A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

1940's bicycle clothing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 22nd 18, 07:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 401
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On 22/01/2018 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2018 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens
would you
estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver?
(Yes, I know
that the brightest light is not always the best light).
The hub
nominally produces about 3 watts of power:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php
Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to
whatever
current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100
lumens/watt LED
efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most
that could
be delivered is:
Â*Â* 100 lumens/watt * 3 wattsÂ* = 300 lumens
I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate
for every
possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I
would like to
have some more lumens even if I don't use them.


Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?

"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle
wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48
spokes per wheel even if I never need them."

Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How
do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of
extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the
rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally
useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE!

Just like lumens.



72 spoked wheel is a product:
http://www.statussuspension.com/lowr...h-76-35-1.html






Ya'll got that backwards. More ain't always better. Less spokes are
better!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/HED-3-TRI-S...-/282683418685
Ads
  #22  
Old January 22nd 18, 07:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
have some more lumens even if I don't use them.


Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?


Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and
rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity.

"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but
personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I
never need them."

Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit
62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one
spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a
direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like,
it's MORE!

Just like lumens.


Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.

Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen?
Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the
intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be
considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle,
it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's
important. If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient. If you want to see
ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything
except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can
probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street.

For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful
because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on
the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get
which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider
adequate. Similarly, if I weighed over 250 lbs, having more spokes
available would probably be a good idea.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #23  
Old January 22nd 18, 09:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&....0.QuHVPCiCgYU

modern ? Aero tight

Prob find similar in wool at recycle Westchester royal oaks upper Hudson palm beach ... look for caps prob a cap collector

N try the Gore tex site for one layer products
  #24  
Old January 22nd 18, 09:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

My first bicycle n shirt for I'D coming around the lake n down cherry Hill ...
  #25  
Old January 22nd 18, 09:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

https://www.google.com/search?gl=us&...ih=560&dpr= 3

So balmy like Alaska
  #26  
Old January 23rd 18, 01:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:56:07 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:13:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every
possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to
have some more lumens even if I don't use them.


Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology?


Yes. I have an opinion about literally everything in bicycling and
rarely fail to pronounce judgment at every possible opportunity.

"I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but
personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I
never need them."

Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit
62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one
spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a
direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like,
it's MORE!

Just like lumens.


Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.


Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's
the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-)


Need I recycle my past astute comments about seen versus be seen?
Basically, if you want to be seen using a bicycle light, the
intensity, pattern, flash/no-flash, side lighting, and such need to be
considered. While brightness (lumens) is just one part of the puzzle,
it's the one that sells overpriced lighting, so I guess it's
important.


Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."

As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
matters.

If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient.


Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty
lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those
riders of yore must have had eyes like owls!

If you want to see
ahead on a brightly lit street, more lumens doesn't buy you anything
except the satisfaction of blinding homicidal drivers. One can
probably get away with no headlight at all on a well lit street.

For me (and probably only me) having extra lumens handy is useful
because my eyesight is starting to deteriorate. I can't focus well on
the color red, or in dim light. So, I need all the help I can get
which means a light brighter than what a younger person might consider
adequate.


I know night vision tends to deteriorate, at least partly from the slow growth
of cataracts. Those devils tend to diffuse light coming into the lens, sort of
fogging things up.

But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which
is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light
in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog.

My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
lights make it impossible to look back.

- Frank Krygowski
  #27  
Old January 26th 18, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Amazing. This thread started off with a request for 1940's cycling
attire and is now into counting spokes. In the distant past, I could
count on at least three on topic comments before topic drift set in.
Now we're down to one comment. Sigh.


Hey, wait a minute. You're not supposed to complain about thread drift! That's
the job of Sir Ridesalot! ;-)


I was not complaining, just making an observation. I've also noticed
that the further off topic the thread drifts, the more people add
their comments. However, if the thread miraculously stays on topic,
nobody says anything.

Well, I'll admit it's important to those trying to sell the lights. But it's far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."


Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
sides. There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
right side by a vehicle coming from a side street). Yes, there are
spoke and frame lights available, but when I tried to build one, I
found that any lighting bright enough to be useful would also blind me
when I look downward.

As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
matters.


Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15
lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens.
Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70
lumens/watt or 168 lumens. Your light would be about 10% brighter,
which is not much. It's not focus but more likely a dead battery,
rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb
running cold.

If you just want to see in the dark, a kerosene or carbide
lantern belching 40 lumens is probably sufficient.


Actually, I've tried that. I own an antique kerosene headlamp, a very pretty
lantern-shaped thing. I tried it out on our darkest neighborhood streets. Those
riders of yore must have had eyes like owls!


Well, kerosene wick lanterns aren't as bright as carbide. However,
kerosene mantle type lanterns (Coleman) are quite bright. Sorry, but
I don't have numbers for those.

The old time riders probably didn't have eyes any better than ours,
but did have the benefit of not having to deal with so much light
pollution from cars and street lights. When it was dark, it stayed
dark, which allowed one's eyes to become accustomed to the darkness
and therefore more sensitive. When I was young and stupid, I went for
hikes in the mountains in the dark with only cigarette lighter for
occasional illumination. I had to go slowly and carefully, but it was
quite possible.

But I really doubt the solution is to pump out lots of unfocused lumens, which
is what non-St-VZO lights do. Seems like you'd just be spraying lots of light
in directions where it doesn't show the road, but contributes to the fog.


My eyesight problem is currently not much of a problem. There is a
little fogging, but it will be many years before I have to do
something about the problem. Meanwhile, getting a bit more light to
work with helps a little.

My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
lights make it impossible to look back.


Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the
front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear
light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it
makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and
obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the
headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions. The rear light
doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because
illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your
bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the
horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver
behind you. What's needed is very wide (about 180 degree) horizontal
radiation pattern, and a very small (10 degree) vertical radiation
pattern. Since the rear light does not involve any illumination
issues (it's 100% be seen), it does not need to be very bright.

Work beckons. End of rant for now...

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #28  
Old January 26th 18, 04:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
[Lumen numbers are] far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."


Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
sides.


AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on
nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I
recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe.

There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
right side by a vehicle coming from a side street).


Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision
of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer
than necessary to let me go past.

As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
matters.


Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15
lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens.
Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70
lumens/watt or 168 lumens.


Why are you claiming nearly five times the efficiency for the dynamo
light? They were both halogen bulbs.

It's possible the dynamo light was designed to be a bit over-driven, but
I can't see getting 70 lumens/Watt out of it.

It's not focus but more likely a dead battery,
rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb
running cold.


He called me to come over just after he bought the equipment. It was
brand new.

BTW, he kept it charged up for years, but almost never used it. He was
quite disappointed in it.

My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
lights make it impossible to look back.


Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the
front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear
light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it
makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and
obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the
headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions.


I know that Stephen M. Scharf claims his riding territory is studded
with lots of stout branches waiting to take off his head. But I just
don't believe it - unless he's a MUP-only rider or a committed gutter
rider.

Honestly, I don't believe it even then. I occasionally lead night rides
on a MUP. When they slack off on maintenance there may rarely be some
leaves near head level, but never anything substantial. And if you did
find such an obstruction, why wouldn't you either report it to get it
fixed, or just fix it yourself? Motorists wouldn't put up with such
obstructions.

The rear light
doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because
illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your
bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the
horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver
behind you.


I've tried hard to explain to one of my friends that having super bright
taillights pointed upwards at 15 degrees or more does no good. Ideally,
you want motorists to notice you from farther back. It does no good to
shoot over their heads, and it's irritating as hell to a cyclist who is
riding right behind you.

ISTR a recent paper claiming that lights on the pedals or ankles are
extremely conspicuous to motorists. It's the unique human bipedal motion
- left, right, left, right - that we're hard wired to notice. But I
suspect that pedal reflectors, or perhaps reflective tape on cranks or
shoes would do as well, provided it was kept clean.

Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club
mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also
gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians.

And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and
riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired.
And I still ride for utility and fun at night.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #29  
Old January 26th 18, 08:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 22:58:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
[Lumen numbers are] far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."


Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
sides.


AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on
nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I
recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe.

There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
right side by a vehicle coming from a side street).


Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision
of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer
than necessary to let me go past.

As long as we're repeating things (hey, it's Usenet!) I'll tell once again about
my best riding buddy at the time scoring a great buy on a 10 Watt halogen headlight with a rechargeable lead acid battery. (That was before light
companies discovered lumens.) He called me to ride over and see it, and it
was immediately obvious that my 2.4 Watt dynamo headlight was far better. Focus
matters.


Something is wrong here. A 10 watt halogen lamp is good for about 15
lumens/watt. Your friends light would therefore produce 150 lumens.
Meanwhile, your vintage 2.4 watt dynamo powered LED might deliver 70
lumens/watt or 168 lumens.


Why are you claiming nearly five times the efficiency for the dynamo
light? They were both halogen bulbs.

It's possible the dynamo light was designed to be a bit over-driven, but
I can't see getting 70 lumens/Watt out of it.

It's not focus but more likely a dead battery,
rotten wiring, rotted switch, bad lamp connections, or a halogen bulb
running cold.


He called me to come over just after he bought the equipment. It was
brand new.

BTW, he kept it charged up for years, but almost never used it. He was
quite disappointed in it.

My main objection comes from the other direction. I'm tired of being blinded
by mega-lumen lights in my eyes. I even get it from riders behind me, whose
lights make it impossible to look back.


Yep, that's a problem. We can start by fixing the way we measure the
front light beam pattern, and then apply the changes to the rear
light. Currently, the front lighting is evaluated by the pattern it
makes on the ground. That's important for seeing pot holes and
obstacles on the roadway, but doesn't say much about how well the
headlight illuminates any vertical obstructions.


I know that Stephen M. Scharf claims his riding territory is studded
with lots of stout branches waiting to take off his head. But I just
don't believe it - unless he's a MUP-only rider or a committed gutter
rider.

Honestly, I don't believe it even then. I occasionally lead night rides
on a MUP. When they slack off on maintenance there may rarely be some
leaves near head level, but never anything substantial. And if you did
find such an obstruction, why wouldn't you either report it to get it
fixed, or just fix it yourself? Motorists wouldn't put up with such
obstructions.

The rear light
doesn't even have a footprint pattern on the ground mostly because
illuminating the ground behind you does nothing useful (unless your
bicycle has a reverse gear). So, rear lights are aimed from the
horizon and up, landing directly in the face of riders and driver
behind you.


I've tried hard to explain to one of my friends that having super bright
taillights pointed upwards at 15 degrees or more does no good. Ideally,
you want motorists to notice you from farther back. It does no good to
shoot over their heads, and it's irritating as hell to a cyclist who is
riding right behind you.

ISTR a recent paper claiming that lights on the pedals or ankles are
extremely conspicuous to motorists. It's the unique human bipedal motion
- left, right, left, right - that we're hard wired to notice. But I
suspect that pedal reflectors, or perhaps reflective tape on cranks or
shoes would do as well, provided it was kept clean.


A year or more I noticed that yes, the up and down motion of the feet
on the pedals was very noticeable..... at least when the rider was
wearing bright orange knee socks :-)

I've never actually noticed any added visibility from the small
reflectors I see on the usual "cheap as you can get" pedals I see on
the usual bike :-)

Again: Having my bike checked out with the help of friends, family, club
mates, etc. convinced me that there's no need to go crazy. I've also
gotten spontaneous compliments from motorists and pedestrians.

And that's been confirmed by at least occasional night commuting and
riding for ... let's see ... I guess it was 32 years, until I retired.
And I still ride for utility and fun at night.


As an aside, 32 years ago I never noticed that the lights on my bike
were inadequate..... In fact even 40 years ago I didn't realize how
poor they were. I just rode at speed at which I felt comfortable :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

  #30  
Old January 26th 18, 04:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default 1940's bicycle clothing

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2018 9:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
[Lumen numbers are] far
from being the most important factor; and that's the impression given when
someone says "300 lumens aren't enough."


Perception (impression) is everything. If I show up for a ride with
the latest megalumen headlight, I win status points. Actually, 300
lumens in the forward direction is largely wasted. According to my
limited readings, getting hit head on, ramming a brick wall, or riding
off a cliff, are rather rate occurrences. All of these might benefit
from better forward lighting, but would change the bicycle safety
statistics very little. It is my unsubstantiated impression that most
visibility related bicycle accidents arrive from the rear or from the
sides.


AFAIK, data on that just isn't available. In fact, real data on
nighttime bike lighting is really rare. I've looked. That's why I
recommend having a friend ride your bike at night while you observe.

There is some interest in rear lighting, but for the most
part, is rather limited. For example, I have yet to see anyone do
much in the way of a controlled beam pattern for a rear light. Side
lighting is almost non-existent. Yet, of the few near collisions that
I have experienced, all of them came from the sides (usually from my
right side by a vehicle coming from a side street).


Here, I have my usual problem. I can't remember having a near collision
of any type at night. Instead, I've noted motorists waiting far longer
than necessary to let me go past.


You are the super-luckiest rider I know. I just about got mowed down on Tuesday, riding home in a rainstorm at night when I went to jump across traffic. looked back -- street was clear back to a set of headlights fifty or more yards away, and then out of the gloom -- a black car with no lights on going full speed, not even incidental running lights. WTF? Pure luck that I saw it before taking the lane. Sometimes its the other guy's lights or lack of lights. Unlighted bikes and pedestrians in all black are a frequent hazard, particularly in the rain with wet glasses and glare from tail lights or headlights.

On part of my ride home last night, I just gave into the fact that I couldn't see a f****** thing with an 800 lumen light, pouring rain and a broken road surface with rushing water like riding through a stream bed. The good part was that I was on a low-traffic climb on a tiny residential street. I could use either better night vision and windshield wipers on my glasses or a 2000 lumen light. On dry nights, the dyno is fine in most places.

-- Jay Beattie

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Marketplace 0 May 14th 08 09:58 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Rides 0 May 14th 08 09:56 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Social Issues 0 May 14th 08 09:56 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Australia 0 May 14th 08 09:55 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Racing 0 May 14th 08 09:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.