#41
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 2017-07-06 20:00, sms wrote:
On 7/6/17 12:14 PM, Joerg wrote: snip I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) Just because something didn't happen to you even though you decided not to take advantage of available safety measures, doesn't mean much. Of course it would be equally ludicrous to claim that if you were hit, and didn't have that safety measure, that you would necessarily have been okay had you had the safety measure. What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because they can see you. Exactly. That's what I am saying all the time. I also had less vehicles pull out of parking lots or side roads right in front of me. On the contrary, some must have thought a motorcycle is coming and hit the brakes while there was plenty of time to pull out. At some point it's necessary to use common sense. Try to tell Frank :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Ads |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:33:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:02:57 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote: Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA. Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding without Joerg built lights. It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager. The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden _successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary. As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get.. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford new ones. There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill item. A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not. For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without blinkies. I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) We've been over this multiple times, but: If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big reduction. Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the right. Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM* [...] You mean to say that you were run into on Blue Ravine and died? Or this is just something that you saw on the TV? I didn't have an operation to turn me into a woman :-) It was shortly after we moved here about 20 years ago. That and several other serious accidents combined with (or rather, caused by) the lack of cycling infrastructure resulted in me and lots of others to mothball the bikes for many years. While those accidents were not always fatal many were what the medical folks call "life-changing" where riders became crippled for the rest of their lives. But even so, www.statista.com reported to be something in the neighborhood of 66.52 million bicycle riders in Spring 2016.... and one woman died? That was one example of many. We have about one death a month in the area, on average. Many are hit from behind. Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could find without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells me that there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was killed for every 10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously, statistically, bicycle riding is a very dangerious pastime! Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these dangerious devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike! I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories, real people, real grieving families and all that. People like Justin Vega: http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/ In San Francisco almost ALL of the bicycle deaths are from cyclists running lights or stop signs. I run stop signs as well but only when no other traffic is present or when I would hold up traffic at other stop signs by not running the sign. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 7/7/2017 10:26 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 19:34, wrote: On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote: Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA. Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding without Joerg built lights. It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager. The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden _successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary. As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford new ones. There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill item. A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not. For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without blinkies. I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) We've been over this multiple times, but: If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big reduction. Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the right. Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM* Well, Frank is right. Bicycles offer a far smaller target and if you wear bright clothing so that you don't catch drivers unaware you're pretty safe. AFAIR she had a bright jersey on. Unless you ride in an area and at times drunk drivers are on the road. Not just those, also texting ones and more recently stoned drivers. I found that lights are far better than any neon-colored jersey. Someone with 1/2 watt LEDs that do a police cruiser spiel like mine can be seen from half a mile away and gets the attention. End of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3iZ-Ch7pY The end of that video shows the bike light indoors in a dark room. Nobody here is saying that taillights are not valuable in the dark. In fact, I think they should be a legal requirement after dark. (Currently, only about three states require them instead of reflectors.) I'm arguing against the currently fashionable superstition that a blinky taillight makes a practical difference in ordinary daylight. I've seen no decent evidence that it does. I've observed many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of riders with daytime blinkies. In no case did I spot the cyclist only because he had a blinky. In almost every case, I noticed the cyclist first and only later saw "Oh, he's running his magic blinky." Just like in this advertising photo: https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO I saw that photo at least ten times before I wondered "So it's a bicyclist being passed by a car. What are they advertising?" I thought it was funny that they pretend you wouldn't see the rider unless he had the taillight under his saddle. Oh, and he's riding too far to the right. There's no way that car can give three feet of clearance without crossing the yellow line. That means the rider should make that clear by his lane position. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 7/7/2017 10:33 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote: On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:02:57 -0700, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote: Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA. Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding without Joerg built lights. It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager. The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden _successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary. As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford new ones. There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill item. A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not. For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without blinkies. I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) We've been over this multiple times, but: If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big reduction. Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the right. Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM* [...] You mean to say that you were run into on Blue Ravine and died? Or this is just something that you saw on the TV? I didn't have an operation to turn me into a woman :-) It was shortly after we moved here about 20 years ago. That and several other serious accidents combined with (or rather, caused by) the lack of cycling infrastructure resulted in me and lots of others to mothball the bikes for many years. While those accidents were not always fatal many were what the medical folks call "life-changing" where riders became crippled for the rest of their lives. But even so, www.statista.com reported to be something in the neighborhood of 66.52 million bicycle riders in Spring 2016.... and one woman died? That was one example of many. We have about one death a month in the area, on average. Many are hit from behind. Yes, we know your area is far more dangerous than the rest of the world. Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could find without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells me that there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was killed for every 10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously, statistically, bicycle riding is a very dangerious pastime! Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these dangerious devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike! I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories, real people, real grieving families and all that. People like Justin Vega: http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/ That crash happened at night. The question is, did that rider have a taillight? I ask because a high percentage of nighttime car-bike crashes involve unlit cyclists. If the people promoting useless daytime lights shifted their energy to promoting nighttime lights, many more lives would be saved. Daytime lights are a superstition. Nighttime lights are a legal and practical requirement. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 2017-07-07 07:49, wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:25:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 19:34, wrote: On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote: Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA. Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding without Joerg built lights. It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager. The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden _successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary. As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford new ones. There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill item. A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not. For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without blinkies. I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) We've been over this multiple times, but: If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big reduction. Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the right. Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM* Well, Frank is right. Bicycles offer a far smaller target and if you wear bright clothing so that you don't catch drivers unaware you're pretty safe. AFAIR she had a bright jersey on. Unless you ride in an area and at times drunk drivers are on the road. Not just those, also texting ones and more recently stoned drivers. I found that lights are far better than any neon-colored jersey. Someone with 1/2 watt LEDs that do a police cruiser spiel like mine can be seen from half a mile away and gets the attention. End of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3iZ-Ch7pY The lights on the GoPro camera are similar to that. And looking at the video you can plainly see that the lights make no difference whatsoever. Where do you see that? This sort of police cruiser pattern is really visible. Easily 1/2 mile. I never ride without, on roads it is always on no matter what time of the day. ... Many of the members of the group I would ride with if I was feeling OK have those cameras and we get their postings often enough and in every case you can see that that they consider "close passes" are done on purpose. Some are but most in my case were inattentiveness. "Oh, very sorry, dude. I totally forgot I had that wide trailer behind me. My apologies". Or the guy with the truck that had windows haulimng racks on the side. And so on. Others give wide room and then realize they grossly misjudged the speed or distance of oncoming traffic. Then they have the choice between a nasty head-on crash or pushing close to me. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 2017-07-07 09:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2017 10:26 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 19:34, wrote: On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote: Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA. Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding without Joerg built lights. It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager. The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden _successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary. As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford new ones. There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill item. A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not. For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without blinkies. I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish. Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-) We've been over this multiple times, but: If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big reduction. Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the right. Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM* Well, Frank is right. Bicycles offer a far smaller target and if you wear bright clothing so that you don't catch drivers unaware you're pretty safe. AFAIR she had a bright jersey on. Unless you ride in an area and at times drunk drivers are on the road. Not just those, also texting ones and more recently stoned drivers. I found that lights are far better than any neon-colored jersey. Someone with 1/2 watt LEDs that do a police cruiser spiel like mine can be seen from half a mile away and gets the attention. End of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3iZ-Ch7pY The end of that video shows the bike light indoors in a dark room. Nobody here is saying that taillights are not valuable in the dark. In fact, I think they should be a legal requirement after dark. (Currently, only about three states require them instead of reflectors.) I'm arguing against the currently fashionable superstition that a blinky taillight makes a practical difference in ordinary daylight. I've seen no decent evidence that it does. ... I have, big time. Therefore, mine is lit anytime you see my bike on roads. On bike paths I turn it off during the day. ... I've observed many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of riders with daytime blinkies. In no case did I spot the cyclist only because he had a blinky. In almost every case, I noticed the cyclist first and only later saw "Oh, he's running his magic blinky." Just like in this advertising photo: https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO I meant at a much greater distance and also not some li'l Walmart blinky but a real light. I saw that photo at least ten times before I wondered "So it's a bicyclist being passed by a car. What are they advertising?" I thought it was funny that they pretend you wouldn't see the rider unless he had the taillight under his saddle. Oh, and he's riding too far to the right. There's no way that car can give three feet of clearance without crossing the yellow line. That means the rider should make that clear by his lane position. And get a ticket in places like CA. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 2017-07-07 07:51, wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:33:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote: [...] Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could find without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells me that there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was killed for every 10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously, statistically, bicycle riding is a very dangerious pastime! Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these dangerious devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike! I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories, real people, real grieving families and all that. People like Justin Vega: http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/ In San Francisco almost ALL of the bicycle deaths are from cyclists running lights or stop signs. I run stop signs as well but only when no other traffic is present or when I would hold up traffic at other stop signs by not running the sign. Out here most get smasehd into from behind. "Taking the lane" can be deadly out here and nobody in their right mind does that. I know about S.F. and really do not enjoy driving a car there. Mostly because of the kamikaze cyclists. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On 7/6/17 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:00 PM, sms wrote: What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because they can see you. I've seen no evidence that those claims apply to "most of us here." Instead, what I've seen is evidence that you (i.e. Stephen M. Scharf) and Joerg firmly believe that. Actually, you believe it too. The issue is that you've become so invested in false narrative, on a variety of subjects related to cycling, that you're unwilling to publicly admit what you know is true. We have a president like that. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Handlebar rotation
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 12:37:20 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/6/17 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 7/6/2017 11:00 PM, sms wrote: What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because they can see you. I've seen no evidence that those claims apply to "most of us here." Instead, what I've seen is evidence that you (i.e. Stephen M. Scharf) and Joerg firmly believe that. Actually, you believe it too. The issue is that you've become so invested in false narrative, on a variety of subjects related to cycling, that you're unwilling to publicly admit what you know is true. We have a president like that. I haven't used a front or rear light since the time change, and the world seems pretty much the same. My close calls have been with other cyclists, some of whom were using bright lights -- which apparently is no guaranty of skill on a bike. And BTW, I could see them coming without the lights because many were also dressed in fluorescent clothing. In daylight, I always see the jersey first and light second with rare exception (hard dappled light). -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
tube rotation | raging raven | Techniques | 37 | April 16th 10 04:11 PM |
Four-dimensional Rotation of the Universe. | Ivan Gorelik | Rides | 8 | March 30th 09 07:27 AM |
Four-dimensional Rotation of the Universe. | Ivan Gorelik | Marketplace | 4 | March 30th 09 12:00 AM |
Tire Rotation | Tom Nakashima | Techniques | 54 | August 15th 05 11:39 PM |
tyre rotation | geepeetee | UK | 4 | April 20th 05 06:17 PM |