A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

lifepaint?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 9th 15, 04:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default lifepaint?

On 4/8/2015 10:20 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

The patient often doesn't even know if they hit their head. My sister the other

day was diagnosed with a slight concussion after falling down tthe
stairs a couple
of days earlier yet she didn't think she hit her head.

It may be that she didn't. Some years ago, a woman attending a symphony
concert in our area was standing and talking with friends near the front
row seats. She somehow tripped and fell, landing on the floor in a
seated position - IOW, right on her ass.

She clearly hadn't hit her head, but she had symptoms of a concussion.
Specifically, she couldn't remember where she was or how she got there,
and was consequently very distressed. She was taken directly to the
hospital.

BTW, I wasn't there; I was told about the incident by a person who saw
it happen. I don't know the final outcome, but apparently there were no
serious consequences.

Here's more on that phenomenon:
http://www.momsteam.com/health-safet...itude-required

I suppose it's too soon to require helmets for symphony concerts.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #12  
Old April 9th 15, 07:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default lifepaint?

O Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.

Cheers.

great idea...unenforceable at this time...how regulate the poor and children ?

if Homedepot dayglo vests came with the bike or Law Enforcement handed vests for free that's sill a no go. You know people.


People would scream Turd Reich Turd Reich

I wudguess somewhat similar to he AUS helmet law travails.

I have arrived at the time where on coming onto a cyclist o the shoulder, I pop the flashers on until I pass.

This is a possible law
  #13  
Old April 10th 15, 04:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
T0m $herman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 612
Default lifepaint?

On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something bicyclists are
supposed to use to protect themselves against cars and their drivers.
How about educating motorists about their responsibility, and enforcing
the same?...


Self-driving cars cannot arrive soon enough, since the vast majority of
cagers have proven to not be up to the responsibility.

--
T0m $herm@n
  #14  
Old April 13th 15, 12:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default lifepaint?

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:15:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."


BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.


OH OH! Look at this part:
"According to the text of the bill, Davis wants anyone caught riding a bicycle, "on a highway or on premises open to the public" without wearing reflective clothing to be punished by a maximum fine of $250. The bill also dictates that the clothing is, "including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest." The new law would only apply to people riding bicycles at night (between sunset and sunrise)."

Seems that he wants a LOT of high-visible clothing if you ride after dusk. Or is he just trying to kill bicycling by making it too expensive (10 times the fine of similar laws elsewhere)so that motorists can have all roads for themselves?

"Similar bills have been introduced in California, Wyoming and South Dakota. In California, Senate Bill 192 mandates helmets for all ages and reflective clothing, but carries a maximum fine of just $25."

Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.


The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.

-- Jay Beattie.


  #15  
Old April 13th 15, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default lifepaint?

On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #16  
Old April 13th 15, 01:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default lifepaint?

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 7:26:41 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:15:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.


OH OH! Look at this part:
"According to the text of the bill, Davis wants anyone caught riding a bicycle, "on a highway or on premises open to the public" without wearing reflective clothing to be punished by a maximum fine of $250. The bill also dictates that the clothing is, "including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest." The new law would only apply to people riding bicycles at night (between sunset and sunrise)."

Seems that he wants a LOT of high-visible clothing if you ride after dusk. Or is he just trying to kill bicycling by making it too expensive (10 times the fine of similar laws elsewhere)so that motorists can have all roads for themselves?

"Similar bills have been introduced in California, Wyoming and South Dakota. In California, Senate Bill 192 mandates helmets for all ages and reflective clothing, but carries a maximum fine of just $25."

Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.


The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.

-- Jay Beattie.


The proposal requires a online vote in .....

get on that wudja ?
  #17  
Old April 13th 15, 01:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default lifepaint?

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:45:16 PM UTC-4, T0m $herman wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something bicyclists are
supposed to use to protect themselves against cars and their drivers.
How about educating motorists about their responsibility, and enforcing
the same?...


Self-driving cars cannot arrive soon enough, since the vast majority of
cagers have proven to not be up to the responsibility.

--
T0m $herm@n


think abt this Tom....we pass each other at hi speeds a few feet apart...continuously fog rain snow
  #18  
Old April 13th 15, 07:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default lifepaint?

On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists


Gads, why did the California Bicycle Coalition have to make this statement:

"We're not against helmets. They are mandated in many competitive races, and amateur racers should follow that example. But there are proven ways to make our streets safer while encouraging bicycling -- reducing speed limits on key streets, building protected bike lanes and bike paths, and educating motorists and bicyclists on how to drive or ride safely, to name a few. A mandatory helmet law is not one of them."

Building protected bike lanes and paths? Groan. More money, and just what we need -- bike chutes. That's where you really do need a helmet. MUPs with mutts.

-- Jay Beattie.






  #19  
Old April 13th 15, 08:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default lifepaint?

On 14/04/15 04:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to
be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I
don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going
anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and
more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions
ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to
require licensing and registration for the freeloading
bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of
clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory
anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists



Gads, why did the California Bicycle Coalition have to make this
statement:

"We're not against helmets. They are mandated in many competitive
races, and amateur racers should follow that example. But there are
proven ways to make our streets safer while encouraging bicycling --
reducing speed limits on key streets, building protected bike lanes
and bike paths, and educating motorists and bicyclists on how to
drive or ride safely, to name a few. A mandatory helmet law is not
one of them."

Building protected bike lanes and paths? Groan. More money, and just
what we need -- bike chutes. That's where you really do need a
helmet. MUPs with mutts.


MUPs are the worst. Paths must be separate for each transport mode,
walking, riding, driving. It is wrong to mix modes where there is a
gross speed and weight differential.

The next problem is of suitable path design for cyclists. As cyclists
come in such a wide range of abilities and skill level, a one size fits
all solution is difficult for many designers to manage. Usually there
are too many constraints like available real estate and money to do a
proper job. They usually cater for the slow and unskilled riders, and
put off the faster and more experienced riders - then add laws mandating
we all use the same facilities. On top of that, in countries where
cycling only accounts for a few percent of the transport mode share,
efforts are half hearted and designers are not themselves cyclists, so
they come up with crap designs often lauded as innovative.

I've had a gut full. Worse than ingesting someone else's bacteria.

--
JS
  #20  
Old April 13th 15, 10:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default lifepaint?

On 4/13/2015 2:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists


Gads, why did the California Bicycle Coalition have to make this statement:

"We're not against helmets. They are mandated in many competitive races, and amateur racers should follow that example. But there are proven ways to make our streets safer while encouraging bicycling -- reducing speed limits on key streets, building protected bike lanes and bike paths, and educating motorists and bicyclists on how to drive or ride safely, to name a few. A mandatory helmet law is not one of them."

Building protected bike lanes and paths? Groan. More money, and just what we need -- bike chutes. That's where you really do need a helmet. MUPs with mutts.


I agree. And it's further proof that much of what's said about
bicycling is based on the fairy tale meme of the week.


--
- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.