#221
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/24/2019 5:55 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
snip Has to be someone who ranks above mayor, I'm not sure who that might be. When the residents in my city complain to me about a specific traffic problem I forward those concerns to our sheriff (we contract out for police services). In most cases they are very good about responding with enforcement action. Unfortunately there aren't enough deputies to continuously enforce all problem areas and adding deputies is very expensive. The key is to do traffic calming that mitigates the problem and reduces the need to enforcement. Also, if it were up to me, I'd be less concerned about "California Stops" and more concerned about serial red light running, blocking intersections, and driving and parking in bicycle lanes. Someone here suggested that every bicycle lane should be protected lane, but that is very naive and impractical, and clearly they don't understand the reality of how locations for protected bicycle lanes are chosen. Hopefully he is willing to learn rather than base that opinion solely on faith and feelings, assuming that his motives are pure. While protected bicycle lanes are not enormously expensive, they cost enough that they need only to be installed in specific situations on certain roads. That's what our bicycle-pedestrian plan concentrates on. We are fortunate that one large fruit company in town has been financially supportive of our bicycle infrastructure expansion. I also learned that in order for protected bicycle lanes to be successful, with riders feeling safe enough to cycle, that a narrow curb or plastic bollards are insufficient. The separation between the traffic lanes and the bike lane needs to be fairly wide. This increases the cost of putting in a protected bicycle lane. There are also a lot of considerations that people don't realize. There are time-restricted bicycle lanes where parking is allowed outside of bike lane hours and obviously these are difficult to make protected (though there are ways). There's the issue of street cleaning. There's the issue of trash collection. There's the issue of fire truck access. While you can't put protected bicycle lanes everywhere, where it's possible, and if properly designed, they can stop some of the most egregious offenses that endanger cyclists. One thing that's worked very well in nearby Palo Alto is "Bicycle Boulevards," which are unprotected bicycle routes along low-traffic residential streets that are optimized for cyclists, and which restrict through traffic by motor vehicles. But the layout of Palo Alto, the demographics, and the bicycle culture are very different than in my city. But we are going to try one bicycle boulevard in an appropriate area. Speaking only for myself. |
Ads |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/25/2019 1:25 PM, sms wrote:
Someone here suggested that every bicycle lane should be protected lane, but that is very naive and impractical, and clearly they don't understand the reality of how locations for protected bicycle lanes are chosen. Hopefully he is willing to learn rather than base that opinion solely on faith and feelings, assuming that his motives are pure. If you follow discussions on infra-promotion sites like Streetsblog, you'll find plenty of people claiming bicycling can't be safe except in "protected" bike lanes. On other forums, you can find photos showing the end of a "protected" bike lane, with complaints. You can find blanket statements like "Painted lines are not enough! We need REAL separation between bikes and cars!" I'd say those are the people who need educating. But the owners of Streetsblog, People for Bikes, etc. have no desire to educate. They are all about promoting segregated infrastructure. I also learned that in order for protected bicycle lanes to be successful, with riders feeling safe enough to cycle, that a narrow curb or plastic bollards are insufficient. The separation between the traffic lanes and the bike lane needs to be fairly wide. This increases the cost of putting in a protected bicycle lane. Because if the separation barrier is less than a couple feet, riding a bike is too dangerous? For at least 20 years, you, Scharf, and all your allies have been whining that riding a bike in an ordinary and competent way is terribly, terribly dangerous. You've mocked people who choose to ride without the ineffective plastic hats that have failed to reduce the tiny portion of TBI that occurs through bike riding. You've mocked those who ride without glaring daytime lights, or super-powered nighttime lights as opposed to dynamo lights. You've touted your own wisdom in fitting electric horns and flippy flags to your bike. You and your allies have done all you could to portray bicycling as terribly risky. No wonder those you've convinced now demand costly and problematic cattle chutes. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light makes that much difference during the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8 I would never see this woman minus the light. Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day. We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner." In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I still really believe in my taillight." IOW, no evidence; just faith. Try grubby dirty lanes and you’ll see the light long before the rider, though as ever it depends in some situations hi vis really shines, other reflective, and so on. Personally all of my bikes have lights since I ride a night on all of them so turning them on is second nature bar the MTB which doesn’t routinely have lights fitted and in fact doesn’t have a rear light at moment, would I be worried on any tarmac sections no, but equally since I have the lights fitted to the other two bikes I just turn them on. Roger Merriman |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:32:20 -0700, sms wrote:
On 4/15/2019 7:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:47:53 -0700, sms wrote: Ironically, while DRLs are very effective for cyclists Is there citable evidence for this assertion? Yes. Search the archives using http://deja.com. Ah, the classic dodge. Instead of answering the question, just say "the truth is out there." I want to believe, Scully... |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/25/2019 1:45 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:32:20 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/15/2019 7:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:47:53 -0700, sms wrote: Ironically, while DRLs are very effective for cyclists Is there citable evidence for this assertion? Yes. Search the archives using http://deja.com. Ah, the classic dodge. Instead of answering the question, just say "the truth is out there." I want to believe, Scully... No dodge. It's simply not playing the game that some posters have of endlessly demanding that the same citations be posted over and over again. The fact is that they already have seen all the references. They have scrutinized them to try to find any possible flaw with which to discredit the entire study (and failed). It's easy enough for them to find the results from Aalborg University in Denmark and Clemson University in the United States, but they aren't happy with the findings. So instead they conduct their own scientific sic research and ask members of their bicycle club if the lights make a difference, then proclaim that the results of the studies are based on "faith." BTW, it's not just the studies from Aalborg University and Clemson University that are relevant. There aren't massive numbers of studies examining the benefit of bicycle DRLs. You have be intelligent enough to understand that conspicuity extends across different use cases. It's the studies on conspicuity that have been posted here in the past as well, including the one from the US Navy. You can go to the thread from 2013 entitled "entry level lights to see by" which has the those references, including the 1996 paper by Wagner and Laxer for the U.S. Navy. |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 12:35:23 +0100, Tosspot
wrote: On 22/04/2019 23.19, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:01 +0100, Tosspot wrote: On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road, miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has it. Sold! I'm going to get one. Right. The CPH light set - an upgrade of the original - is Euro 47, about $52.46, but the good news is that if you subscribe to Reelight's news letter you can get a 10% discount. Right, I've done it, but I'm a bit concerned as I only ordered the rear light. Does this mean I will fall off twice as much as if I ordered the full set? No. It just means that to do any good you will have to ride backward. Than the "rear" light will become the "front" light and you will be safe. I suspect that to do this you will require a "fixie" though as pedaling backward on the more common varieties of bicycle isn't very effective. -- cheers, John B. |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:36:47 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/25/2019 6:41 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 25/04/2019 01.30, AMuzi wrote: On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, Duane wrote: On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to $300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to the officer on the scene. On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence. In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read: 487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring. Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing circles, as well as being personally embarrassing. Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less than the ticket amount? With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here. It's not about money. The speeding tax is like any other tax - too expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues from it are not well spent. meh. whatever. It is voluntary though, unlike most taxes. The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to liberty. Rack up too many 'points' and the license is withdrawn. Unlike illegals or career criminals, regular taxpayers can be jailed for driving after revocation. How does that work? Arbitrarily, just like everything else. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...es/343/IV/44/1 https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/RevokedLicense Good Lord! This a *bicycle* group a motor vehicle driving license should be the furthest thing from one's thoughts. -- cheers, John B. |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 09:44:07 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/24/2019 9:07 PM, John B. wrote: snip But the answer is so simple. Just obey the law :-) True. And your chances of beating a ticket are low unless the cop fails to appear. In California, when you fight a ticket you also lose the option of going to traffic school to prevent the ticket from showing on your record and increasing your car insurance rates. I naively tried to beat a ticket once. It was a speed trap in a neighboring city the second one listed at https://www.speedtrap.org/california/sunnyvale/page/3/. You make a left turn from an expressway onto a four lane road and the speed limit goes down to 25 where the road narrows to two lanes. If you see the sign, and let your speed fall naturally, without braking, it's too late, the motorcycle officer is hiding behind a building, just past the sign with radar https://goo.gl/maps/QicEmiQFRtaW7V268. I was going to the UPS facility and the clerk said "oh yeah, that cop gets people all the time." I thought that it was unfair that there was no "reduced speed ahead" sign and that you're not allowed to just let your speed fall over a few hundred feet. The officer read a prepared statement from an index card. The judge did not allow any evidence (a photo of where the 25MPH sign is and where the officer was hiding). Guilty! And I was guilty. I should have braked hard as soon as I saw the 25MPH sign, and if I got rear-ended it would have been the other driver's fault. The excuses that individuals caught breaking the law can come up with are simply amazing. "But Officer, I was intending to slow down, you just caught me before I got around to doing it". -- cheers, John B. |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/25/2019 5:50 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/25/2019 1:45 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:32:20 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/15/2019 7:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:47:53 -0700, sms wrote: Ironically, while DRLs are very effective for cyclists Is there citable evidence for this assertion? Yes. Search the archives using http://deja.com. Ah, the classic dodge.Â* Instead of answering the question, just say "the truth is out there."Â* I want to believe, Scully... No dodge. It's simply not playing the game that some posters have of endlessly demanding that the same citations be posted over and over again. The fact is that they already have seen all the references. They have scrutinized them to try to find any possible flaw with which to discredit the entire study (and failed). Results of two relevant papers were discussed in mathematical detail. It's true we failed to convince _you_. But we know; math is hard. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:46:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/25/2019 1:25 PM, sms wrote: Someone here suggested that every bicycle lane should be protected lane, but that is very naive and impractical, and clearly they don't understand the reality of how locations for protected bicycle lanes are chosen. Hopefully he is willing to learn rather than base that opinion solely on faith and feelings, assuming that his motives are pure. If you follow discussions on infra-promotion sites like Streetsblog, you'll find plenty of people claiming bicycling can't be safe except in "protected" bike lanes. On other forums, you can find photos showing the end of a "protected" bike lane, with complaints. You can find blanket statements like "Painted lines are not enough! We need REAL separation between bikes and cars!" I'd say those are the people who need educating. But the owners of Streetsblog, People for Bikes, etc. have no desire to educate. They are all about promoting segregated infrastructure. I also learned that in order for protected bicycle lanes to be successful, with riders feeling safe enough to cycle, that a narrow curb or plastic bollards are insufficient. The separation between the traffic lanes and the bike lane needs to be fairly wide. This increases the cost of putting in a protected bicycle lane. Because if the separation barrier is less than a couple feet, riding a bike is too dangerous? For at least 20 years, you, Scharf, and all your allies have been whining that riding a bike in an ordinary and competent way is terribly, terribly dangerous. You've mocked people who choose to ride without the ineffective plastic hats that have failed to reduce the tiny portion of TBI that occurs through bike riding. You've mocked those who ride without glaring daytime lights, or super-powered nighttime lights as opposed to dynamo lights. You've touted your own wisdom in fitting electric horns and flippy flags to your bike. You and your allies have done all you could to portray bicycling as terribly risky. No wonder those you've convinced now demand costly and problematic cattle chutes. One can only assume that there is something strange about the USian traffic system. After all, I've been riding a bicycle in countries where laws simply state that a bicycle can utilize the public highways and byways and strangely the local inhabitants (four countries so far) just seem to get on with their daily business. Even without a helmet they ride. Are USians so aggressive that they simply run over bicycles? Is bicycle riding so dangerous that one needs a special, private, road to ride on? Perhaps USians have become so timorous that the country is no longer deemed to be "The Home of the Free and the Brave"? -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. | Lou Holtman[_7_] | Techniques | 10 | December 24th 14 03:03 AM |
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux | Danny Colyer | UK | 3 | January 14th 09 06:21 PM |
Edelux - Wow! | Danny Colyer | UK | 10 | November 25th 08 09:05 PM |
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? | none | UK | 5 | May 27th 08 06:03 PM |