Light works

On 9/17/2014 12:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/17/2014 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
... I've never seen a bike
that would be safe at even 30mph in the dead of night unless you install
a "locomotive strength" front light.

There are plenty of bike lights on the market that are not safe for
30mph. But there certainly are lights that are safe for that speed, and
that don't blast out thousands of undirected lumens.

I've mentioned randonneuring events, like Paris-Brest-Paris. Hub
dynamos and LED lights with good optics are common there.

Here's a site discussing a qualifying brevet:
http://www.caltriplecrown.com/99Brevet200.htm

Note the top speed for this guy: 35 mph. And "We were admiring Barbara
Torres's Schmidt Hub which generates light right off the Hub to a big
light!! Looked most excellent."


There can be a huge difference between looking excellent and safe.


Bicycle Quarterly magazine one had a poll of American P-B-P riders
regarding their equipment. Those using dynamo lights were much more
satisfied with their lights than those using battery lights.

And again, P-B-P (and other randonneuring events) are not run on lighted
bike trails. They are typically on dark and unfamiliar rural roads.
Brittany looks nothing like Amsterdam.


Sure, but I have seen many road bike riders at night going way too fast
for the throw of their lights, in Europe and here.

Same for car drivers. I've seen some blasting along rural roads on
low-beam all the time. Once I saw something way in the distance and
turned on high-beam behind another driver (which I normally never do),
also flashed the light a couple times. Only then did he see it as well,
cattle in the road in front of him. He came to a stop with smoking tires
just in time.


Deer are either smarter or more maniacal. They jump out of
the ditch just as you almost pass.

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

"James" wrote in message
...
On 16/09/14 21:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:


Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.


Unless you restrict the type of collision to the cyclist being hit from
behind, I contend that your assertion that "..if the bicycle is hit the
results are likely to be a dead cyclist and a dented car fender" is an
exaggeration.


The majority of collisions occur when the motorist fails to give way and
the person on the bike can not or does not avoid colliding with the other
vehicle. The collision speed is rarely much more or less than the
cyclists travel speed,

A couple of my journeys take me up hills that are not so easy, as I can't
get up them very fast I have to weave a little to keep balance - the vast
majority of motorists give me enough room when I'm doing that.

The problem is some of them don't give much room when I prop against the
kerb for a rest.

Some **** last night passed so close I could have literally reached out and
touched his car as he went by.

I'm edging ever closer to keeping my locking up chain ready to hand - if I
can reach their car with it, they're close enough to endanger my life
therefore its self defence.

"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:16 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/09/14 21:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:


Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.


Unless you restrict the type of collision to the cyclist being hit from
behind, I contend that your assertion that "..if the bicycle is hit the
results are likely to be a dead cyclist and a dented car fender" is an
exaggeration.

Errr... if you are doing 30 ?PH and the car is doing 110 ?PH then 110
- 30 = 80 ?PH. You can prove your assertion by riding at 80 ?PH into a
brick wall,

If you're well fit, you might be able to ride as fast as a tail wind
downhill - but you'd have to wait for storm gales to get that quick.

"James" wrote in message
...
On 17/09/14 11:14, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:16 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/09/14 21:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:


Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and
not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.


Unless you restrict the type of collision to the cyclist being hit from
behind, I contend that your assertion that "..if the bicycle is hit the
results are likely to be a dead cyclist and a dented car fender" is an
exaggeration.

Errr... if you are doing 30 ?PH and the car is doing 110 ?PH then 110
- 30 = 80 ?PH. You can prove your assertion by riding at 80 ?PH into a
brick wall, and let us know whether you receive any injuries and is so
how severe.

A collision between a bicycle and motor vehicle at those speeds is rare.
Hence, most collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles do not result
in the death of the person riding the bicycle.

When I was a kid, one time I was walking home from town and saw 2 other kids
going the other way - they were mucking about clashing wheels till one of
them came off his bike and went under a passing car.

That road can be a bit slow when its busy, and the car was doing a fair bit
less than the posted speed - the kid wasn't killed, but pretty much a
vegetable the rest of his life!

"James" wrote in message
...
On 16/09/14 21:45, sms wrote:
On 9/15/2014 8:07 PM, James wrote:
On 16/09/14 11:02, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But, in essence, no matter what one does, on a bicycle, it does not
"prevent" a car from hitting the bicycle. Yes, one can be as visible
as possible, wave one's arms and shout, but ultimately it is the
actions of the auto driver that determine whether the bicycle is hit
or not and if the bicycle is hit the results are likely to be a dead
cyclist and a dented car fender.

Not really.

Provided you have an escape route, it is often possible to avoid a
collision with a motor vehicle by taking that route. It might involve
braking and swerving, but does not rely on arm waving, visibility or
shouting.

Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Some cyclists have the idea that there's no point in increasing their
conspicuousness because no matter what they need to be yield to the
larger, heavier vehicle even when the cyclist has the right of way.

The reality is that it's best to take the approach that combines
increasing your conspicuousness to greatly reduce the number of times a
vehicle fails to yield and still be prepared with an escape path if they
don't.


It is not often I can say I agree with you, but I think it is safe this
time, so long as increasing conspicuousness does not include waving flags
and wearing DayGlo.

A bit of dayglo never hurt - I just CBA wearing any.

"Sir Ridesalot" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 6:56:26 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Sir Ridesalot considered Mon, 15 Sep 2014

21:48:56 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:02:18 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS



wrote:







On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:







Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here,
I've



been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see
how



they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.







It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right
hooks,



but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the



right of way.











That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne



and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on



your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,



perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?







But perhaps it isn't silly, but yet another example of Darwin in



action.







--



Cheers,







John B.



I posted to this newsgroup when I bailed onto the shoulder just before
entering a very narrow two lane concrete bridge with no access to the
sidewalk once on the bridge. I commented tthat i did so at @40 - 50 kph
because there were three 18 wheelers closing rapidly behind me and the
third one back had its wheel over te fog line. Someonme told me if I was
so "afraid" I shouldn't be riding in traffic and that I *SHOULD HAVE
CALLED THOSE TRUCKERS' BLUFFS and taken the labe!* I bailed because i
didn't want that rundown feeling that even massive quantities of Geritol
wouldn't fix.



To paraphrase Kenny Rogers in "The Gasmbler" You got to know when to
keep the lane and know when to leave. When an 18 wheeler squahes yah,
there ain't much left to see.



And did you take the licence plates and report them for dangerous

driving?



Oh no, you just gave in to the bullies.

**** man!

By the time I got the bicycle back under control after hitting the loose
gravel/sand shoulder and to come to a stop before ending up in the river
those trucks were long gone. There was no chance to get license plate
numbers.

When the price of those cycling head-cams comes down a bit more - I might
actually start using a cycle helmet to fix it to!

On 9/17/2014 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:


Deer are either smarter or more maniacal. They jump out of the ditch
just as you almost pass.

I passed nine of them (3 different groups) on the way home from
yesterday's ride. They're getting to be like hoofed rats around here.
We had an ecologist speak a couple months ago about the environmental
damage they're doing - eating away the habitat of many other species.

I did get cautious when I approached each group of deer, but in each
case, they snorted and headed away from my path.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/17/2014 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:


Deer are either smarter or more maniacal. They jump out of the ditch
just as you almost pass.


Yup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6dv3UbIM20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Rk3gxKJeE


I passed nine of them (3 different groups) on the way home from
yesterday's ride. They're getting to be like hoofed rats around here.
We had an ecologist speak a couple months ago about the environmental
damage they're doing - eating away the habitat of many other species.


They eat our roses. But only the good nice-looking buds.


I did get cautious when I approached each group of deer, but in each
case, they snorted and headed away from my path.


One attacked a jogger out here but so far no bikers. I meet a lot of
them, including bucks. Sometimes amazing when they react to hand signs
(please go ahead of me), just like some foxes do once they kind of know
you. One buck that I wave across the trail then joined me and trotted in
the same direction for half a mile or so. He didn't look back much,
probably assuming that I'll adjust my speed to his.

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of the
reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads out of the
tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they panic and bolt
.... smack-dab onto the trail.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of the
reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads out of the
tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they panic and bolt
... smack-dab onto the trail.

So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's the
problem?
--
davethedave

"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/17/2014 2:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:


Deer are either smarter or more maniacal. They jump out of the ditch
just as you almost pass.


Yup.

http://sydesjokes.com/page.php?v1=Ch...stmas_Cartoons