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.

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.