IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/2/2019 8:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:04:50 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:33:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

Well, for Sky Divers, I knew two sky divers very well and there was
never a question that the sport was dangerous, to the extent that the
subject just never came up in conversation. Which I suspect it true of
all really dangerous activities. I knew a couple of A.F. pilots, one
of whom had a number of decorations for delivering supplies,
ammunitions, etc. to Special Forces camps under enemy fire. They
didn't go on abut how dangerous their business was, although it
certainly was. I've known a number of combat soldiers and again they
didn't go on about how dangerous their profession was.

I suggest that for those who participate in truly dangerous activities
the subject doesn't come up in conversation as the participants all
know that it is dangerous and the emphasis is on "how to do it with
the least danger", rather than nattering on about how dangerous it all
is.

By the way... In Vietnam the Special Forces troopers I knew DID NOT
wear a helmet in combat :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

A combat helmet with the strap(s) done up under the chin can
in the event of a near miss by artillery or mortar fire cause one to
literally lose one's head due to the concussion.

Cheers

I was merely commenting that professional soldiers, i.e., U.S. Army
Special Forces, in Vietnam, did not wear helmets in combat.
--
cheers,

John B.

I realize that John.

A few times I set up old M1 style helmets at 100 yards and shot them with plain lead nose bullets (7.62mm NATO) and people I was demonstrating to were amazed at how many of those bullets penetrated the helmet and liner and many of the bullets exited the helmet too.

Cheers


As is so often the case, the situation and protocols have
nothing to do with actual safety, but rather more the
illusion of safety and the power to command obedience.

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

On Thu, 2 May 2019 19:30:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
Riding while drunk seems to increase accident rates,
riding the wrong way, against traffic, seems to increase accident
rates, arguing the right of way with 10 wheel trucks can increase
accident rates, and so on and so on :-)

I agree with the drunk and the wrong-way parts. But as it's usually
envisioned, I disagree with the bit about "arguing with 10 wheel
trucks." Most people who say that want the cyclist to get into the
gutter. That is dangerous.

I believe that I wrote about the two ladies on the small motorcycle
with their two kids that sort of "took the lane" in front of a loaded
ten wheeler hauling a loaded 10 wheel trailer doing probably 70 - 80
KPH. The trucker did all he could to avoid them to the extent that the
trailer flipped. Results one woman and one child dead, one woman in
the hospital and unknown injuries to the other kid.

My guess is that had they had it all to do over they would have been
quite happy to have "gone in the gutter".

It's a very rare traffic lane that is wide enough to safely share with a
large truck. Every cycling education program that I know of says that in
such a lane, a cyclist should _not_ squeeze far to the right. Instead,
he should ride near the middle of the lane, to make it obvious the
trucker will have to change lanes to pass.

What kind of roads do you ride on. Over here the majority of the roads
that I use, both in Bangkok and the country side, have paved shoulders
as much as 6 feet wide which serve for a motorcycle and bicycle lane,
bus lane, breakdown lane, you name it lane. I honestly can't remember
when I impeded anyone else.

This happened several times on today's ride, which is not unusual. In
each case, the trucker changed lanes to pass safely, waiting if
necessary until it was safe to do so.

We did have one jerk in a pickup who gave a "punishment pass," passing
closer than he needed as he roared by. The oncoming lane was empty, so
there was no need.

But as we know, some drivers are jerks. Most are perfectly cooperative.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 18:51:25 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:04:50 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:33:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

Well, for Sky Divers, I knew two sky divers very well and there was
never a question that the sport was dangerous, to the extent that the
subject just never came up in conversation. Which I suspect it true of
all really dangerous activities. I knew a couple of A.F. pilots, one
of whom had a number of decorations for delivering supplies,
ammunitions, etc. to Special Forces camps under enemy fire. They
didn't go on abut how dangerous their business was, although it
certainly was. I've known a number of combat soldiers and again they
didn't go on about how dangerous their profession was.

I suggest that for those who participate in truly dangerous activities
the subject doesn't come up in conversation as the participants all
know that it is dangerous and the emphasis is on "how to do it with
the least danger", rather than nattering on about how dangerous it all
is.

By the way... In Vietnam the Special Forces troopers I knew DID NOT
wear a helmet in combat :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

A combat helmet with the strap(s) done up under the chin can
in the event of a near miss by artillery or mortar fire cause one to
literally lose one's head due to the concussion.

Cheers

I was merely commenting that professional soldiers, i.e., U.S. Army
Special Forces, in Vietnam, did not wear helmets in combat.
--
cheers,

John B.

I realize that John.

A few times I set up old M1 style helmets at 100 yards and shot them with plain lead nose bullets (7.62mm NATO) and people I was demonstrating to were amazed at how many of those bullets penetrated the helmet and liner and many of the bullets exited the helmet too.

Cheers

This is purely supposition but I doubt that military helmets were ever
intended to withstand a direct hit with the older .30 cal service
rifles (the .22 cal stuff I'm not familiar with)I suspect that they
were intended to withstand shrapnel and stuff like that.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 02 May 2019 20:59:17 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/2/2019 8:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 8:38:12 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:04:50 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:33:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

Well, for Sky Divers, I knew two sky divers very well and there was
never a question that the sport was dangerous, to the extent that the
subject just never came up in conversation. Which I suspect it true of
all really dangerous activities. I knew a couple of A.F. pilots, one
of whom had a number of decorations for delivering supplies,
ammunitions, etc. to Special Forces camps under enemy fire. They
didn't go on abut how dangerous their business was, although it
certainly was. I've known a number of combat soldiers and again they
didn't go on about how dangerous their profession was.

I suggest that for those who participate in truly dangerous activities
the subject doesn't come up in conversation as the participants all
know that it is dangerous and the emphasis is on "how to do it with
the least danger", rather than nattering on about how dangerous it all
is.

By the way... In Vietnam the Special Forces troopers I knew DID NOT
wear a helmet in combat :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

A combat helmet with the strap(s) done up under the chin can
in the event of a near miss by artillery or mortar fire cause one to
literally lose one's head due to the concussion.

Cheers

I was merely commenting that professional soldiers, i.e., U.S. Army
Special Forces, in Vietnam, did not wear helmets in combat.
--
cheers,

John B.

I realize that John.

A few times I set up old M1 style helmets at 100 yards and shot them with plain lead nose bullets (7.62mm NATO) and people I was demonstrating to were amazed at how many of those bullets penetrated the helmet and liner and many of the bullets exited the helmet too.

Cheers


As is so often the case, the situation and protocols have
nothing to do with actual safety, but rather more the
illusion of safety and the power to command obedience.

As far as the safety factor goes, it might surprise you but the
military is quite interested in the safety of their personnel.
Preservation of their people's lives and effectiveness is a major
consideration. Not for any pink bow and flowers sweetness but simply
that as the number of troops declines so does the effectiveness of a
military organization. Overall losses of about 25% usually render an
organization incapable of carrying out it's objectives. and during WW
II losses of 3% in one day were reported as "Heavy Losses".

As for "obedience", or "discipline" as the military has it, how else
does one control large bodies of people.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:04:50 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:33:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

Well, for Sky Divers, I knew two sky divers very well and there was
never a question that the sport was dangerous, to the extent that the
subject just never came up in conversation. Which I suspect it true of
all really dangerous activities. I knew a couple of A.F. pilots, one
of whom had a number of decorations for delivering supplies,
ammunitions, etc. to Special Forces camps under enemy fire. They
didn't go on abut how dangerous their business was, although it
certainly was. I've known a number of combat soldiers and again they
didn't go on about how dangerous their profession was.

I suggest that for those who participate in truly dangerous activities
the subject doesn't come up in conversation as the participants all
know that it is dangerous and the emphasis is on "how to do it with
the least danger", rather than nattering on about how dangerous it all
is.

By the way... In Vietnam the Special Forces troopers I knew DID NOT
wear a helmet in combat :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

A combat helmet with the strap(s) done up under the chin can
in the event of a near miss by artillery or mortar fire cause one to
literally lose one's head due to the concussion.

Cheers

I was merely commenting that professional soldiers, i.e., U.S. Army
Special Forces, in Vietnam, did not wear helmets in combat.
--
cheers,

John B.

That must have been safer than urban cycling, obviously :-)

On Fri, 03 May 2019 12:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote:


What kind of roads do you ride on. Over here the majority of the roads
that I use, both in Bangkok and the country side, have paved shoulders
as much as 6 feet wide which serve for a motorcycle and bicycle lane,
bus lane, breakdown lane, you name it lane. I honestly can't remember
when I impeded anyone else.

By far, most roads in Australia do not have any significnt shoulder and I
absolutley loath riding on the shouders of the few main highways.

I'd say Aus situation is the norm, rather than a country paved in all
over with multi-lane roadways.

Am 03.05.2019 um 01:13 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 5/2/2019 5:34 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Rolf Mantel writes:

Am 02.05.2019 um 17:19 schrieb Radey Shouman:
That ratio seems small to me, unless bike commuting in heavy traffic.

For transportation I typically walk somewhere between 3 and 3.5 mph, or
bike between 14 and 18 mph.

18 mph as a total average including all stops is rather steep even for
an experienced cyclist.Â* Do you have streches of 5 miles without a
traffic light, without an all-way stop?

You are right, I would feel pretty good if I could average 18 mph, 14
mph is more typical.Â* I do have stretches of over a mile usually without
a stop.

Back when I rode to and from work, if I got the first few traffic lights
green, I would try to get home as fast as I could. If I caught a red
light early on, I made it an easy day.

The ride was seven miles, including a climb out of the river valley. I
think my fastest time ever was 23 minutes, with lots of green light luck
plus a good tailwind. But I almost always made it in less than 30
minutes, even on easy days. So I typically averaged a bit over 14 mph.

There were several stretches of a mile or two with no traffic lights. It
really was a lovely route.

I have the "perfect fast" commute, just under 8 miles, just one traffic
light immediately in front of the office, flat as a pancake (the 30ft
altitude gain and loss are mostly the bike bridge over the main road and
the bridges over small rivers), one or two places where I need to cross
roads with some traffic (10s time loss on a good day, 30s on a bad day).
I normally get a 15 mph average; once a year I manage 17 mph average,
overtaking some 20 or 30 other cyclists on the route.

If I were to be fit again as 30 years ago, I might even reach cruising
speeds above 20 and a 19 mph average on my recumbent, like some of those
young guy on racing cycles who occasionally overtake me. But this is
clearly the exception and not a "normal" cycling situation at all
(especially as electric-assist bicycles in Europe only count a "bicycle"
if their electrical max speed is at most 16 mph (25 km/h).

On Fri, 3 May 2019 06:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 16:09:52 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:04:50 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 15:33:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

Well, for Sky Divers, I knew two sky divers very well and there was
never a question that the sport was dangerous, to the extent that the
subject just never came up in conversation. Which I suspect it true of
all really dangerous activities. I knew a couple of A.F. pilots, one
of whom had a number of decorations for delivering supplies,
ammunitions, etc. to Special Forces camps under enemy fire. They
didn't go on abut how dangerous their business was, although it
certainly was. I've known a number of combat soldiers and again they
didn't go on about how dangerous their profession was.

I suggest that for those who participate in truly dangerous activities
the subject doesn't come up in conversation as the participants all
know that it is dangerous and the emphasis is on "how to do it with
the least danger", rather than nattering on about how dangerous it all
is.

By the way... In Vietnam the Special Forces troopers I knew DID NOT
wear a helmet in combat :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

A combat helmet with the strap(s) done up under the chin can
in the event of a near miss by artillery or mortar fire cause one to
literally lose one's head due to the concussion.

Cheers

I was merely commenting that professional soldiers, i.e., U.S. Army
Special Forces, in Vietnam, did not wear helmets in combat.
--
cheers,

John B.

That must have been safer than urban cycling, obviously :-)

Maybe it was, at least I used to eat at the Special Forces NCO mess
and I never heard anyone mention safety, or danger for that matter :-)

There was one incident though. There was a mortar emplacement right
outside the back of the mess and one evening the guys manning it fired
off an aiming round, to check their aiming stakes.

BIG BANG! I dove under the table. When nothing further happened I
crawled out feeling a little self conscious.. and then noticed that
everyone in the mess was crawling out from underneath their tables ;-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 3 May 2019 07:04:06 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 03 May 2019 12:16:40 +0700, John B. wrote:


What kind of roads do you ride on. Over here the majority of the roads
that I use, both in Bangkok and the country side, have paved shoulders
as much as 6 feet wide which serve for a motorcycle and bicycle lane,
bus lane, breakdown lane, you name it lane. I honestly can't remember
when I impeded anyone else.

By far, most roads in Australia do not have any significnt shoulder and I
absolutley loath riding on the shouders of the few main highways.

I'd say Aus situation is the norm, rather than a country paved in all
over with multi-lane roadways.

I was only in Auz once - Perth, and we drove down to Albany to look
at a boat. There didn't seem to be a lot of traffic and I don't
remember the road being especially narrow. But it certainly wasn't a
multi lane super highway either.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/3/2019 1:16 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 May 2019 19:30:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I agree with the drunk and the wrong-way parts. But as it's usually
envisioned, I disagree with the bit about "arguing with 10 wheel
trucks." Most people who say that want the cyclist to get into the
gutter. That is dangerous.

I believe that I wrote about the two ladies on the small motorcycle
with their two kids that sort of "took the lane" in front of a loaded
ten wheeler hauling a loaded 10 wheel trailer doing probably 70 - 80
KPH. The trucker did all he could to avoid them to the extent that the
trailer flipped. Results one woman and one child dead, one woman in
the hospital and unknown injuries to the other kid.

My guess is that had they had it all to do over they would have been
quite happy to have "gone in the gutter".

There's a right way and a wrong way to take the lane. Merges to the left
have to be done carefully. Want details?

It's a very rare traffic lane that is wide enough to safely share with a
large truck. Every cycling education program that I know of says that in
such a lane, a cyclist should _not_ squeeze far to the right. Instead,
he should ride near the middle of the lane, to make it obvious the
trucker will have to change lanes to pass.

What kind of roads do you ride on. Over here the majority of the roads
that I use, both in Bangkok and the country side, have paved shoulders
as much as 6 feet wide which serve for a motorcycle and bicycle lane,
bus lane, breakdown lane, you name it lane. I honestly can't remember
when I impeded anyone else.

Around here, as in almost everywhere I've ridden except freeways, six
foot shoulders are unheard of.

Our two club rides yesterday and the day before were on country roads.
I'd say typical lane width is 9 or 10 feet, and typical shoulder width
outside the white line is 6" or so. Beyond that in many places is a
dropoff to a roadside ditch.

The last 3 miles of yesterday's ride are on a state highway. It has a
shoulder much of the way, but absolute maximum width is about 3 feet.
Most of it is one to two feet. I won't use the narrower shoulder, and I
use the three feet shoulder only _very_ carefully. I've had bad
experiences with road shoulder debris popping up as I'm being passed by
cars, and I've come to realize that cars pass much closer when I'm right
of a white line. They seem to think it guarantees I'll never have to
move left.

FWIW, the rides were 35 miles and 25 miles. On Wednesday, we had no
problems from any motorist. On Thursday's, there was one pickup driver
who could have moved further left but didn't, and roared by in apparent
anger. But I don't think he actually violated the three feet passing
clearance law.

--
- Frank Krygowski