Cyclist visibility

On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.

The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)


As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible.

But one of the major complaints voiced here is a vehicle that "passed
too close to me". The flags make the cyclist much more noticeable as
the overtaking vehicle closes in on the bike and thus might save some
lives. Which, after all, is the usual argument for bicycle helmets.

John B.

Seems to me if a car is passing a cyclist, it starts BEHIND the bicycle. You said the flags on top the helmets do not make the cyclist more visible from behind. Just more visible when beside the cyclist. So your flag on the helmet does not help. The car comes from BEHIND and passes the cyclist very close. The flag does not help the cyclist be seen from behind. When the car is beside the cyclist, then the flag makes the cyclist visible to the car driver. Then the car driver just keeps driving and passes the cyclist one half second later, or moves to the side to give the cyclist more room.. Being seen because of the flag when the car is already beside the cyclist does not provide any benefit. Your flags are only useful when cars and cyclists meet at intersections, cross roads. 90 degree angle meeting. Then the flag is noticeable by the car driver because the car driver is seeing the cyclist completely from the side.

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:53:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.

The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)


As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible.

But one of the major complaints voiced here is a vehicle that "passed
too close to me". The flags make the cyclist much more noticeable as
the overtaking vehicle closes in on the bike and thus might save some
lives. Which, after all, is the usual argument for bicycle helmets.

John B.

Seems to me if a car is passing a cyclist, it starts BEHIND the bicycle. You said the flags on top the helmets do not make the cyclist more visible from behind. Just more visible when beside the cyclist. So your flag on the helmet does not help. The car comes from BEHIND and passes the cyclist very close. The flag does not help the cyclist be seen from behind. When the car is beside the cyclist, then the flag makes the cyclist visible to the car driver. Then the car driver just keeps driving and passes the cyclist one half second later, or moves to the side to give the cyclist more room. Being seen because of the flag when the car is already beside the cyclist does not provide any benefit. Your flags are only useful when cars and cyclists meet at intersections, cross roads. 90 degree angle meeting. Then the flag is noticeable by the car driver because the car driver is seeing the cyclist completely from the side.

I think the flags would cause close passing. If I were in a car and saw that, I'd go "what the f***, flippy flags on helmets? Let's take a look." Whap. It would be like putting a Koala Bear on your head -- a recipe for disaster! "Oooh, look at the cut 'ittle Koala Bear." Whap.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 5:17:25 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:53:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2016 at 2:22:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:41:00 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:20:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

But what made them distinctive was that they each had a small "flag
pole" attached to the top of their helmets with a flag attached.

The interesting thing was that while the flags didn't make the riders
more visible from directly behind them but as they were overtaken they
became very noticeable (Guys with flags on their heads!)


As you said the flags on the helmet did not make them visible from behind. Just from the side when you already knew they were there. Not sure that counts as making them more visible.

But one of the major complaints voiced here is a vehicle that "passed
too close to me". The flags make the cyclist much more noticeable as
the overtaking vehicle closes in on the bike and thus might save some
lives. Which, after all, is the usual argument for bicycle helmets.

John B.

Seems to me if a car is passing a cyclist, it starts BEHIND the bicycle.. You said the flags on top the helmets do not make the cyclist more visible from behind. Just more visible when beside the cyclist. So your flag on the helmet does not help. The car comes from BEHIND and passes the cyclist very close. The flag does not help the cyclist be seen from behind. When the car is beside the cyclist, then the flag makes the cyclist visible to the car driver. Then the car driver just keeps driving and passes the cyclist one half second later, or moves to the side to give the cyclist more room. Being seen because of the flag when the car is already beside the cyclist does not provide any benefit. Your flags are only useful when cars and cyclists meet at intersections, cross roads. 90 degree angle meeting. Then the flag is noticeable by the car driver because the car driver is seeing the cyclist completely from the side.

I think the flags would cause close passing. If I were in a car and saw that, I'd go "what the f***, flippy flags on helmets? Let's take a look." Whap. It would be like putting a Koala Bear on your head -- a recipe for disaster! "Oooh, look at the cut 'ittle Koala Bear." Whap.

-- Jay Beattie.

no helmet flag here but moving ID like the illuminated rim is as MOVING more perceptually noticeable....perceived movement 'consumates' the nervous connection with a barrage of chemicals moving down n across sysnpases.

flag prob is flag motion is random but probably flying to the rear with wind from the front.

not the ideal selling pitch.

John ? everyone here sez Phuket pussy stinks ? T/F

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/25/2016 12:38 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jeff Liebermann considered Sun, 24 Apr 2016
12:25:01 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:11:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 2:45:42 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:

Roman Empire= left side
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/

Are you sure about that? I'd check your facts again. I have ridden in Italy. Ridden in the city of Rome itself in fact. They drove, rode of the right, correct side of the road. Not the wrong, left side. I do not think you can get much more Roman Empire than Rome, Italy itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic
"The history of the keep-left rule can be tracked back
to ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, and was more widely
practised than right-side traffic. Ancient Greeks, Egyptians
and Romans adhered to the left side while marching their
troops."
So it is written. So it must be.

It was Napoleon who changed it, and it spread from the countries he
conquered. I guess it's taken a while for the US to hear the news
from 1815.
Allegedly, the change was to make it more difficult for people to
attack oncoming road users, as passing left to left means most people
have their weapon hand away from oncoming traffic instead of on the
same side. Another reason often given is that there was a wish to
throw out everything with any association to the aristocracy (who were
of course the ones riding in coaches). But it does seem that until
then, everyone drive on the left. How North America ended up
following the French convention is something of a mystery, although it
may have been a similar wish to disassociate from anything British in
order to evade taxes.

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 26/04/16 12:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?




Heathens. Tines down please.

At a conference near Tampa, we sat to lunch and began eating with a
knife and fork, and a USian woman exclaimed, "Oh, how quaint! Can you
show me eating with a knife and fork like that again?" My (future) wife
and I were a little stunned, while a Canadian fellow apologised for the
woman's outburst. We observed the woman then shovelling food into her
mouth, while holding the fork upside down in her right hand, and made no
mention of it.

--
JS

James wrote:
On 26/04/16 12:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?




Heathens. Tines down please.

At a conference near Tampa, we sat to lunch and began eating with a
knife and fork, and a USian woman exclaimed, "Oh, how quaint! Can you
show me eating with a knife and fork like that again?" My (future) wife
and I were a little stunned, while a Canadian fellow apologised for the
woman's outburst. We observed the woman then shovelling food into her
mouth, while holding the fork upside down in her right hand, and made no
mention of it.


Some people are just ingrates. :-)
BTW, I use a fork in my left hand which seems natural being left handed. I
also use it as what you would probably describe as right side up but that's
mostly a New Orleans thing, I think. I'm doing that now as I finish my
oatmeal on my way out to the office. (Had to add some bike content...)

--
duane

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 6:28:55 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 26/04/16 12:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?




Heathens. Tines down please.

At a conference near Tampa, we sat to lunch and began eating with a
knife and fork, and a USian woman exclaimed, "Oh, how quaint! Can you
show me eating with a knife and fork like that again?" My (future) wife
and I were a little stunned, while a Canadian fellow apologised for the
woman's outburst. We observed the woman then shovelling food into her
mouth, while holding the fork upside down in her right hand, and made no
mention of it.


Some people are just ingrates. :-)
BTW, I use a fork in my left hand which seems natural being left handed. I
also use it as what you would probably describe as right side up but that's
mostly a New Orleans thing, I think. I'm doing that now as I finish my
oatmeal on my way out to the office. (Had to add some bike content...)

--
duane

https://goo.gl/5XdN8q

ahhhh a new micromouse in Ferrari red.......

alors !....3 wannabe depressions outta Texas/Mx in 3 weeks....

On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 22:09:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?

When I think about it I can't remember ever seeing an Englishman eat
soup although I'm sure that they must do so. But when they eat peas
they have a knife in one hand. :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:45:36 +1000, James
wrote:

On 26/04/16 12:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/25/2016 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:15:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

IIRC, historians say that's the reason Americans eat with the fork in
the right hand, as opposed to the left.

And, according to an "English" friend we hold it up side down too :-)

That makes even less sense to me. Why use a utensil concave downward?
Do they do that with soup spoons?




Heathens. Tines down please.

At a conference near Tampa, we sat to lunch and began eating with a
knife and fork, and a USian woman exclaimed, "Oh, how quaint! Can you
show me eating with a knife and fork like that again?" My (future) wife
and I were a little stunned, while a Canadian fellow apologised for the
woman's outburst. We observed the woman then shovelling food into her
mouth, while holding the fork upside down in her right hand, and made no
mention of it.

Being Australian you will need to define upside down :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.