Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On 10/13/2019 11:37 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:17:48 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth.

Not around here. Granted, you don't se them much in the travel lane, but it's common enough to see them encroaching the shoulder into the 'path' where I'm supposed to ride.

Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

If that was your original point of contention, sure, I don't often see that, but I don't have a commute go by where I don't have avoid getting smacked by foliage on the side of the road. Seriously, every day. And I don't live in a rural area. I'm less than 30 miles outside of boston, and my typical 20 mile commute has 24 stop lights.

In our local metropark, the landscape designer installed a bike lane
that featured roadside vegetation that was _laterally_ too close. As
soon as it was installed, I took him on a bike ride (his first in
decades) to show him the problem. He had the bushes cleared.

BTW, AASHTO calls for minimum two feet of clearance laterally on bike
facilities. You should be able to get that enforced.

I have far more problems like that when walking. It's not unusual for
homeowners to let tree branches droop to less than six feet, or let
shrubs encroach laterally onto the sidewalk. I routinely break off twigs
as I walk, as a pruning favor. And I've been known to return with hand
clippers (or even, on one occasion, with loppers) to clear really
troublesome stuff.

But back to bicycling: Personally, I usually ride prominently in the
lane, as is my legal right. Even if there were edge hazards, they
probably wouldn't affect me.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/13/2019 12:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.


Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

Please explain this street. It looks like an alley, roughly ten feet
wide, judging by the width of cars. Is it a private road, or otherwise
exempt from normal roadway design standards?

My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were.

The word "trails" is a bit unspecific. If you're talking about woodland
foot trails or even the fire-roadish things that cut through some of
your western hill parks, I'd say those are another matter. Off-road
unpaved trails do need upward light, because even hikers have to
occasionally duck branches.

If your "trail" is an official Multi-Use Path, someone should be
maintaining it to remove head-high impact hazards. Again, AASHTO has
standards for this. And if the hazard was more than a leafy annoyance,
I'd think someone would be addressing it.

I admit, there could be unusual situations. We have a very unusual one
locally - a MUP that was funded and constructed entirely by private
donation, that crosses the state line. The family that had it built got
promises from the local county engineer (in Ohio) and the officials in
Pennsylvania that it would be maintained. Unfortunately, the current
county engineer refuses. The pavement is terrible and there are weeds
encroaching.

There is, as of a month or so ago, a fallen tree leaning over the trail
that does require ducking. BUT I've ridden that trail twice at night at
the invitation of a friend who likes moonlight rides. He normally
doesn't bother to use his own battery headlight, because my dynamo
powered B&M Cyo makes his light redundant.

And we spotted the overhead tree just fine, even though my Cyo has a
proper cutoff. As with automotive headlights, the cutoff is not 100%.
There is enough light above the horizon that I was able to spot that
hazard.

Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link...

If that were the case, I'd probably reach down and tilt the headlight up
a little. It's easy.


--
- Frank Krygowski

You're starting to sound like Anonymouse Chicken**** Zen, Franki-boy, crazed with hatred by the mere existence of Scharfie.

Andre Jute
The men in white coats are never far behind

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 7:29:50 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 12:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.


Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

Please explain this street. It looks like an alley, roughly ten feet
wide, judging by the width of cars. Is it a private road, or otherwise
exempt from normal roadway design standards?

My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were.

The word "trails" is a bit unspecific. If you're talking about woodland
foot trails or even the fire-roadish things that cut through some of
your western hill parks, I'd say those are another matter. Off-road
unpaved trails do need upward light, because even hikers have to
occasionally duck branches.

If your "trail" is an official Multi-Use Path, someone should be
maintaining it to remove head-high impact hazards. Again, AASHTO has
standards for this. And if the hazard was more than a leafy annoyance,
I'd think someone would be addressing it.

I admit, there could be unusual situations. We have a very unusual one
locally - a MUP that was funded and constructed entirely by private
donation, that crosses the state line. The family that had it built got
promises from the local county engineer (in Ohio) and the officials in
Pennsylvania that it would be maintained. Unfortunately, the current
county engineer refuses. The pavement is terrible and there are weeds
encroaching.

There is, as of a month or so ago, a fallen tree leaning over the trail
that does require ducking. BUT I've ridden that trail twice at night at
the invitation of a friend who likes moonlight rides. He normally
doesn't bother to use his own battery headlight, because my dynamo
powered B&M Cyo makes his light redundant.

And we spotted the overhead tree just fine, even though my Cyo has a
proper cutoff. As with automotive headlights, the cutoff is not 100%.
There is enough light above the horizon that I was able to spot that
hazard.

Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link...

If that were the case, I'd probably reach down and tilt the headlight up
a little. It's easy.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/13/2019 1:29 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 12:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms
wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to
call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride
on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have
panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down
low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need
for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see
low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing
"Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving
down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england
that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low
branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common
occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large
trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence
when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The
only exceptions are blind corners and intersections
where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a
problem, and even that goes for a couple of years
without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John
B's experience of their municipalities performing
regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen
everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence
of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about
just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about
a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and
abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a
road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause
injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original
claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while
immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed
to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most
modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal
Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery
trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish
buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back
roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be
vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear
helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other
road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He
occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims
remain
fundamentally stupid.


Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just
commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I
can get whacked. This is the ride home:
https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get
unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

Please explain this street. It looks like an alley, roughly
ten feet wide, judging by the width of cars. Is it a private
road, or otherwise exempt from normal roadway design standards?

My commute also involves trails with branches, and for
about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride
through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but
it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where
the branches were.

The word "trails" is a bit unspecific. If you're talking
about woodland foot trails or even the fire-roadish things
that cut through some of your western hill parks, I'd say
those are another matter. Off-road unpaved trails do need
upward light, because even hikers have to occasionally duck
branches.

If your "trail" is an official Multi-Use Path, someone
should be maintaining it to remove head-high impact hazards.
Again, AASHTO has standards for this. And if the hazard was
more than a leafy annoyance, I'd think someone would be
addressing it.

I admit, there could be unusual situations. We have a very
unusual one locally - a MUP that was funded and constructed
entirely by private donation, that crosses the state line.
The family that had it built got promises from the local
county engineer (in Ohio) and the officials in Pennsylvania
that it would be maintained. Unfortunately, the current
county engineer refuses. The pavement is terrible and there
are weeds encroaching.

There is, as of a month or so ago, a fallen tree leaning
over the trail that does require ducking. BUT I've ridden
that trail twice at night at the invitation of a friend who
likes moonlight rides. He normally doesn't bother to use his
own battery headlight, because my dynamo powered B&M Cyo
makes his light redundant.

And we spotted the overhead tree just fine, even though my
Cyo has a proper cutoff. As with automotive headlights, the
cutoff is not 100%. There is enough light above the horizon
that I was able to spot that hazard.

Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark
and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are
lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see
were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in
the link...

If that were the case, I'd probably reach down and tilt the
headlight up a little. It's easy.



"If your "trail" is an official Multi-Use Path, someone should be maintaining it"

That's hilarious! After the ribbon cutting, there's no
political or press advantage in ever mentioning or even
thinking about bicycle paths again.

If there were money falling from heaven (which there is
decidedly not) cities would repair broken pavement first
(which they do not).


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

I know you're being sarcastic about Franki-boy's fantasy world, Scharfie, but it is worth pointing out that a truck-sundered tree branch over the road very likely has pointed sections that are far more dangerous to the cyclist than the whole branch or a neatly cut branch.

Andre Jute
Speaking for myself, for Irish cyclists, and for all cyclists who ride at night, and noting that in most places 4-seasons commuters perforce ride in darkness at one or both ends of the office day for at least 3 months in the year.

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 7:06:15 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 10/13/2019 9:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

In Ohio there are no branches that cyclists encounter. All of branches
are knocked down by a huge fleet of special TBKD
(tree-branch-knocker-downer) trucks.

Clearly Portland is behind the times and needs to go out and purchase a
fleet of TBKD trucks.

You should attend a city council meeting and speak about this issue
during oral communications where you are allowed to talk about any topic
not on the agenda. Due to the First Amendment, no matter how crazy
someone is, they are allowed to speak.

I am certain that no one in Portland, or any city for that matter, or
anyone in the world other than one person, has ever considered the idea
of saving money on tree trimming by using trucks to knock down branches.
And they say that American innovation is dead.

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:20:20 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Let me first stipulate that I've never smacked my own head
on a branch while riding.

The source of this RBT meme is my comment, years ago, that a
main driver of high-watt lighting system development was
offroad riders trying to avoid a tree in the head. Those
riders certainly spent more, more often and years before
commuters discovered death ray levels of lighting. They saw
a real and present danger and they responded accordingly.

Oh, and a tree branch doesn't have to be 80mm diameter to be
a problem. Even something smallish in the face while riding
is a safety hazard. I'm not generally much excited about
safety but really anything that smacks a rider in the face
presents some unwanted aftermath scenarios. I've listened to
enough riders to believe them.

You've conflated this with putative urban killer trees in
traffic lanes, which is ridiculous and unrelated.

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

Oddly enough, In Ireland the environmentalists, who all seem to ride with me, are part of the problem. The Council isn't supposed to trim the hedges before the end of September, the end of the riding season for many, because the trimmer cuts unsightly gouges. When the Council jumps the gun, the enviros who cycle with me telephone to complain bitterly; since they know a lot of people, including me, with influence at the papers, the council yessirs and yesmams them, but the council doesn't really have a lot of control over its farflung workers, so every year it happens on a different part of the countryside we ride in.

Overhanging branches are not a problem on the main roads (whee we can't ride except in the depth of the night because very heavy traffic runs on it over 100kph, some places at 125kph and hard shoulders are a "privilege not a right" as one road engineer told me, but on the lesser roads and in the lanes, often such small lanes that there is nowhere for the cyclist to escape the branch because it hangs across the whole lane. The only defence is to see it in time to brake.

Andre Jute
Lanesman

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:29:50 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 12:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.


Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

Please explain this street. It looks like an alley, roughly ten feet
wide, judging by the width of cars. Is it a private road, or otherwise
exempt from normal roadway design standards?

It was normal roadway design for early 1900s -- and standard fare for a residential goat road climbing up from the river. I linked two roads that are basically side by side and snake up the hill. The West Hills are the same way. This is an option for going to work (part of the route is also the Ronde): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM That has a nasty little trail section, too -- at 7:00.


My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were.

The word "trails" is a bit unspecific. If you're talking about woodland
foot trails or even the fire-roadish things that cut through some of
your western hill parks, I'd say those are another matter. Off-road
unpaved trails do need upward light, because even hikers have to
occasionally duck branches.

If your "trail" is an official Multi-Use Path, someone should be
maintaining it to remove head-high impact hazards. Again, AASHTO has
standards for this. And if the hazard was more than a leafy annoyance,
I'd think someone would be addressing it.

Trail/utility road and not a MUP.

I admit, there could be unusual situations. We have a very unusual one
locally - a MUP that was funded and constructed entirely by private
donation, that crosses the state line. The family that had it built got
promises from the local county engineer (in Ohio) and the officials in
Pennsylvania that it would be maintained. Unfortunately, the current
county engineer refuses. The pavement is terrible and there are weeds
encroaching.

There is, as of a month or so ago, a fallen tree leaning over the trail
that does require ducking. BUT I've ridden that trail twice at night at
the invitation of a friend who likes moonlight rides. He normally
doesn't bother to use his own battery headlight, because my dynamo
powered B&M Cyo makes his light redundant.

And we spotted the overhead tree just fine, even though my Cyo has a
proper cutoff. As with automotive headlights, the cutoff is not 100%.
There is enough light above the horizon that I was able to spot that
hazard.

My L&M Urban 800 four ounce strap on rechargeable light renders my Luxos B redundant. It's nice having a generator light, but it can't keep up with a decent 700-800 lumen light. I'm not even talking mega lights. The good thing about the Luxos B is that I don't have to remember to charge it -- assuming I put it back on my bike. I have to get a bar mount because I don't have a bolt hole on the front of my CX commuter bike fork -- only a rear threaded insert. The beam cut-off is good for the MUPS and high bicycle traffic areas, too. I much prefer the L&M for trail and going up the steep goat roads.


Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link...

If that were the case, I'd probably reach down and tilt the headlight up
a little. It's easy.

I've done that and it helps, but then again, I lose the illumination directly in front of me. Most of the time, I can make it work.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:49:27 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He’s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He’s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Ah, I see. But of course we don't have bike paths here, as part of the
highway system, so of course it isn't an issue here :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.


Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads
that were cow paths or even logging roads :-) Quite the apposite and
some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure
(the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt,
secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging
vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes.
http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/
Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical
of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging
branches.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:59:32 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 6:33:50 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.

John - this is why I ride you. Here we don't have "teams of guys" because in the major cities the Democrats promise everyone heaven and then after elected they take all of the money and vote themselves more wages and benefits.

Is it the democrats? I really don't know, but the most notable
difference between here and there is the fact that we don't have all
the socialistic freebies that you have. No food stamps, no
unemployment, no aid to unwed mothers, nothing. You don't work, you
don't eat. Strange how that encourages folks to get out and get with
it :-)

Oh yes, and Thailand has, effectively, over 100% employment as the
official Thai (citizen)unemployment rate is about 1% and we have
something like 4 million "guest workers" here.
--
cheers,

John B.