Eyc headlight problem

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 Krygowski

On 4/10/2021 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

How many times have we heard the excuse by a motorist "I just didn't see
him," when it comes to cyclists.

Yeah, in a perfect world, with alert, non-distracted drivers, maybe
cyclists wouldn't need to take steps to increase their conspicuousness.
But we don't live in that world.

Is up to a 33% reduction rate in bicycle/vehicle accidents enough of a
reason to use DRLs? I think so. If someone wants to rant about "safety
inflation" and not use appropriate equipment that's their decision of
course. As to DRLs, 99.99% of bicycle lights sold in the U.S. come with
a DRL, and a substantial percentage of the owners of those lights use
the DRL feature.

And no, there's no double-blind, independently conducted study on the
effectiveness of DRLs. The numbers in the studies that have been
conducted are all over the place. One found a 33% reduction in
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. One found a 19% reduction. Studies for
the effectiveness of DRLs on motor vehicles show similar variance 10%,
23%, and 28% reductions in collisions.

Of course the manufacturers and distributors of lights will say that
DRLs are a good idea, though since virtually every light sold has that
feature it's not even a marketing advantage anymore.

Of course it could all be a plot by China to sell more bicycle lights to
unsuspecting Americans, at least if the only reason someone is buying a
light is to use it in the daytime.

On 4/11/2021 10:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2021 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

How many times have we heard the excuse by a motorist "I just didn't see
him," when it comes to cyclists.

Yeah, in a perfect world, with alert, non-distracted drivers, maybe
cyclists wouldn't need to take steps to increase their conspicuousness.
But we don't live in that world.

Is up to a 33% reduction rate in bicycle/vehicle accidents enough of a
reason to use DRLs? I think so. If someone wants to rant about "safety
inflation" and not use appropriate equipment that's their decision of
course. As to DRLs, 99.99% of bicycle lights sold in the U.S. come with
a DRL, and a substantial percentage of the owners of those lights use
the DRL feature.

And no, there's no double-blind, independently conducted study on the
effectiveness of DRLs. The numbers in the studies that have been
conducted are all over the place. One found a 33% reduction in
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. One found a 19% reduction. Studies for
the effectiveness of DRLs on motor vehicles show similar variance 10%,
23%, and 28% reductions in collisions.

Of course the manufacturers and distributors of lights will say that
DRLs are a good idea, though since virtually every light sold has that
feature it's not even a marketing advantage anymore.

Of course it could all be a plot by China to sell more bicycle lights to
unsuspecting Americans, at least if the only reason someone is buying a
light is to use it in the daytime.

My question is, at what point do motorists, cops, judges, juries and
even fellow bicyclists begin saying "It was his fault he got hit! He
didn't have lights on in the daytime!"

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

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:36:27 a.m. UTC-4, sms wrote:
Snipped
Is up to a 33% reduction rate in bicycle/vehicle accidents enough of a
reason to use DRLs?
Snipped

And no, there's no double-blind, independently conducted study on the
effectiveness of DRLs. The numbers in the studies that have been
conducted are all over the place. One found a 33% reduction in
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. One found a 19% reduction. Studies for
the effectiveness of DRLs on motor vehicles show similar variance 10%,
23%, and 28% reductions in collisions.

Of course the manufacturers and distributors of lights will say that
DRLs are a good idea, though since virtually every light sold has that
feature it's not even a marketing advantage anymore.

Of course it could all be a plot by China to sell more bicycle lights to
unsuspecting Americans, at least if the only reason someone is buying a
light is to use it in the daytime.

I've seen a number of bicyclists with a light on in the daytime. Those bicyclists do NOT ride at night. I do see the bicyclist long before I notice their light; unless it's heavily overcast or they are waering dark clothing and riding in deep shade.

Cheers

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 10:59:20 a.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 10:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2021 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

How many times have we heard the excuse by a motorist "I just didn't see
him," when it comes to cyclists.

Yeah, in a perfect world, with alert, non-distracted drivers, maybe
cyclists wouldn't need to take steps to increase their conspicuousness.
But we don't live in that world.

Is up to a 33% reduction rate in bicycle/vehicle accidents enough of a
reason to use DRLs? I think so. If someone wants to rant about "safety
inflation" and not use appropriate equipment that's their decision of
course. As to DRLs, 99.99% of bicycle lights sold in the U.S. come with
a DRL, and a substantial percentage of the owners of those lights use
the DRL feature.

And no, there's no double-blind, independently conducted study on the
effectiveness of DRLs. The numbers in the studies that have been
conducted are all over the place. One found a 33% reduction in
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. One found a 19% reduction. Studies for
the effectiveness of DRLs on motor vehicles show similar variance 10%,
23%, and 28% reductions in collisions.

Of course the manufacturers and distributors of lights will say that
DRLs are a good idea, though since virtually every light sold has that
feature it's not even a marketing advantage anymore.

Of course it could all be a plot by China to sell more bicycle lights to
unsuspecting Americans, at least if the only reason someone is buying a
light is to use it in the daytime.
My question is, at what point do motorists, cops, judges, juries and
even fellow bicyclists begin saying "It was his fault he got hit! He
didn't have lights on in the daytime!"

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. The only exception to that was on an organized tour where I signed a waiver stating that I'd wear a helmet. It was an extremely hot and humid day and the sweat running into my eyes made riding dangerous. I used a long strap I carry, and ran it through a couple of the helmet vents and then slung the helmet over my shoulder so it rested against my back. When someone told me I was supposed to be wearing a helmet I told them I was but the waiver did NOT state that I had to wear it on my head.

Btw, I believe it was just last year when riding along a paved MUP here in town my helmet snagged a low hanging branch that was pointed straight along the path. I got quite a few deep scratches one of which was quite close to my right eye.

Cheers

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 7:59:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2021 10:36 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/10/2021 7:12 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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.

How many times have we heard the excuse by a motorist "I just didn't see
him," when it comes to cyclists.

Yeah, in a perfect world, with alert, non-distracted drivers, maybe
cyclists wouldn't need to take steps to increase their conspicuousness.
But we don't live in that world.

Is up to a 33% reduction rate in bicycle/vehicle accidents enough of a
reason to use DRLs? I think so. If someone wants to rant about "safety
inflation" and not use appropriate equipment that's their decision of
course. As to DRLs, 99.99% of bicycle lights sold in the U.S. come with
a DRL, and a substantial percentage of the owners of those lights use
the DRL feature.

And no, there's no double-blind, independently conducted study on the
effectiveness of DRLs. The numbers in the studies that have been
conducted are all over the place. One found a 33% reduction in
bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. One found a 19% reduction. Studies for
the effectiveness of DRLs on motor vehicles show similar variance 10%,
23%, and 28% reductions in collisions.

Of course the manufacturers and distributors of lights will say that
DRLs are a good idea, though since virtually every light sold has that
feature it's not even a marketing advantage anymore.

Of course it could all be a plot by China to sell more bicycle lights to
unsuspecting Americans, at least if the only reason someone is buying a
light is to use it in the daytime.
My question is, at what point do motorists, cops, judges, juries and
even fellow bicyclists begin saying "It was his fault he got hit! He
didn't have lights on in the daytime!"

When will the sky fall? I'm not aware of the failure to use a DRL being alleged as comparative fault -- even in auto cases. By law in Oregon, the failure to wear a helmet cannot be alleged as comparative fault. The failure to wear a seatbelt, however, can reduce recovery by up to a whopping five percent.

If someone wants to use a DRL, who cares -- as long as it is not blinding other cyclists or motorists. I don't think DRLs are helpful in full sunlight, but I don't see them as some existential threat to human freedom and dignity -- just a waste of light.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/11/2021 8:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

When will the sky fall? I'm not aware of the failure to use a DRL being alleged as comparative fault -- even in auto cases. By law in Oregon, the failure to wear a helmet cannot be alleged as comparative fault. The failure to wear a seatbelt, however, can reduce recovery by up to a whopping five percent.

If someone wants to use a DRL, who cares -- as long as it is not blinding other cyclists or motorists. I don't think DRLs are helpful in full sunlight, but I don't see them as some existential threat to human freedom and dignity -- just a waste of light.

It's actually in full sunlight where they are most effective, as long as
they are bright enough. At dawn and dusk you'd be using lights no matter
what, not necessarily DRLs.

In any case, does any cyclist really think that much about the potential
of who would be at fault if they get hit? It's much more about reducing
the the likelihood of being hit. Some of us care about minimizing that
possibility, some do not.

On 4/11/2021 1:42 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/11/2021 8:25 AM, jbeattie wrote:

If someone wants to use a DRL, who cares -- as long as it is not
blinding other cyclists or motorists.Â*Â* I don't think DRLs are helpful
in full sunlight, but I don't see them as some existential threat to
human freedom and dignity -- just a waste of light.

As I have to emphasize time and time again, I'm not telling people not
to use a DRL, not to wear a helmet, not to wear day-glo clothing and so
on. What troubles me are the claims that "anyone with a brain" will make
those currently fashionable choices. Imposing ever-increasing "safety"
recommendations adds to the perceived danger of bicycling. That's the
opposite of promoting cycling.

Will the sky someday fall, in Jay's words? More realistically, will laws
mandate those measures? Well, helmets are mandatory for essentially
everyone in at least two countries, with fines up near $400 in some
areas. They're mandatory for kids in many U.S. states and for adults in
some areas. Day-glo vests must be carried by cyclists in France and be
worn under certain conditions. Blinking taillights are required by at
least some bike clubs for daytime riding.

None of this matters to those so fearful that they fit Jeff's cartoon
image. http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jef...cle-Safety.jpg
It also doesn't matter to those who "suit up" to do any ride at all. But
it does, or should, matter to people who think bicycling is good for
society and think it should be treated as normal. It should also matter
to people who value elementary logic, not to mention reasonable freedom
of choice.

In any case, does any cyclist really think that much about the potential
of who would be at fault if they get hit? It's much more about reducing
the the likelihood of being hit. Some of us care about minimizing that
possibility, some do not.

Oh good grief - if a person doesn't use a DRL, he doesn't mind getting
hit? That's ludicrous.

My defense against getting hit is avoiding skulking in the gutter. I
almost always ride where motorists are looking, as specifically allowed
by state law. I also stay aware of traffic interactions and potential
conflicts. Those tactics have worked perfectly for almost 50 years now,
in dozens of states and nearly a dozen foreign countries.

Gutter bunnies get right hooked and left crossed because they are
inconspicuous, then they buy talismans for protection - DRLs, bike
flags, electric horns, day-glo vests and more.

(For those new to the discussion, I just described at least one of
Scharf's bikes, based on his past posts.)

--
- 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.

I'm quite capable of verbal defense against that nonsense. But again,
the "Danger! Danger!" message it carries does no good for bicycling or
bicyclists. And it's simply not justified by facts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, April 11, 2021 at 2:51:04 p.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

I'm quite capable of verbal defense against that nonsense. But again,
the "Danger! Danger!" message it carries does no good for bicycling or
bicyclists. And it's simply not justified by facts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I've had none of that here. Maybe you need to move to Ontario, Canada? LOL

Cheers