Eyc headlight problem

On 4/11/2021 8:04 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2021 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

As a couple of data points, I've been hit maybe a half-dozen times and
never while skulking in the gutter. I was lane center riding the speed
of traffic when someone turned in front of me.Â* Nice ride to the
hospital in an ambulance.Â* I was doing the same thing when some one
pulled out from my right for no reason. I got hooked by a mail truck.
I got rear-ended by a bus while in the middle of the f****** lane.
People do stupid sh**.

Taking positive steps to avoid being hit is something we need to do more
on. The cyclist community needs to double-down on education and avoid
compulsion.

Gentle encouragement for helmets and lights, and setting an example,
will have better results than advocating for mandates. Even though
nearly everyone here understands that helmets and lights are a good
idea; countering the false narrative of people like Frank is important
but in a nice way.

Passing out lights for free to those without them, whatever the reason
someone lacks them, is one productive effort that I've engaged in, using
my discretionary money when I was the mayor of my city. Several
organizations offer free helmets, at least for children.

Note that the "education" alluded to by SMS seems to be teaching people
to use add-on gimmicks. There's no mention of teaching people the actual
causes of crashes, nor the riding behaviors that minimize crashing.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2021 8:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:

'Take the lane'Â* is generally good advice and I, like you, generally do.
Not always but generally, yes.

Still and all, bad things happen to good people with some regularity:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/fam...d-moped-rider/


There's no general rule for the actual world as we find it.

"Bad things happen to good people" =/= "Your behavior makes no
difference."

The world is not all random chance. You can improve your odds. And I
believe that on a bike, most people can better improve their odds by
changing their behavior rather than adding on another commercial gimmick.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2021 8:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:22:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 19:23:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 6:46 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 16:01:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2021 2:34 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I have yet to see a DRL that's visible to me BEFORE the bicycle and bicyclist are. The only time I notice a bicyclist with a headlight or tail-light on during the day is if they are in deep shade or if it's heavy overcast.

The VAST MAJORITY of bicyclists do NOT repeat, do NOT, need a DRL.

Agreed! Also, if cyclists ride more prominently in the lane, they're
even less likely to not be noticed by motorists.

The problem is, when people who buy a DRL get noticed, they say "Oh, he
noticed me because of my DRL" even if they would have been noticed
anyway. Confirmation bias in action.

But I have seen situations where a DRL was noticeable. The other day
we were driving back from Bangkok and because of the holiday traffic
started very early in the morning - sun just peeping over the horizon
- and met a bloke on a bicycle and yes the DRL did make him much more
noticeable.

As I've said, you can sometimes spot a bicyclist farther away because of
a DRL. But I've never observed an incident when the DRL made a
_practical_ difference. A cyclist doesn't need to be seen at the horizon.

I have. Twice. Each time it was cyclist riding the wrong way on the
side of the street. Both times were very early in the morning and if
he had some sort of light I would have seen him further enough away to
have easily avoided him rather then an "OH MY GOD" situation.

In my state, lights are required from sunset to sunrise. That's actually
a bit more strict than the law was a few years ago, when lights were
required from half an hour past sunset to half an hour before sunrise.
(Not that the laws are adequately enforced, mind you.) DRLs are lights
in use outside those times, or outside similar conditions.

If you're talking about "very early in the morning," so early that the
cyclist was not visible, he may well have been in violation of the law.
But that's a separate issue from "DRLs always for safety!"

Frank, whether or not the two bikes that I almost hit may or may not
been in violation of the law is meaningless, at least to me. But,
really, does that make a difference? Laying there with the broken leg
does one really feel better knowing that the guy what done it broke
the law?

As for DRL's I did research the subject and I find studies dating back
to the 1970's and which showed that the use of DRL's did reduce the
frequency of vehicle accidents, although the level of decrease did
vary from study to study.

But, perhaps more to the point you blithely ignore the fact that a
number of studied of bicycle accidents have shown that, in some cases
more than 50% of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Wouldn't
it be more productive, rather then rant and rave about DRL's, to
advocate riding a bicycle safely?

Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored
that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times.
That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education.

About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and
it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the
DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL
studies have much applicability to bike crashes.

And about the personal incidents you alluded to: I'm strongly in favor
of headlights and taillights during darkness or other low visibility
conditions. That's the pertinence of your crashes being caused by
illegal behavior, rather than lack of a _Daytime_ Running Light.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/12/2021 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 8:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:

'Take the lane'Â is generally good advice and I, like
you, generally do. Not always but generally, yes.

Still and all, bad things happen to good people with some
regularity:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/fam...d-moped-rider/


There's no general rule for the actual world as we find it.

"Bad things happen to good people" =/= "Your behavior makes
no difference."

The world is not all random chance. You can improve your
odds. And I believe that on a bike, most people can better
improve their odds by changing their behavior rather than
adding on another commercial gimmick.


Yes, exactly, 'You can improve your odds' as a noted expert
recently wrote. Odds =/= certainty.

Did you see the video above? Moped guy is 'taking the lane',
obeying laws & rules, clearly a model traffic datum. He's dead.

Behavior can make a difference and generally does. Just not
always.

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

On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 6:17:02 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2021 8:24 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:34:50 AM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote:
On 4/2/2021 11:59 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote:
On 4/2/2021 9:00 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I don't love it. I would love a dyno light with a solid 800 lumen
output, a little more upward spew and a stand light that was stronger
than the light on my give-away key chain from Wells Fargo -- and one
with a battery so I could use the light off the bike. We
transportational cyclists often need a light for use off the bike. A
flasher would be nice for dusk and dawn, but not required. And while
we're wishing, how about something lighter and more efficient than a
bunch of magnets whirling around. There must be some other way of harvesting electrons.

Such a light would be wonderful but it would be a stretch with a 6V/3W
dynamo, even at higher speeds where you can get more than 3 watts out of
it. Some LED makers are claiming 300 lumens per watt, at least in the
lab, but 200-250 lumens per watt are what is available commercially at
this time.

A 12V/6W hub dynamo (or even a 9V/4.5W hub dynamo) would make dynamo
lights with sufficient intensity more practical, including a beam
pattern where some upward spew would be possible. DRL flash capability
is trivial to add, as are internal batteries to be able to use it off
the bicycle. But there is just not much of a market for any of this..


You seem to have it stuck in your head that the internal impedance of a hub
generator is some immutable quantity and not a design parameter. Why not a
6V/12W hub dynamo? Hell, if you were willing to do frequency dependent
series capacitor switching, you can get a lot more than 3W out of a 3W
labelled hub.

Not stuck at all. The problem with that approach, and it's already been
done via lowering the impedance by putting two bulbs (or LEDs) in series
is that you don't reach sufficient power at lower speeds.

OK. First off, putting two LEDs in series raises the impedance, and it
works by allowing the voltage from the generator to go up. If you had a bit
of intelligent electronics (a frequency sensor with some hysteresis), you
could short out the second LED at low speeds where there isn’t enough
voltage to drive two in series.
Back in the days I experimented with halogen dyno lamps, I had two wired
in series with a switch that would short either one or the other for low
speed work, but have both in series at higher speeds.

Series being the electricity goes first to one LED and then to the second LED after the first is full.
Parallel being the electricity goes simultaneously to both LED at the same time.

Is parallel bad?
I have my two B&M LED lights in parallel from the Shimano dynohub. Seems to work just fine.
I'm surprised that seems to work fine. Series is normally considered
correct. It seems two identical lamps in parallel would each get 1/4
amp. LED headlights do better than halogen, etc. at low current levels,
but I'd have thought those would still be dim. If they're not, that's
interesting.

If I were you, I'd wire it with switches so I could change between the
two systems (series vs. parallel) while riding. Compare and report back!

--
- Frank Krygowski

I am not an electrician. Never claimed to be. Except with house wiring. 110/220 switches, plugs, lights, outlets. On that I consider myself very competent in the practical work. Maybe not on the theory part. Never had any need to learn about 3 phase inverters since all my tools are single phase getting supply from single phase breakers.

My bike had old halogen bulbs on PBP 2007. I believe one of those two lights was a special series light so the dyno would send power to one of the lights first and then only send power to the second after getting up to speed.. I think B&M or whoever made the lights specifically made those second lights to use in that way. But with my newer B&M LED lights I just wired them parallel. No one bothered to make that special second light for LED because everyone thought LED was good enough with just one bulb. No need for two lights with LED unlike with halogen where the second bulb in series was kind of necessary. Equal full power to both lights simultaneously. Now at lower speed both lights are weak. But since LED lights up at fairly low speeds, it only takes about 7-8 mph to get both LED lit up to full brightness. So no real downside because I never ride slow enough to not get both lights going full brightness.

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:47:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant
"safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it
easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens
of examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways
that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can
give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period..

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.
Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.
And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.
You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm going to argue with you Frank. About your car safety, convenience, improvement features you mention. Money. Most folks would say more is better when it comes to money. More money better. Safer cars better. Safer bicycle rides better. More lighting better. Is it inflation or better? Isn't making bicycling safer better? Kind of like more money is always better than less money? I know some folks say they have enough money. But if they could have more money wouldn't that be more enough? And better?

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank
Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming,
at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling
cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging,
taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should
be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never
ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid
and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to
duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love
the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've
never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a
mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the
leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here
frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or
adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was
blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of
young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one
yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud
for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your
helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow
club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and
according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a
helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the
time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a
rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody
yelled, which is normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it
has happened to me many times over the years, and not just
here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb. (I was also
yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more
ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As
I've said, we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads
to explore. On Friday's ride with a friend from the other
side of town, I chose the route; but about halfway through
the ride I said "I forget where that little road goes. Do
you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked around for
an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory;
but it was a perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and
trilling toads serenading us the whole way.


People yell at you in Portland because you just don't fit in.
Next time try a little arson of Federal property, they'll
take you for a local:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portla...lent-protests/

(Safety note: Wear a Che Guevara or Biden or BLM (CCP) tee
shirt as protection from indictment)
These dopes are being rounded up slowly -- often out of state. We have protest tourists. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/i...tland-protests


"tourists" Is that what they are called. Wisconsin, Andy's state, had Kyle Rittenhouse from Illinois kill two people and shoot a third person while he was a "tourist" in Wisconsin.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...onsin-protests

Of course those being murdered were "protesters" at a Black Lives Matter rally, or some protest about a black man being gunned down by police. So obviously the protesters needed to be shot down dead by a 17 year old white boy visiting from across state lines.





And the protesters are not even on the radar from a cycling standpoint. IMO, the right-thinking conservative PU drivers are worse than all of the Antifa hooligans put together. Poor Frank got yelled at and told to get in a bike lane. Riding way out in Clackamas, Yamhill and Washington counties, I've had much more dire encounters with MAGA idiots with Trump flags and bumper stickers -- for just riding on a f****** road.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/12/2021 1:59 PM, wrote:

snip

My bike had old halogen bulbs on PBP 2007. I believe one of those two lights was a special series light so the dyno would send power to one of the lights first and then only send power to the second after getting up to speed. I think B&M or whoever made the lights specifically made those second lights to use in that way. But with my newer B&M LED lights I just wired them parallel. No one bothered to make that special second light for LED because everyone thought LED was good enough with just one bulb. No need for two lights with LED unlike with halogen where the second bulb in series was kind of necessary. Equal full power to both lights simultaneously. Now at lower speed both lights are weak. But since LED lights up at fairly low speeds, it only takes about 7-8 mph to get both LED lit up to full brightness. So no real downside because I never ride slow enough to not get both lights going full brightness.


In honor of Frank I decided to stick my 12V tire-driven dynamo light set
on my beater bike. Very classic. But awful. At first I thought that I
had some kind of wiring problem because the output sucked so bad.

I hooked up a small 12V SLA battery and it brightened up considerably so
apparently the dynamo was not putting out enough current, though the
unloaded voltage exceeded 20 volts. The drag with the lights connected
was unbearable.

Going to give up on that experiment.

On 4/12/2021 4:30 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:47:20 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant
"safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it
easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens
of examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways
that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can
give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.
Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.
And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.
You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm going to argue with you Frank. About your car safety, convenience, improvement features you mention. Money. Most folks would say more is better when it comes to money. More money better. Safer cars better. Safer bicycle rides better. More lighting better. Is it inflation or better? Isn't making bicycling safer better? Kind of like more money is always better than less money? I know some folks say they have enough money. But if they could have more money wouldn't that be more enough? And better?


"It's not what you have. It's what you do."

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

On 4/12/2021 5:14 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 6:40:54 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 5:09 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 11 april 2021 om 20:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Frank
Krygowski:
On 4/11/2021 11:23 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

We've long since passed that point with helmet shaming,
at least in the
U.S., Australia and New Zealand. Riding with a cycling
cap or no cap at
all was once plenty safe, but now draws finger wagging,
taunts and
lectures from intolerant people, even ones who should
be allies. It's an
example of "safety inflation."

In fact, there are many who think it's better to never
ride a bike, than
to ride one without a helmet. That's flagrantly stupid
and contrary to
all research I've been able to find. We don't need to
duplicate that
stupidity with DRLs, no matter how much some may love
the gimmickry.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Funny, in all my years of riding without a helmet, I've
never been told that I should be wearing one.
That amazes me. IIRC, you live in Ontario, where a
mandatory helmet law
for adult cyclists was barely avoided. (One of the
leaders of the
successful opposition was a man who used to post here
frequently.)

There is no statewide MHL here in Ohio for kids or
adults. But I've been
yelled at by passing motorists, including one who was
blaring her horn
and yelling at me to ride on a sidewalk. I had a car of
young girls
deliberately brush-pass me then slow way down as one
yelled "Wear your
F*** helmet!" I had a bicyclist cuss me out long and loud
for not
wearing one. And I've had many milder "Where's your
helmet?" remarks
delivered in scolding tones, from everyone from fellow
club members to
pedestrians on the sidewalk.


Move! Get out of that 'hell hole'. Rode alone today and
according to my 'helmet wear algorithm' I didn't wear a
helmet. No one yelled or honked at me. It was cold for the
time of the year (5C) but it was a pleasant ride after a
rainy day yesterday.

We just now got back from a ride for groceries. Nobody
yelled, which is normal. But as I've said, unlike Sir, it
has happened to me many times over the years, and not just
here. I was yelled at in a Portland suburb. (I was also
yelled at to "get in a bike lane" there, on a street that
had none.) Idiots abound. We don't need to give them more
ammunition.

Regarding bicycling, this is the opposite of a hell hole. As
I've said, we have hundreds of pleasant, small country roads
to explore. On Friday's ride with a friend from the other
side of town, I chose the route; but about halfway through
the ride I said "I forget where that little road goes. Do
you mind if we explore?" Nobody did, so we poked around for
an extra 5 or 10 miles on roads with almost zero traffic. I
did eventually have to check the GPS to refresh my memory;
but it was a perfect cycling day, with beautiful skies and
trilling toads serenading us the whole way.


People yell at you in Portland because you just don't fit in.
Next time try a little arson of Federal property, they'll
take you for a local:

https://nypost.com/2021/04/11/portla...lent-protests/

(Safety note: Wear a Che Guevara or Biden or BLM (CCP) tee
shirt as protection from indictment)
These dopes are being rounded up slowly -- often out of state. We have protest tourists. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/i...tland-protests


"tourists" Is that what they are called. Wisconsin, Andy's state, had Kyle Rittenhouse from Illinois kill two people and shoot a third person while he was a "tourist" in Wisconsin.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...onsin-protests

Of course those being murdered were "protesters" at a Black Lives Matter rally, or some protest about a black man being gunned down by police. So obviously the protesters needed to be shot down dead by a 17 year old white boy visiting from across state lines.





And the protesters are not even on the radar from a cycling standpoint. IMO, the right-thinking conservative PU drivers are worse than all of the Antifa hooligans put together. Poor Frank got yelled at and told to get in a bike lane. Riding way out in Clackamas, Yamhill and Washington counties, I've had much more dire encounters with MAGA idiots with Trump flags and bumper stickers -- for just riding on a f****** road.

-- Jay Beattie.

Ohferchrissake go watch the ample video of the events. He
avoided being beaten to death just barely.

Also, in that part of the world people cross both ways for
work, shopping, dating, errands, everything. The state lines
are easily overlooked on a county road. (I grew up south of
here just a short bike ride from Illinois.)

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