|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/11/2021 8:04 PM, John B. wrote: On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:22:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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, whether or not the two bikes that I almost hit may or may not been in violation of the law is meaningless, at least to me. But, really, does that make a difference? Laying there with the broken leg does one really feel better knowing that the guy what done it broke the law? As for DRL's I did research the subject and I find studies dating back to the 1970's and which showed that the use of DRL's did reduce the frequency of vehicle accidents, although the level of decrease did vary from study to study. But, perhaps more to the point you blithely ignore the fact that a number of studied of bicycle accidents have shown that, in some cases more than 50% of the accidents are the fault of the cyclist. Wouldn't it be more productive, rather then rant and rave about DRL's, to advocate riding a bicycle safely? Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times. That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education. Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further training? About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL studies have much applicability to bike crashes. I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long distances? And about the personal incidents you alluded to: I'm strongly in favor of headlights and taillights during darkness or other low visibility conditions. That's the pertinence of your crashes being caused by illegal behavior, rather than lack of a _Daytime_ Running Light. You are encroaching on Toms thesis... I said it and therefore it must be true. -- Cheers, John B. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
On 4/12/2021 7:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/12/2021 1:59 PM, wrote: snip My bike had old halogen bulbs on PBP 2007.* I believe one of those two lights was a special series light so the dyno would send power to one of the lights first and then only send power to the second after getting up to speed.* I think B&M or whoever made the lights specifically made those second lights to use in that way.* But with my newer B&M LED lights I just wired them parallel.* No one bothered to make that special second light for LED because everyone thought LED was good enough with just one bulb.* No need for two lights with LED unlike with halogen where the second bulb in series was kind of necessary.* Equal full power to both lights simultaneously.* Now at lower speed both lights are weak.* But since LED lights up at fairly low speeds, it only takes about 7-8 mph to get both LED lit up to full brightness.* So no real downside because I never ride slow enough to not get both lights going full brightness. In honor of Frank I decided to stick my 12V tire-driven dynamo light set on my beater bike. Very classic. But awful. At first I thought that I had some kind of wiring problem because the output sucked so bad. I hooked up a small 12V SLA battery and it brightened up considerably so apparently the dynamo was not putting out enough current, though the unloaded voltage exceeded 20 volts. The drag with the lights connected was unbearable. Going to give up on that experiment. As I've said, I have two NOS 12V 6W bottle dynos in a drawer. I tried one of them, briefly, on my mountain bike. It was terrible in many ways, including the drag. By contrast, for a while I used a 6V 3W roller dyno to power two halogen bulbs plus a taillight. Output was thus about 12V, 6 W. The drag was much less than that 12V bottle, and quite acceptable, indicating that the big bottle was junk. However, with modern B&M LED lamps, I no longer play around with such experiments. There's no need. I suppose if I were competing in some ultra endurance event that included lots of fast downhills, I might consider two B&M LED lamps driven by one hub dyno. But my ultra days are long gone. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
|
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times. That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education. Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further training? I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply. After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself. About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL studies have much applicability to bike crashes. I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long distances? No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances. For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more maneuverable. My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my motorcycle I'd have hit him head on. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 8:47:38 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
He said "It won't be a problem. My daughter just finished her degree in Electrical Engineering, and she's going to live with us until she gets her own place." When she arrived, she told him "Dad, I'm not _that_ kind of electrical engineer!" -- - Frank Krygowski Yes I suspect its similar to a mechanical engineer not knowing how to repair a car. Mechanic! An electrical engineer does not mean they know how to wire a house. |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Monday, April 12, 2021 at 9:31:54 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times. That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education. Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further training? I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply. After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself. About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL studies have much applicability to bike crashes. I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long distances? No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances. For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more maneuverable. My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my motorcycle I'd have hit him head on. -- - Frank Krygowski I have a left turn in front of me crash story to tell. I was stopped at a traffic light. Red light for me and the car on the other side. I was going straight across the road. Car on the other side was turning left and turned left and hit me. It was about 6 PM in the evening, broad daylight. I ended up in the hospital for a night. Fractured collar bone. I don't recall the exact details of the crash. Whether I ran into the side of the car, front fender, and ended up on the hood and in the windshield. Or if the car bumper ran into me and flipped me up onto the hood and into the windshield. I did not have a front headlight. Do not know if that would have made the car see me on the other side of the road and not run me over. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Safety inflation
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 22:31:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 4/12/2021 9:37 PM, John B. wrote: On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:47:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Taking your response from bottom to top: I have certainly NOT ignored that half of bike crashes are cyclists' fault. I've agreed many times. That's one reason I'm such a proponent of cycling education. Well, I looked it up and in 2021 it is estimated that some 70% of the U.S. population has, or will have, a auto driver's license and as these people have to, I believe in all states, be tested in the traffic code as well as the ability to drive it would seem that most people do know the traffic code. But cyclists require further training? I'd say so. Licenses or no, far too many people think they can do whatever they want on a bike - that rules don't apply. After all, you're the one whose most frequently said half of deaths are the cyclists' fault. Be careful not to argue against yourself. I don't believe that I am. The most common reason for bicycle caused collisions in the L.S. study was riding the wrong way. Does one require a master's degree in bicycle riding to know that it is bad joss to ride the wrong way ? About DRL studies: I'm aware of only one that applies to bicyclists, and it was ludicrously biased. As evidence of bias, its data claimed the DRLs reduced even solo bike crashes. I don't believe motor vehicle DRL studies have much applicability to bike crashes. I see... There have been studies of DRL's on trucks, automobiles and motorcycles that show that accidents are reduced for these vehicles but you don't think that they are applicable to bicycles? Is this because bicycles are so large and thus are visible even at long distances? No, it's because bicycles don't _need_ to be visible at long distances. For one example, consider motorcycle fatalities. The most common crash type, IIRC, is when an oncoming motorist turns left across the path of a motorcyclist. Motorcycle speeds mean long braking distances and no chance to swerve defensibly. But bikes move more slowly and are more maneuverable. I tried looking up motorcycle accident data and found that nearly all sites were lawyers essentially saying "come to us and we'll get you a lot of money" but finally found a site https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/...e/anatomy.html that appeared to be reporting simple data without a viewpoint. According to them 40% of all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents, 43% involved alcohol and 30% of the riders killed ware unlicensed and only bout one-third of multi-vehicle motorcycle crashes are a result of other motorists turning into the path of the motorcycle. And they go on to say that "Because of its size, an automobile is easier to see. What a motorcycle sacrifices in weight, bulk, and other crashworthiness characteristics is somewhat offset by its agility, maneuverability, ability to stop quickly, and ability to swerve quickly when necessary. " My closest call on a bike was that same situation, back when I still rode too close to the road's edge. At the speed I was going I was able to immediately turn into the same street the motorist was entering. I stopped quickly and so did he. There was no contact. If I'd been on my motorcycle I'd have hit him head on. I rode for a number of years and "wrenched" for a couple of guys that raced and I can only remember two accidents where a motorcycle hit a car, or vice versa. In one case the guy had a few beers and was coming back to the school in the evening and because the street was one way was riding the wrong way, down the sidewalk and a car entering from a side street stopped for traffic on the main street and the guy hit them broadside. The other case was a friend who was going down a hill at what he stated was 100 mph and again a car pulled out and apparently saw him and panicked and just stopped. He hit them broad side. He "knew" that he was going to die - hitting a car at 100 mph - so just as he was going to hit the car he jumped up and over the car. Broke both arms and a lot of scrapes and bruises but survived. -- Cheers, John B. |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Eyc headlight problem
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The last headlight you will ever need | somebody[_2_] | Techniques | 115 | April 28th 14 02:12 AM |
Headlight | Tom $herman (-_-) | Techniques | 16 | August 17th 12 03:43 AM |
LED Headlight | HughMann | Australia | 12 | August 30th 06 11:51 AM |
LED headlight problem solved | Ron Hardin | General | 8 | April 3rd 06 10:42 AM |
Headlight | Bruni | Techniques | 8 | August 31st 03 06:27 PM |