IQ-X vs Edelux II

rOn Wed, 24 Apr 2019 23:26:32 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 05:26:51 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

attached to the rear of the bike was
what looked like a long radio antenna with two small flags.

Perhaps it *was* a radio antenna, and the flags were to keep people
from bumping into it.

Nope, definitely not a radio antenna, or at least not for a radio, but
it seemed to be one of the long spring mounted antennas that we see on
trucks here. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLq1OuYEDro
although the film is from the Philippines it does show the long spring
mounted antennas I was talking about.

The flags were most definitely the Thai national flag and the "Kings
Flag", Many houses fly them at the front of the house.

I put flags on the clothesline during my annual garden party. I
should find something more patriotic than yellow warning tape -- it
*is* a Fourth-of-July party.

According to one or more of the newspapers, it will be on the
twenty-ninth of June this year. (I've forgotten what I was reading
when I marked it on my calendar.)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/24/2019 2:22 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

SMS does have a day job -- and probably one that exposes him to better safety literature than the average internet lurker.

Correct. So when someone insists that all the peer-reviewed, university
-conducted studies simply must be wrong because he asked someone in his
bicycle club whether or not DRLs made a difference to them, and then
amazingly proclaims that those club members represent "fact" while all
the scientific studies represent "faith" is the ultimate level of
chutzpah--it takes a lot of self-control to not say what really needs to
be said.

It's a sad day in America when you have all these different groups of
uneducated individuals empowered to ignore scientific and statistical
evidence thanks to our president's aversion to facts. Here we just have
the anti-helmet and anti-lighting groups--amusing but inconsequential
because they're mainly endangering only themselves. It's the anti-vaxer
groups and the global warming "skeptics" that endanger not just
themselves, but everyone else.

On 24/04/2019 07.11, James wrote:
On 24/4/19 12:09 am, jbeattie wrote:


I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light
makes that much difference during the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8Â* I would never see this
woman minus the light.Â* Actually, I think the white tires are more
noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor
Day.


But she didn't fall off!

See! SEE!! Proves they work.

On 24/04/2019 21.05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 12:03 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:02:52 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 6:34 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/24/2019 12:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

Each additional police officer costs a lot of money in salary,
benefits,
Â* Â*and support infrastructure, in my area it's about $300K per year per
additional police officer. You'd need a huge number of additional
police
to have the same effect as a protected bike lane. So it would
definitely
not be cheaper.

So we won't be adequately safe until every street in America has a
segregated bike lane?

Got a budget projection for that? Even for your city?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Good luck putting SAFE bicycle lanes on existing narrow streets unless
you're a proponent of door zone bicycle lanes. On many streets there's
simply no room for a bicycle lane painted strip type or separate. That
really cuts down where a bicyclist could ride if it ever got mandated
that bicycles must stay in a bicycle lane.

I see so many NEW bicycles lanes that are smack in the door zone
whilst making the traffic lane a lot narrower than what it was. Then
there's the 3 feet passing law. A bicyclist taking or riding in the
lane of traffic is supposed to be given a three feet wide berth by any
passing motorist. A bicyclist riding in a narrow painted bicycle lane
is passed much closer be motorists because the motorists expect the
bicyclist to stay within the painted lines.

I've been told that a (supposed) bicycling advocacy organization in
Columbus, Ohio has lobbied for bike lanes on every street, even if they
have to be in the door zone. Supposedly the city is going to comply.

Idiots get to vote too. That's the problem.

Minimum IQ levels should be mandated for breeding, voting, and
dis/embarking aircraft. Oh, infringements should be a capital offense.
At the very least...

On 22/04/2019 23.19, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:01 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

Sold! I'm going to get one.

Right. The CPH light set - an upgrade of the original - is Euro 47,
about $52.46, but the good news is that if you subscribe to Reelight's
news letter you can get a 10% discount.

Right, I've done it, but I'm a bit concerned as I only ordered the rear
light. Does this mean I will fall off twice as much as if I ordered the
full set?

On 25/04/2019 01.30, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in
the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a
ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All
that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300.Â* The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop.Â* There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city.Â* Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver.Â* But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road.Â* This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into
account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less than the
ticket amount?

With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here.

It's not about money.Â* The speeding tax is like any other tax - too
expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues from it are not well spent.
meh. whatever.

It is voluntary though, unlike most taxes.

The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to liberty. Rack
up too many 'points' and the license is withdrawn. Unlike illegals or
career criminals, regular taxpayers can be jailed for driving after
revocation.

How does that work?

On 4/25/2019 6:41 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 25/04/2019 01.30, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, Duane

wrote:

On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John
B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus
multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic
cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose
down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady
that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring"
results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person
who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the
police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine
from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist
gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent
case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the
city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was
that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the
world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I
don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory
negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist
must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently
to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the
edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic,
taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can
be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police
officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what
happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting
up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared",
or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law
enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less
than the ticket amount?

With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here.

It's not about money. The speeding tax is like any other
tax - too expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues
from it are not well spent. meh. whatever.

It is voluntary though, unlike most taxes.

The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to
liberty. Rack up too many 'points' and the license is
withdrawn. Unlike illegals or career criminals, regular
taxpayers can be jailed for driving after revocation.

How does that work?

Arbitrarily, just like everything else.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...es/343/IV/44/1

https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/RevokedLicense

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tosspot wrote:
On 22/04/2019 23.19, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:01 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

Sold! I'm going to get one.

Right. The CPH light set - an upgrade of the original - is Euro 47,
about $52.46, but the good news is that if you subscribe to Reelight's
news letter you can get a 10% discount.

Right, I've done it, but I'm a bit concerned as I only ordered the rear
light. Does this mean I will fall off twice as much as if I ordered the
full set?

You'll only fall off your bike in the forward direction now :-)

On 25/04/2019 13.36, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/25/2019 6:41 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 25/04/2019 01.30, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, Duane

wrote:

On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John
B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus
multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic
cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose
down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady
that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring"
results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person
who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the
police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine
from $30 to
$300.ÂÂ* The problem is that whether or not the motorist
gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop.ÂÂ* There was a recent
case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the
city.ÂÂ* Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was
that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the
world can it not be
the fault of the driver.ÂÂ* But on the other hand, I
don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory
negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist
must keep to the
extreme right of the road.ÂÂ* This was amended recently
to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the
edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic,
taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can
be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police
officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what
happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting
up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared",
or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law
enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less
than the ticket amount?

With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here.

It's not about money.ÂÂ* The speeding tax is like any other
tax - too expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues
from it are not well spent. meh. whatever.

It is voluntary though, unlike most taxes.

The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to
liberty. Rack up too many 'points' and the license is
withdrawn. Unlike illegals or career criminals, regular
taxpayers can be jailed for driving after revocation.

How does that work?

Arbitrarily, just like everything else.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...es/343/IV/44/1

https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/RevokedLicense

I see, I got the impression that you wouldn't get jail for driving
without a license but you would for driving with a revoked one, but it's
the pokey for both offenses :-)

On 4/24/2019 9:07 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

But the answer is so simple. Just obey the law :-)

True. And your chances of beating a ticket are low unless the cop fails
to appear. In California, when you fight a ticket you also lose the
option of going to traffic school to prevent the ticket from showing on
your record and increasing your car insurance rates.

I naively tried to beat a ticket once. It was a speed trap in a
neighboring city the second one listed at
https://www.speedtrap.org/california/sunnyvale/page/3/. You make a
left turn from an expressway onto a four lane road and the speed limit
goes down to 25 where the road narrows to two lanes. If you see the
sign, and let your speed fall naturally, without braking, it's too late,
the motorcycle officer is hiding behind a building, just past the sign
with radar https://goo.gl/maps/QicEmiQFRtaW7V268. I was going to the
UPS facility and the clerk said "oh yeah, that cop gets people all the
time."

I thought that it was unfair that there was no "reduced speed ahead"
sign and that you're not allowed to just let your speed fall over a few
hundred feet. The officer read a prepared statement from an index card.
The judge did not allow any evidence (a photo of where the 25MPH sign is
and where the officer was hiding). Guilty! And I was guilty. I should
have braked hard as soon as I saw the 25MPH sign, and if I got
rear-ended it would have been the other driver's fault.