Eschew Coolness in Favor of Intelligence. Use a High Power DaytimeFront Flashing Light.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:24:35 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:45:51 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
sms writes:


Of course I can legitimately believe it because there's a mountain of
evidence that says that it's true.

A "mountain of evidence" implies that "quantifiable" thing that Frank
seems to think is essential to validity. I haven't seen it.

But I don't really care, either. I don't need it or your assertion.
I can even sort of quantify the effect from my own observation and
experience, but prefer to experience life in a more organic way.
That is, not to try and model everything numerically. The world
is a neverending flow of chaotic unquantifiables, and therein lies
its glory and beauty. There's order, and at the same time ultimate
and absolute chaos. I do not wish to make my life an engineering
exercise. I can still intelligently observe effects, reason cause,
and bring that data with me into the cycle of continuous learning -
development of understanding, meaningful *information* - in pursuit
of the unachievable mastery of the art of living.

Scharf's "mountain of evidence" about the tremendous benefit of (and consequent necessity of) daytime flashing headlights simply doesn't exist. It's in his own head.

I did find a study indicating that daytime running lights, on cars,
reduce the accident rate at my latitude (+32.7) by approximately 5%.

Certainly. It seems to have reduced motorcycle accidents here by some
small percentage. But.... I suggest that this wasn't with a 700 lumen
light on either the cars or the motorcycles.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 18:51:30 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:45:51 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
sms writes:


Of course I can legitimately believe it because there's a mountain of
evidence that says that it's true.

A "mountain of evidence" implies that "quantifiable" thing that Frank
seems to think is essential to validity. I haven't seen it.

But I don't really care, either. I don't need it or your assertion.
I can even sort of quantify the effect from my own observation and
experience, but prefer to experience life in a more organic way.
That is, not to try and model everything numerically. The world
is a neverending flow of chaotic unquantifiables, and therein lies
its glory and beauty. There's order, and at the same time ultimate
and absolute chaos. I do not wish to make my life an engineering
exercise. I can still intelligently observe effects, reason cause,
and bring that data with me into the cycle of continuous learning -
development of understanding, meaningful *information* - in pursuit
of the unachievable mastery of the art of living.

Scharf's "mountain of evidence" about the tremendous benefit of (and consequent necessity of) daytime flashing headlights simply doesn't exist. It's in his own head.

And speaking of evidence in one's own head: There are probably billions of people who are convinced that they don't need real data; that they can "intelligently observe effects" of their latest favorite, whatever it is. Those people claim they can feel the improved acceleration they get from a 25 gram reduction in the mass of their cassette. They tout the great feeling of safety they get from being in a cycletrack that has significantly more crashes than the plain road it replaced. They brag about the performance benefit they got from a diet that's carbo-loading... no, vegan... no, paleo... no, all McDonalds. They _know_ their zertz inserts in their rigid chainstays make for a much smoother ride. That their old steel frame has gone soft. That riding a bike is terribly dangerous. And that their bike is much faster after it's been painted red.

You mean I made a mistake when I painted old road bike red :-?


I don't doubt that those people honestly believe a flashing light clears the road in front of them. But isn't it funny that the same people who are so positive about their beliefs will never bother to do tests or measurements, never bother to look up data?

I think it's not exactly Dunning-Kruger territory, although it seems closely related. I think it's more a case of being completely unaware that casual impressions are often very wrong, and that such claims should be (and can be) subjected to tests. You know, like science has been using for 300+ years.

- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, 23 September 2013 05:32:42 UTC+1, Dan wrote:


McDonald's has discontinued the Deluxe 1/3 pound Angus burger, but
(just anecdotally) I observed a remarkably consistent effect of
having one of those with a large order of french fries and large
Hi-C (more sugar than Coke and loads of vitamin C) for lunch on
strength and energy for my long, hilly commute home ;-)


So, are they using good oils/fats now, or still the highly dominant omega6 variety of processed gunk?

While meat can stimulate ones own endocrine system, continued daily consumption will likely in time exhaust your adrenals. 2 to 3oz meat is sufficient when one wants to kick in that aggressive edge but you need to have more meat-free days than meat-consuming days for it not to wear you out in the end. I'll not reference any scientific-based bollox from the fewd or farmAsuit inDUSTry. Consider that your endocrine system needs recovery days and I tend to go with one kicker and two or three recovery with totally f****d adrenals following 11 years of prednisolone. (Science showed that to be a good move, experience NOT).

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:11:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:24:35 -0700, Joe Riel wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:45:51 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
sms writes:


Of course I can legitimately believe it because there's a mountain of
evidence that says that it's true.

A "mountain of evidence" implies that "quantifiable" thing that Frank
seems to think is essential to validity. I haven't seen it.

But I don't really care, either. I don't need it or your assertion.
I can even sort of quantify the effect from my own observation and
experience, but prefer to experience life in a more organic way.
That is, not to try and model everything numerically. The world
is a neverending flow of chaotic unquantifiables, and therein lies
its glory and beauty. There's order, and at the same time ultimate
and absolute chaos. I do not wish to make my life an engineering
exercise. I can still intelligently observe effects, reason cause,
and bring that data with me into the cycle of continuous learning -
development of understanding, meaningful *information* - in pursuit
of the unachievable mastery of the art of living.

Scharf's "mountain of evidence" about the tremendous benefit of (and consequent necessity of) daytime flashing headlights simply doesn't exist. It's in his own head.

I did find a study indicating that daytime running lights, on cars,
reduce the accident rate at my latitude (+32.7) by approximately 5%.

Certainly. It seems to have reduced motorcycle accidents here by some
small percentage. But.... I suggest that this wasn't with a 700 lumen
light on either the cars or the motorcycles.

Addition to the above:

The following from
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice...ng-lights.html
which I believe is the UK Automobile Association.

"Daytime running lights must be bright enough that they can be seen
clearly in daylight and as a result are too bright to be used at night
time when they would cause dazzle. Daytime running lights should
therefore go off automatically when headlights or sidelights are
switched on."

It appears that to be of benefit of DRLs is dependent on them being
even brighter then the normal driving lights.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/22/2013 9:32 PM, Dan wrote:

Are you suggesting that a flashing front light does not reduce the
incidence of left crosses and other such failures to yield?

The contention by those that vituperate flashing lights is that until
there is a double-blind study that examines flashing lights on bicycles,
followed by a published report on flash rate and intensity versus
fatality and injury rates, there is no evidence that flashing lights on
bicycles have the same conspicuousness effect that they have in other
situations.

That's fine. But realize that even when there are specific studies that
reach conclusions that they don't like that they simply make up stories
to attack those studies. Witness the whole helmet debate. First they
contended that helmets were worthless because they claimed that whole
population studies showed no decrease in injury and fatality rates
(always ignoring the fact that physicians, nurses, paramedics, and
police all concurred that helmeted cyclists fared far better in
head-impact crashes than non-helmeted cyclists). Later they conceded
that there was a decrease in injury and fatality rates as helmet usage
increased but claimed that the decreases in injuries and fatalities were
due to reduced cycling levels caused by helmet laws. Later they conceded
that indeed cycling levels had actually increased not decreased in
places with MHLs and also accepted that injury and fatality rates had
fallen but insisted that while absolute levels of cycling had gone up
that cycling levels had not increased as fast as population growth and
helmets were responsible for the slower rate of increase, ignoring, as
always, the reality that multiple factors affect cycling rates. It never
ends. Probably the worst web site in the world in terms of junk science
and statistics is the horribly named "BICYCLE HELMET RESEARCH
FOUNDATION." You can find more facts on a Tea Party web site or a
climate change denier web site than you could on that site. But like the
Tea Party or the climate change deniers, the common bond is that all the
valid scientific studies in the world will not change their public
statements, even when they really do understand that they are totally
wrong--they have an agenda and will say _anything_ to support that
agenda. It may be fun for you and Andre to make fun of some of these
people, but understand that the people that you ridicule don't actually
believe the drivel that they post on r.b.t., they do it because they are
required to do it.

For those that possess astuteness and perception, the current evidence
as to the effectiveness of flashing lights in increasing conspicuousness
is sufficient. It is possible to extrapolate from studies examining the
conspicuousness of flashing lights as marine aids and on emergency
vehicles. It should be noted that both the U.S. and Canadian governments
were able to extrapolate the effectiveness of flashing lights when they
approved the use of motorcycle headlight modulators, even though there
have been no specific studies that have been done comparing steady-on
daytime headlights versus modulated headlights in terms of reducing
collisions. Sometimes you just have to use common sense rather than
being obstinate!

On Monday, September 23, 2013 11:33:45 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:

Witness the whole helmet debate...

It must be tempting to change the subject when you've botched your arguments so badly. But I wish you'd constrain your lies to one topic at a time. If you want to lie about helmet evidence, start a separate helmet thread.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, September 23, 2013 8:33:45 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 9/22/2013 9:32 PM, Dan wrote:


.... a bunch of other stuff including:


Are you suggesting that a flashing front light does not reduce the
incidence of left crosses and other such failures to yield?


snip


For those that possess astuteness and perception...

snip

Sometimes you just have to use common sense...

Here's my thing:

We all ride toward developing traffic situations where we have to
wonder, "Does the driver of that vehicle see me coming, do they know
the traffic laws pertaining to bicycles, will they care, and how well
will they assess this developing situation?"

Then we take action depending on a million different things, and watch
the situation develop, occur, and subside. So very often the driver
acts in a way that indicates they did not see you, did not know the laws,
did not care, or made a poor assessment (or, sometimes they've just got
it in for you). Happens all the time.

Now, when I am running my headlight in flashing mode - either because
of limited visibility and/or highly conflicting traffic - I notice
that many of those developing situations where I wonder all that stuff
above and *expect* with some degree of probability that the driver will
not yield as perhaps they should - I notice that what seems like a lot
of times I am surprised that they seem to hold up their actions as if
they are evaluating me. This is what we want them to do! I don't want
to make it more difficult for them by disorienting them, but if a (too)
large percentage of them are going to make a poor evaluation (or none)
and put me in a bad spot, and if disorienting them a bit gets them to
pull their faculties together and more often make a better decision,
well...

One key factor in their assessment is whether they have time to cut
across my right-of-way or whatever, and when they hold up for a second
or so to get oriented... well, now it's a second or so later and that
affects their decision.

And that's the thing: I see this hold moment happening, and then,
quite often (not always by a longshot), quite often they yield -
more often than when I am not running the light, I'd say.

Yes, this is anecdotal. The quantification is a gut sense of mine.
But it seems to me that if this were not really happening, I would
not have this gut sense. I have no stake in the efficacy of my front
flasher. As noted, I don't really care for the idea of flashing
lights (except that they make the batteries last much longer, and
that PB Superflash taillight is one frenetic little dynamo if you
really want "attention").

Anyway, take it or leave it - my impression, my analysis of maybe
how and why it works out that way. It doesn't "clear the road"; it's
not "essential"; it's not even such a pronounced phenomenon that I'd
be *too* surprised to find I'm imagining it. It is what it is. But
what it is *is* data - *real* data - and data that is 100% applicable
to my personal circumstances.

On Monday, 23 September 2013 16:48:35 UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
sms considered Sun, 22 Sep 2013 17:42:58

-0700 the perfect time to write:



On 9/22/2013 10:01 AM, Dan wrote:

Dan writes:



snip



Gee that was pretty rhetorical, eh? :-)



Part of my ambiguity over the daytime flashing headlight thing

is my unconventional approach to riding on and around the roads:

I do not seek to be part of the entity that is "traffic". I

*will* join it briefly here and there as necessary to get along,

but for the most part I operate alone - seeking to *avoid*

getting into situations where it matters at all whether anybody

sees me. It's really not that difficult to achieve on a bicycle

- save for occasional junctures - because, almost anywhere, the

bicycle can go so very many different ways.



In city cycling that is often true. In more rural areas, such as the

mountainous areas around the Bay Area, it's often not possible to be

away from motor vehicles. It's more in these situations where making

yourself more conspicuous really matters.



On an urban road you're unlikely to be riding more than 15-20 miles an

hour and you can probably stop fast enough such that even if you do

crash into a vehicle that does something stupid in front of you that

your injuries are not going to be that severe provided that you are

wearing a helmet.



In the mountainous areas you can be going 40 mph, sometimes faster, on

long, smooth, straight, downhills. It's these areas, where there are

often a lot of small side streets, that you often see motorists that

must not realize just how fast a bicycle can be coming down the hill

because they'll turn right from the side road onto the main road or left

from the main road into the side road. At 40 mph a helmet is not going

to do much for you.


it might save you having to wash off the bird cack once in a blue moon.


Hmm, less effort overall to just wash it off when it happens. Good reminder, get the rats out too.

On 9/23/2013 9:14 AM, Dan O wrote:

Now, when I am running my headlight in flashing mode - either because
of limited visibility and/or highly conflicting traffic - I notice
that many of those developing situations where I wonder all that stuff
above and *expect* with some degree of probability that the driver will
not yield as perhaps they should - I notice that what seems like a lot
of times I am surprised that they seem to hold up their actions as if
they are evaluating me.

Exactly.

You can almost see the gears turning in the driver's head when you have
a flashing front light in the dayime: "What is that?" "How far away is
that?" "I'd better wait." Versus, "oh, a bicycle, I ride my bicycle
really slow so that bicycle must be coming up slowly so I have plenty of
time to turn."

I recall someone mentioning that with a flashing light it's more
difficult to determine how far away a bicycle (or emergency vehicle is).
But they mentioned it as if it was a bad thing, when in fact that
uncertainty is probably what is giving drivers pause when they see the
flashing light.

The other amusing thing I've noticed on multiple occasions is that when
I'm stopped at a red light, waiting to straight across, and the opposing
vehicle is turning left. If I have the flashing light on then they'll
suddenly turn on their turn signal, as if it's only required when
there's someone coming the other way. Without the flashing light,
there's often no acknowledgement that I'm there.

On Monday, September 23, 2013 10:06:33 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 9/23/2013 9:14 AM, Dan O wrote:



Now, when I am running my headlight in flashing mode - either because

of limited visibility and/or highly conflicting traffic - I notice

that many of those developing situations where I wonder all that stuff

above and *expect* with some degree of probability that the driver will

not yield as perhaps they should - I notice that what seems like a lot

of times I am surprised that they seem to hold up their actions as if

they are evaluating me.



Exactly.



You can almost see the gears turning in the driver's head when you have

a flashing front light in the dayime: "What is that?" "How far away is

that?" "I'd better wait." Versus, "oh, a bicycle, I ride my bicycle

really slow so that bicycle must be coming up slowly so I have plenty of

time to turn."



I recall someone mentioning that with a flashing light it's more

difficult to determine how far away a bicycle (or emergency vehicle is).

But they mentioned it as if it was a bad thing, when in fact that

uncertainty is probably what is giving drivers pause when they see the

flashing light.



The other amusing thing I've noticed on multiple occasions is that when

I'm stopped at a red light, waiting to straight across, and the opposing

vehicle is turning left. If I have the flashing light on then they'll

suddenly turn on their turn signal, as if it's only required when

there's someone coming the other way. Without the flashing light,

there's often no acknowledgement that I'm there.

By the way, where is the research about daytime flashers? Not being contentious, I just don't want to have to go searching for it on my lunch break.

-- Jay Beattie.