IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:51:59 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:42:26 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 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=gt2x689Q8w8 I would never see this woman minus the light. Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say
that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence
and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank
says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an
atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather
than relying on faith.

True, because statistics never lie, 62% of the time. Judging by the video of the woman I posted, the cohort with front lights may have had less one-bike accidents because their front hub axle nuts had been recently tightened. Or the cohort may avoid bottomless puddles to keep the light from getting wet. Maybe the cohort that didn't get the light became depressed and attempted suicide by turning sharply over wet manhole covers. Who knows? I like safety things -- I've got reflective tape on my commuter and wear conspicuous clothing and even run a DRL on gloomy or rainy days, but I encounter people all the time with flaccid little blinkies that I don't see until I'm passing them. I see the people from a hundred yards away, particularly if they're wearing fluorescent jerseys.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see the odd DRL on a bicycle hereabouts. I don't see them from any distance unless it's fairly overcast or lightly raining.

Last night I saw a bicyclist with a light on the front of the bicycle. Interestingly the area about 2 feet in front of his front wheel back to the front wheel was very bright but beyond that the road was extremely dim. I thought that if he rode into an area that was truly dark he'd have no night vision and wouldn't see much beyond that 2 feet bright area.

It seems to me that far too many bicyclists think that any light makes them visible.

Cheers

On 4/24/2019 3:39 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so... Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault. Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic light turned green. I was going straight across the road with the right of way to go straight across the road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me across my path and I ran into the car. There was no doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right and wrong.

The usual description of the right turn crash is that, as you say,
someone on a bike is going straight on and someone to the left of the
bike turns right... but isn't the bike looking right, left, back and
front while he is out there in the midst of all that traffic?

My guess - since no data is available - is that most right hook crashes
involve bicyclists who were riding at the far right. Those can include
bicyclists riding in bike lanes, even protected bike lanes.

(Yes, there have been fatalities from such crashes even with magic
"protected" bike lanes. Those lose all protection and add confusion
precisely where most car-bike crashes happen.)

But having said that, it's certainly conceivable that an observant
bicyclist could get right hooked even while taking the lane. I recall
one incident on a two-lane street with a continuous bi-directional
center turn lane. I was smack in the center of the narrow right lane as
I approached an intersection, when a motorist came up behind me with his
right turn signal on. He then pulled up alongside me at my left just as
we got to the corner. Obviously, he thought he could get past me and
make his turn instead of waiting five seconds.

I glared at him and (IIRC) waved him back; but if he had been even more
stupid, he could have hit me. My only recourse would have been to turn
sharply to the right inside his path. I'd probably hit his passenger
side door - but that's better than getting hit by the front of his car.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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*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

On 4/24/2019 3:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), 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.

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 :-)

I think it _is_ possible to get cops to pay proper attention to these
situations. It doesn't necessarily require hiring more police. It may
require only having the cops' superiors direct them to stop
automatically absolving motorists.

I know bicyclists often disobey laws, just as motorists do. But it does
seem that New York cops in particular tend to pretend that motorists are
always in the right.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 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.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say
that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence
and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank
says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an
atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather
than relying on faith.

SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize
he's a fundamentalist.

He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He
proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing it.

When told his favorite study involves impossibly dim daytime lights, and
that people using those dim lights somehow claimed fewer solo accidents
(like toppling off their bike), he refuses to accept the evidence of
bias. He also refuses to see the bias in a study run by the company
selling the lights.

Someday someone might actually get a paper published on the flippy flag
SMS uses. (Or is it "used to use"?) Then we'll be told any cyclist who
doesn't use a flippy flag is irresponsible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:39:11 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so... Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault. Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic light turned green.. I was going straight across the road with the right of way to go straight across the road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me across my path and I ran into the car. There was no doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right and wrong.

The usual description of the right turn crash is that, as you say,
someone on a bike is going straight on and someone to the left of the
bike turns right... but isn't the bike looking right, left, back and
front while he is out there in the midst of all that traffic?

After all, the Air Force trains their pilots to be constantly looking
in all directions and he is up there where there isn't all that much
traffic while the bike is down on the ground with all the cars and
trucks.
--

Cheers,

John B.

??? It seems to me you are saying a cyclist, or car driver, going straight through a traffic light or on a street with no lights or stop signs, is responsible if someone pulls out from a side street and hits him, or turns left across his path. He did NOT look and see the violator, therefore it is his fault. You are saying the person with the right of way is wrong and at fault because he did not predict the accident to come and avoid it. Very strange logic you have.

On 4/24/2019 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:39:11 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so... Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault. Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic light turned green. I was going straight across the road with the right of way to go straight across the road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me across my path and I ran into the car. There was no doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right and wrong.

The usual description of the right turn crash is that, as you say,
someone on a bike is going straight on and someone to the left of the
bike turns right... but isn't the bike looking right, left, back and
front while he is out there in the midst of all that traffic?

After all, the Air Force trains their pilots to be constantly looking
in all directions and he is up there where there isn't all that much
traffic while the bike is down on the ground with all the cars and
trucks.
--

Cheers,

John B.

??? It seems to me you are saying a cyclist, or car driver, going straight through a traffic light or on a street with no lights or stop signs, is responsible if someone pulls out from a side street and hits him, or turns left across his path. He did NOT look and see the violator, therefore it is his fault. You are saying the person with the right of way is wrong and at fault because he did not predict the accident to come and avoid it. Very strange logic you have.


Strange logic abounds regarding car-bike crashes.

The latest cycling fatality in Washington DC was a well-known bike
advocate who was stationary at a red light. Some low life stole a van,
was fleeing at about 70 mph on city streets, ran a red light, crashed
off another vehicle and hit the poor cyclist. The van was stopped only
by running into a tree.
https://wtop.com/dc/2019/04/police-s...dvocate-in-dc/

But some advocates have said "See? This proves we need protected bike
lanes!"

But nothing short of five foot thick concrete wall would have
"protected" from this incident, even if it didn't happen at an intersection.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, 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.

I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely.

Cheers

Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way.

On 4/24/2019 10:34 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 11:26 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:39:11 AM UTC-5, John B.
Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B.
Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous
right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him
or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so...
Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in
front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault.
Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the
vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just
like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and
a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they
are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of
accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic
light turned green. I was going straight across the
road with the right of way to go straight across the
road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me
across my path and I ran into the car. There was no
doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right
and wrong.

The usual description of the right turn crash is that, as
you say,
someone on a bike is going straight on and someone to the
left of the
bike turns right... but isn't the bike looking right,
left, back and
front while he is out there in the midst of all that
traffic?

After all, the Air Force trains their pilots to be
constantly looking
in all directions and he is up there where there isn't
all that much
traffic while the bike is down on the ground with all the
cars and
trucks.
--

Cheers,

John B.

??? It seems to me you are saying a cyclist, or car
driver, going straight through a traffic light or on a
street with no lights or stop signs, is responsible if
someone pulls out from a side street and hits him, or
turns left across his path. He did NOT look and see the
violator, therefore it is his fault. You are saying the
person with the right of way is wrong and at fault because
he did not predict the accident to come and avoid it.
Very strange logic you have.


Strange logic abounds regarding car-bike crashes.

The latest cycling fatality in Washington DC was a
well-known bike advocate who was stationary at a red light.
Some low life stole a van, was fleeing at about 70 mph on
city streets, ran a red light, crashed off another vehicle
and hit the poor cyclist. The van was stopped only by
running into a tree.
https://wtop.com/dc/2019/04/police-s...dvocate-in-dc/


But some advocates have said "See? This proves we need
protected bike lanes!"

But nothing short of five foot thick concrete wall would
have "protected" from this incident, even if it didn't
happen at an intersection.


Only a mere 5 foot concrete border on both sides of every
kiddie path? What could that cost? Why, if only one life is
saved...

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

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*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.

Cheers