Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 5:42:21 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
When one of my bikes go back into the garage after a trip no matter how
brief the battery is immediately hooked up to the charger. No
exceptions. My MTB has double back lights and my road bike has triple.
It is very cheap insurance.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

That can be very hard on some batteries.

Unless you spend BIG $ on a light it's not going to be seen by many motorists in NORMAL BRIGHT DAYLIGHT. Id low light or overcast days a bright light can be seen a fair distance away from the source. But the viewer must then be able to tell it's a bicycle and not some other object.

This insitance on $100.00+ DRL for bicycles is like telling potential bicyclists they need to only ride in protected/segragated bike lanes - that is it DISCOURAGES them from using their bicycles or from buying one to use.

Cheers

On 2015-07-06 3:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 5:42:21 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
When one of my bikes go back into the garage after a trip no matter
how brief the battery is immediately hooked up to the charger. No
exceptions. My MTB has double back lights and my road bike has
triple. It is very cheap insurance.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

That can be very hard on some batteries.


You've got to use good stuff there. I have Li-Ion. Those indeed do not
like to sit in a hot garage topped off at 4.2V cell voltage all the
time. But mine have to do it. One can always purchase or build a more
intelligent charger that allows dialing that down to 4.1V or even
slightly less, which greatly increases the number of charge cycles at
the expense of a slightly diminished battery capacity.

Good Li-Ion stands top-offs well. Case in point: I have a Samsung NC-10
netbook which I use on all trips. But less so between trips. It has the
old style charge circuit where you cannot lower the top-off voltage so
it's always 4.2V. I bought it when they came out in 2008 and after seven
years the original battery is still giving me the usual 8h of runtime.

So yes, it can be done.


Unless you spend BIG $ on a light it's not going to be seen by many
motorists in NORMAL BRIGHT DAYLIGHT. ...


Sorry, but that's not true. Try a MagicShine or a knock-off. Even with a
diffuser lens it really makes the bike visible, mostly on account of the
small size of the lamp which concentrates the light in a smaller spot
than a motorcycle headlight with 10x the diameter. Try it out. I am sure
someone in your area has a MagicShine. It can throw out around 1000
lumens which is roughly on par with a motorcycle headlight. Due to the
fact that it is smaller the visiblity is good enough when turned down to
200-300 lumens.


... Id low light or overcast days a
bright light can be seen a fair distance away from the source. But
the viewer must then be able to tell it's a bicycle and not some
other object.


Why? Exactly that is key. Car drivers do not always know that this is a
bicycle. Because it doesn't look like one. What is it? A motorcycle? A
cop sitting on the side of the road? Then I better be on my best
behavior. It gets their attention and this is all I want.

Of course if everyone started having such lights the novelty would wear
off but now drivers would be trained to recognize bicycles, which would
be as good.


This insitance on $100.00+ DRL for bicycles is like telling potential
bicyclists they need to only ride in protected/segragated bike lanes
- that is it DISCOURAGES them from using their bicycles or from
buying one to use.


Now that is pure nonsense. I bought such lighting for two purposes. The
main purpose is to be able to ride more safely on roads and it did make
my rides much safer. Safer as in less screw-ups by car drivers a la
"Awfully sorry, mate, I really didn't see that you were coming, and that
fast".

The other reason is night riding. I prefer not to have to slow down
because of inferior lighting when there are better alternatives at
reasonable cost. 1000 lumens allows me north of 15mph on
pothole-littered roads and most of all on bush roads and trails. The
next step will be 2000 lumens which should be adequate for a little over
20mph and that's all I'd need.

Also, your assumption that is costs $100 is wrong. You can easily obtain
good 1000 lumen lights well under $50. That is peanuts compared to the
price of a bicycle. Penny-wise but pound-foolish, is the old saying for
those who'd complain about such little investment in safety.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:49:30 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Frank Krygowski considered Sun, 05 Jul 2015
14:31:06 -0400 the perfect time to write:

On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

If what I've heard of the model A is accurate, the "braking system"
doesn't lock the wheels.
On the other hand, it doesn't stop the car, either.


Not true at all. The Model A had rod actuated brakes and would "lock"
the brakes, at least sufficiently well to make the tires screech. The
problem was getting the brakes "balanced" as each wheel's brake was
operated by a separate, adjustable, rod. One technique was to do your
brake adjusting on a dirt road - make the adjustment and then make a
pass and lock the brakes and note which wheel(s) skidded.

I suspect that you were referring to the Model T, which preceded the
Model A, as in standard guise the Model T had a single brake that
operated on the transmission output shaft. My father once told me that
the preferred method of stopping a Model T in a hurry was to depress
all three pedals which put you in low gear, reverse and applied the
brakes... all at the same time :-)

As for stopping ability a Model A was considered much better than the
(probably) 1937 Fords that were equipped with "Teledraulic" brakes
operated by cables (which stretched :-)


Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 11:07:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime
flashing lights.

And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike
much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about
one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective
is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient.
Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety.


Subsequent to the first discussion of flashing lights (SMS I think) I
have been observing bicycle and motorcycle lights more closely. With
the bicycle lights I see they certainly do make the bike (or whatever
that thing is with the bright light) more visible from full dark to a
little while after sunrise, but by, say 2 hours after the sun comes up
they are hardly noticeable on or off. Motorcycle lights are somewhat
similar but being both brighter and larger have some effect later in
the morning, but by "high noon" lights on anything are hardly
noticeable... unless it rains of course.

From what I see, the most visible item, in full daylight, is a light
colored shirt.

Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not
once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference,
despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:07:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime
flashing lights.

And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike
much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about
one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective
is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient.
Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety.

Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not
once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference,
despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc.

While I was riding yesterday, I encountered a guy with a flashing rear light -- and it may have caught my attention first. Who knows. I had no trouble seeing the dozens of other riders with no flashers. In broad daylight, you see the rider and the flasher simultaneously, and then your eye is drawn to the flasher. The only new information added by the flasher IS the flasher. I suppose that if I were looking for flashers, a flasher would be very helpful.

I can see a flasher making a difference with heavy tree cover, dappled bright light and a driver or rider wearing sun glasses. I say that because PDX has been trapped in a heat wave with lots of bright light. It's turning into California -- and I don't have AC! Anyway, dropping in and out of the tree cover with sunglasses on, there are times when I can't even see the road.
My eyes cannot adjust fast enough. There are also places where a giant front flasher would make me feel better -- in particular, a fast descent in to a dense residential area on my way home from many west side rides.

My approach is to take the lane right behind a car. Plan B would be to slow down, but that is unthinkable.

One can debate this forever, and it really comes down to where one draws the line. Personally, I take my flea-watt front flasher and old Planet Bike rear flasher on dreary days (and on my dreary day bike). I don't bother on sunny days. I wear reasonably conspicuous clothing and adjust my lane position to improve sight lines for motorists if necessary. I might consider a rear flasher under heavy canopy -- like my lucky rabbit's foot. A front flasher under heavy canopy in more dense urban areas with cross-traffic. Out in the middle of nowhere, I don't see a need for a front flasher.

-- Jay Beattie.

Your findings exactly parallel mine. But the most important life
saving devise, in my mind, is the Buddhist amulet that my fife gave
me. Since I started wearing that I have never even had a close call.
Proof positive of its power.

--
cheers,

John B.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 5:42:21 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
When one of my bikes go back into the garage after a trip no matter how
brief the battery is immediately hooked up to the charger. No
exceptions. My MTB has double back lights and my road bike has triple.
It is very cheap insurance.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

That can be very hard on some batteries.

Unless you spend BIG $ on a light it's not going to be seen by many
motorists in NORMAL BRIGHT DAYLIGHT. Id low light or overcast days a
bright light can be seen a fair distance away from the source. But the
viewer must then be able to tell it's a bicycle and not some other object.

This insitance on $100.00+ DRL for bicycles is like telling potential
bicyclists they need to only ride in protected/segragated bike lanes -
that is it DISCOURAGES them from using their bicycles or from buying one to use.

Cheers

I don't buy that. It's the same argument that AHZs use when saying people
recommending helmets are scaring away cyclists. I think most people see a
guy with bright flashers in the daylight think either the guy was riding
all night and forgot to turn them off, the guys a bit over cautious or the
guy is a nut. Or there are probably some who think it's a good idea.

I see many riders every day and almost no DRLs
I don't use them myself. But I don't see any reason why Joerg shouldn't do
what he thinks is best for his ride. Like I said, as long as he's not
blinding me I don't care.


--
duane

On 7/6/2015 7:20 PM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:


Unless you spend BIG $ on a light it's not going to be seen by many
motorists in NORMAL BRIGHT DAYLIGHT. Id low light or overcast days a
bright light can be seen a fair distance away from the source. But the
viewer must then be able to tell it's a bicycle and not some other object.

This insitance on $100.00+ DRL for bicycles is like telling potential
bicyclists they need to only ride in protected/segragated bike lanes -
that is it DISCOURAGES them from using their bicycles or from buying one to use.

Cheers

I don't buy that. It's the same argument that AHZs use when saying people
recommending helmets are scaring away cyclists. I think most people see a
guy with bright flashers in the daylight think either the guy was riding
all night and forgot to turn them off, the guys a bit over cautious or the
guy is a nut. Or there are probably some who think it's a good idea.

I see many riders every day and almost no DRLs
I don't use them myself. But I don't see any reason why Joerg shouldn't do
what he thinks is best for his ride. Like I said, as long as he's not
blinding me I don't care.

Duane, you have so much trouble with this point. Nobody is saying
"Joerg (or SMS), don't use your daytime running light."

What people are objecting to is "A person is a fool if they don't use a
daytime running light."

You really should be able to understand the difference.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/6/2015 6:57 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-06 3:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


Unless you spend BIG $ on a light it's not going to be seen by many
motorists in NORMAL BRIGHT DAYLIGHT. ...


Sorry, but that's not true. Try a MagicShine or a knock-off. Even with a
diffuser lens it really makes the bike visible, mostly on account of the
small size of the lamp which concentrates the light in a smaller spot
than a motorcycle headlight with 10x the diameter. Try it out. I am sure
someone in your area has a MagicShine. It can throw out around 1000
lumens which is roughly on par with a motorcycle headlight. Due to the
fact that it is smaller the visiblity is good enough when turned down to
200-300 lumens.

Only a small subset of bicyclists are going to search for a Chinese
discount light of dubious quality, and the ones who don't have very good
reasons for their position.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/6/2015 5:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 12:06:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2015 2:09 PM, sms wrote:


No one would argue that a front flasher makes you more visible to
opposing traffic or side-entering traffic.

There's some mis-phrasing there.

I see it every single
day--drivers thinking about a right on red in front of me not doing it
because I am so conspicuous, drivers not making a left in front of me
because it registers on their brain that something is coming toward
them. Drivers not making a right hook, as I speed down the bike lane as
they are waiting to make a right turn.

And again, I never have drivers making those dangerous moves, yet I
don't use daytime lights at all.

Are your problems really caused by riding far right?

The bottom line is that in heavy city traffic, at least in the U.S., it
would be exceedingly foolish to not use daytime flashing lights.

IOW, Scharf is calling almost all American city cyclists "exceedingly
foolish."

"Look, dear! Everyone in the marching band is out of step except our
little Stephen!" ;-)

BUT there are studies showing a decreased incident rate for DRL users. This page mentions some of them. http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/qu...during-the-day

OTOH, DRLs are not SOP in PDX, IMO. Typical PDX commute. Count the tail lights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9kOgPWHpB0 Go here and count the lights: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...57607604514096


We're a bunch of fools!
(but I could have told you that).

-- Jay Beattie.


So, I downloaded and skimmed through the paper. It was interesting to
me that the reduction in crashes was across the board, for every type of
crash, including solo crashes. The people with daytime running lights
had fewer crashes of EVERY type, not just the ones that might be caused
by a motorist not noticing the cyclist.

It seems very similar to the result (buried in the Thompson & Rivara
"85%" pro-helmet paper of 1989) that the helmeted cyclists suffered far
fewer broken legs.

It's magic! A daytime running light makes you less likely to slip on
gravel! It makes you less likely to crash from getting your pants cuff
caught in your chain!

Or wait... is there a chance there was something wrong with the
experimental setup?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/6/2015 7:18 PM, John B. wrote:


Your findings exactly parallel mine. But the most important life
saving devise, in my mind, is the Buddhist amulet that my fife gave
me. Since I started wearing that I have never even had a close call.
Proof positive of its power.

St. Christopher's medals work better in North America. Obviously, you
have to know which entity to beseech, depending on geography.

--
- Frank Krygowski