you like when cycling. Do that based
upon your own judgement and experience. But others should and will make up
their own minds.


Best regards


Rod King
..

"Jeff Williams" wrote in message
...

Well, I disagree with your campaign. I've no doubt that 20 mph is
"safer" than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical
conclusion, we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is
"safe" than 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable
conclusion.

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here Jeff. Either we are arguing
about whether the limit should be 30 or 20 or something in between, or you
are arguing for no speed limits.

Therfore your argument seem neither logical or reasonable.


A thought just hit me (I turned the other cheek). Vehicles here are
required to have lights and reflectors so that they are visible to
others at night. Suppose I was walking on the side of the road at night
and I was hit by a stealth cyclist (no lights or reflectors).
Personally, I'd blame the cyclist for the collision. Why shouldn't
cyclists be required (here, they are) to make themselves visible for the
protection of others?

As I have said in earlier posts, cyclists should have lights as per the
legal requirement. But going beyond this is a matter of personal choice,
that's all.

Be Happy

Rod King

"Rod King" wrote in message
...


Cycling is only about half as dangerous in the UK as walking per km
travelled. Therefore statistically this is of a similar scale.


Typo alert. Should of course be that cycling is only twice.....

Of course, second sentence still holds...

Regards

Rod King

Rod King wrote:
"Jeff Williams" wrote in message
...

Well, I disagree with your campaign. I've no doubt that 20 mph is
"safer" than 30 mph. But if you take that concept to it's logical
conclusion, we'd leave the cars parked in the driveways because 0 mph is
"safe" than 20 mph. Unfortunately, while logical, it's not a reasonable
conclusion.


I am not sure what you are trying to argue here Jeff. Either we are arguing
about whether the limit should be 30 or 20 or something in between, or you
are arguing for no speed limits.

Therfore your argument seem neither logical or reasonable.

Sorry, I should have been clearer.

The argument that "slower is safer, therefore we should go slower" is
pointless. Unless you are stationary, you can always slow down,
therefore, unless you are stationary, you can always be safer. The
logical end to this line of reasoning is to park the car/truck/whatever
permanently. That is not a reasonable state of being en masse (it might
be fine for specific individuals).

I certainly would not argue for no speed limits in urban settings (that
would be absurd) but there are certainly rural areas in which I would
happily argue against speed limits (see the following aside before you
start flaming me). When someone advocates a serious change in policy
(and dropping the speed limit by 33% is a serious change), I want to see
evidence of that the change will generate the desired effects. I also
want to see analysis on the other side effects of the change.
Significant policy changes frequently generate unexpected results,
usually to the chagrin of those affected. All too often, those results
would have been expected had proper analysis been done and published. I
rarely hear such information from advocates of serious change.

Have you a website for your advocacy? If so, could you provide a
pointer so I can check it out. Believe it or not, I do try to maintain
an open mind.

Aside: I live in Manitoba. The area of the province is about 250,000
square miles. There are about 1,200,000 people in the province. More
than 2/3 of the population lives in a handful of cities and most of the
remainder live in smaller towns, so the population density is very low
and many of the highways, especially in the north, carry very little
traffic in areas with little or no population. There are stretches of
highway in which you can drive for hours and see no sign of humanity
other than the road and, maybe, the phone lines along side the road.
Yes, removing the speed limit might result in some drivers exceeding
their capabilities and killing themselves, but we already have drivers
pushing their endurance and killing themselves when they fall asleep at
the wheel. When your behaviour poses minimal risk to others, it ought
not be regulated by some halfwit bureaucrat.

Anyway, we're way off topic, so this will be my last post to this
thread. Thanks for an amicable discussion. Hopefully we'll see more of
this type of discussion in the new year.

Jeff