visibility of DRL

On 4/5/2019 4:16 PM, Joerg wrote:

On the MTB I even carry a small ham radio transceiver but that is only
for emergency situations.


A nice addition to a "Danger! Danger!" cartoon!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Cheers

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road who walk the highway into town and back each day. They wear yellow vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road. They also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing traffic that is closest to them. Seems kind of like common sense to me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+ mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you into the dash, windshield, side door, etc. Or eject you from the car. If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village wear seatbelts? The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect. But as you know, the law does not work that way. Just like bike helmets, helmets do work in some/most situations. Not all of course. So we require by law that helmets are worn all the time.

Actually, we don't require bike helmets to be worn all the time. At
least not for adults in this country, except for a very few cities where
those laws are largely ignored. There are more states where helmets are
required for kids of certain ages, but those laws too are largely ignored.

And again, this is how safety inflation happens. "It might help _some_
time!!!" so "safety" nazis say it's unreasonable to _ever_ omit it.

What puzzles me is the lack of, say, stepladder helmet promotion. Or
pedestrian helmet promotion. Why on earth are those dangerous activities
absolved of helmet requirements?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 4:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing
high-visibilityÂ* workmens' vests complete with the multiple
reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing
is getting into everything.

Cheers

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road
who walk the highway into town and back each day.Â* They wear yellow
vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road.Â* They
also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing
traffic that is closest to them.Â* Seems kind of like common sense to
me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+
mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you
into the dash, windshield, side door, etc.Â* Or eject you from the
car.Â* If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then
WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village
wear seatbelts?Â* The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts
when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher
and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect.Â* But as
you know, the law does not work that way.Â* Just like bike helmets,
helmets do work in some/most situations.Â* Not all of course.Â* So we
require by law that helmets are worn all the time.

Actually, we don't require bike helmets to be worn all the time. At
least not for adults in this country, except for a very few cities where
those laws are largely ignored. There are more states where helmets are
required for kids of certain ages, but those laws too are largely ignored.

And again, this is how safety inflation happens. "It might help _some_
time!!!" so "safety" nazis say it's unreasonable to _ever_ omit it.

What puzzles me is the lack of, say, stepladder helmet promotion. Or
pedestrian helmet promotion. Why on earth are those dangerous activities
absolved of helmet requirements?

Oh, and what about this guy? No helmet!!!

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...rk-el-capitan/


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Cheers

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road who walk the highway into town and back each day. They wear yellow vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road. They also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing traffic that is closest to them. Seems kind of like common sense to me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+ mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you into the dash, windshield, side door, etc. Or eject you from the car. If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village wear seatbelts? The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect. But as you know, the law does not work that way. Just like bike helmets, helmets do work in some/most situations. Not all of course. So we require by law that helmets are worn all the time.


In Wisconsin it's 'Let those who ride decide' for motorcycles.
For bicycles it's 'Wear one if you like. Or not.'



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

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:31:14 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

When following some farm equipment or antiques you'll notice
they use hand signals, just as we do.


"WE" may mean you, me, and maybe one other guy, as I can't ever
remember, in some 20 or 30 years, seeing another bicycle give a hand
signal. Never!
--
cheers,

John B.



Most cyclists here in Quebec signal turns. It’s required by the vehicle
code. Seems to me it was the same in the states that I lived in though I
don’t remember it being a legal requirement or not.

I see some small (100 - 125cc) motorcycles that are everywhere here
are now equipped with turn signals and some riders even use them.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:31:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:32:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In Ontario Canada bicyclist are supposed to have at night working front
light a reed rear light or reflector, reflectors on the front and rear
wheels, reflective tape on the front forks and rear seat stays and also a
working horn or bell. That's the LAW here. Yet most bicyclists I see have
none of those at night. The odd one will have front light that's hardly
discernible even without other traffic. Fortunately very few bicyclists
hereabouts have bought into the ultra-bright lights camp.

Cheers


If you cross into Quebec you need a full set of reflectors in the daytime
and a white front light and red rear light at night. Rear reflector isn’t
enough at night and lights don’t replace reflectors during the day.

Tickets are up to 400 bucks without them and not rare.

Out of curiosity have bike collisions decreased and if so is it a
result of the lights or a result of the $400 fines which likely tend
to make bicycles ride in a more law abiding manner?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:09:06 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote:

snip

I've read you and others going on about lights that blind oncoming
riders but frankly I don't see how that happens if the light is aimed
to illuminate the road. I use a regular single cell (3.7 VDC)
flashlight with the normal "unsophisticated" round beam and if I aim
it to illuminate the road it does not shine in the eyes of oncoming
riders, in fact after reading your various posts about blinding lights
I tested my lights.

I tested this, in full darkness, by parking the bike and walking a
distance in front of the bike and then turning and walking back toward
the bike. If the flashlight is aimed to illuminate the road it doesn't
shine in my eyes.

At other times I have observed where the light shines on autos that I
overtake in traffic and the beam seems to hit a car at about the level
of the tail lights.

Thus it would appear that blinding bicycle lights are simply aimed to
shine in approaching traffic's eyes. I might point out also that a
normal bicyclist's eyes are at a height above the roof level of the
average modern automobile.

This is not to say that it can't happen rather that it appears to be
just one of the usual short comings of the bicyclist.

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were on vacation in a city south of
here. On a riverside bike path at night, we were assaulted by one of
those glaring beams used by a rider coming the opposite direction. We
had to stop by the side of the bike path and shield our eyes until he
rode by. But I'm sure he felt very virtuous as well as safe.

We were passed by only one other cyclist. She had no lights at all.

So much for the Golden Mean.

In general flashlights are bad because there can be a *lot* of bleed
outside the designed boresight angle. I suffer from this a lot from
people coming the other way at night, but tbf, it is very variable, with
some flashlights having little bleed. How do I tell? The conical beam
shape is a dead giveaway. With respect to your test, not a bad idea.
By IQ-X doesn't even illuminate tail lights/reflectors, and still throws
a beam some 20ft down the road, and in an exact mirror of your test, I
fitted a flashlight to the handlebars to try and determine the angle at
which the same occurred. It required *my* light to be set far to far
down to be useful.

I suggest that the angle of the light, or to be more explicit the
distance the road is illuminated is really a matter of how fast one is
riding. Which I find, in the city. to not be startling fast, thus no
need to shine the light a quarter of a mile down the road. It has been
my experience that in city driving many, perhaps most, autos are
driving with their lights down, not up.

Obviously out in the country one does ride faster and thus lights must
be aimed higher but then one isn't meeting a lot of riders coming the
other way and if they are they are usually on the other side of the
road.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:14:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 1:28 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

"Commodity for marketing" is precisely correct.

I've probably mentioned the book _Risk_ by Dan Gardner. It's largely
about the psychology of risk in the modern world. One of his major
points is that fear mongering helps profits. Newspaper headlines,
nightly news preview clips, etc. often spotlight horrors or potential
horrors because people reflexively want to learn more about any danger.
Gardner explains that the reflex is built into our brains.

Of course, companies like Trek are happy to market using fear to sell
lights. Bell and Giro are happy to use fear to sell helmets. Countless
bike companies are happy to use fear to sell disc brakes. People for
Bikes, Streetsblog etc. are happy to use fear to sell "protected" bike
lanes, as agents for Alta Planning and similar consulting firms.

Much of the above selling is done not directly by the companies
themselves, but by their agents - do-gooder institutes, compliant
magazine editors, academics desperate for publications, etc.

Not to mention freelance hand wringers posting here and talking to their
friends...


Generally, that was my point that, for whatever reason, Americans seem
to, at least from what I read on the Internet, live in a world of
fear. I read that kids can't walk to school, "because it isn't safe",
that riding bicycles is not safe although statistically it is, based
on numbers of drivers/riders and number of deaths , safer then driving
a car, and on and on, "It's not safe".

Or perhaps the ancestors were just a much braver generation. Think of
it. Your ancestors left their home country and travelled on a small
boat as much as three months, and landed in a country where they had
nothing and didn't even speak the same language as the inhabitants,
who looked down on them as "foreigners".

--
cheers,

John B.

On 2019-04-05 13:25, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:50:22 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 18:18, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 12:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of
daytime running lights. I commute on a bike with B&M
Cyo, which I leave on all the time, because I can't tell
the difference if it's on or off. I found myself on
google street view on my ride home last fall. I got
passed by the car, and then passed it, and got passed
again. So I, and the bike, are in a bunch of pictures,
from the front and behind, over several blocks. This one
gives a good view of the headlight. It's more visible
than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually
behind you in the street view and it seems you need a
better rear light. And as a male toddler I wouldn't want to
be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than
the gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no
problem seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.


Next to the red car behind it, less visible:

https://goo.gl/maps/dNQBiRm4z672

I am not talking about you or me seeing him. I am talking
about the slightly soused dude who is keeping an eye on his
smart phone.

What about the moth effect!
https://www.poconorecord.com/article...NEWS/207150316
What if the soused dude who is keeping an eye on his smart phone
has a seizure induced by the flasher! What if he is so
distracted, he wouldn't notice the second coming -- let alone a
retina burning blinky! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!


Especially at night I had neighbors who passed me later say "Man,
from the distance I thought it was a cop so I tried to be on my
best behavior". Objective accomplished.


That's night. We're talking day. And if motorists think you're a
cop, they're blind idiots and should have their licenses pulled --
unless you're riding with a blue light bar.

I have never mistaken a bicycle with a red flasher for the police,
and I ride around hundreds cyclists with flashers every day.


Mine looks like the one on the left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XgjzBZ7wV8


... I think
my observed record is five rear flashers, including the helmet arrow.


On the road bike I've got a total of three rear lights. When I find time
I'll change that so there'll be two (bright) homemade lights with
constant light and one with the above pattern.

So far I received no complaints from other bike riders or motorists.
They'd flash their high-beams at me if it was irritating them too much
but they don't.


https://lumoshelmet.co/ All that dope needed was a calliope and a
stuffed monkey with cymbals and chattering teeth. He probably
attracted cars, transfixed like moths. This is my safety get-up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ojn3Lgg1mI


Alright, that gets the attention!

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 07:50:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:09:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


When following some farm equipment or antiques you'll notice
they use hand signals, just as we do.


"WE" may mean you, me, and maybe one other guy, as I can't ever
remember, in some 20 or 30 years, seeing another bicycle give a hand
signal. Never!

Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a bicycle give a hand signal
either. Neither has a piece of farm equipment.

OTOH, it's pretty easy to see a _bicyclist_ give a hand signal. Just
observe me sometime.

O.K. You, me, Muzi and maybe one other guy :-)

On Hwy 41 south going into Chicago last week I saw a '53
Mercury signal a turn with arm out the window. His brake
lights were working, just not turn indicators.

Usually just replacing the "flasher" cures that :-)
--
cheers,

John B.