Handlebar rotation

On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:46:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-07 18:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:33:58 -0700, 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.


So what you are actually saying is that bicycles are dangerious.


No, motor vehicles are. Or to be more precise, their operators.


... and
as the U.S. notion seems to be that one must do everything possible to
protect the poor consumer then logically these dangerious bicycles
should be banned to protect society.


If there is no willingness to enforce traffic rules regarding the fair
treatment of cyclists, and in the US largely there isn't, then
separating their traffic paths from those of motor vehicles is best.
Some communities such as Folsom understand this while others like ours
don't.


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/


Certainly. But do you read in your local papers about the thousands,
millions?, of bicycle riders who quite happily ride around with never
an accident?


Sure. However, the number of severe and fatal accidents per traveled
mile is much higher for a cyclists than for a car driver. That's what
matters. If I ride to Rancho Cordova in my car that is safer than
cycling. Or used to be. Now much of the ride is possible via abandoned
roads, dirt paths and bike paths. So now I use the road bike or MTB.


Of course not as a happy, contented rider isn't newsworthy, it is the
blood and guts strewn all over the road that makes the headlines. So,
essentially, you are reading a media what dotes on death. And so, of
course, you read about deaths.


I know the statistics and those are facts.

The facts are that bicycle injuries are relatively few and usually
minor. In California only about 4% of all traffic deaths are cyclists

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:41:25 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 3:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 20:03, John B. wrote:

Yes Sir! Bicycling is a dangerious pastime.


As I wrote many times it is not only deaths that count. It is also the
accidents with serious consequences. Also the close calls and I had my
share of those including bailing off the road.

Doesn't matter, I and the vast majority of riders out here prefer to
ride where there isn't motorized traffic close by, or hardly any. My
personal preference is singletrack.

Wimp.


--
- Frank Krygowski

But, but but, to ride that single-track he needs a super bright headlight so thatthe illegal MOTORIZED dirt bikers can see him coming and get out of his way. remember that Joerg's MTB is so noisy that he can NOT hearthe high revinng engines of those dirt bikes. Seems to me thatthe paved roads where you can see what else isthere are safer than those singl-tracks with their illegal motorized dirt bikers and mountain lions.

Cheers

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 19:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 5:41:25 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 3:20 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 20:03, John B. wrote:

Yes Sir! Bicycling is a dangerious pastime.


As I wrote many times it is not only deaths that count. It is also the
accidents with serious consequences. Also the close calls and I had my
share of those including bailing off the road.

Doesn't matter, I and the vast majority of riders out here prefer to
ride where there isn't motorized traffic close by, or hardly any. My
personal preference is singletrack.

Wimp.


--
- Frank Krygowski

But, but but, to ride that single-track he needs a super bright headlight so thatthe illegal MOTORIZED dirt bikers can see him coming and get out of his way. remember that Joerg's MTB is so noisy that he can NOT hearthe high revinng engines of those dirt bikes. Seems to me thatthe paved roads where you can see what else isthere are safer than those singl-tracks with their illegal motorized dirt bikers and mountain lions.

Cheers

You are correct. I also read that a large percentage of "off the road"
bicycle accidents were the result of excess speed on unimproved
trails. i.e., the driver done it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/8/2017 6:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:


We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've forgotten. One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.

First, your statement is a deflection. The point is, the Danish study
was not a proper, unbiased study. It was more of an advertising
campaign designed to sell the lights that were given away to volunteers.

But second, your statement wasn't even a good deflection. By FAR, the
main cause of bicycling injury is simply falling off. Yes, cars are
implicated in most bike deaths; but bike deaths are about as rare as
falling-out-of-bed deaths. American bicyclists do over 10 million miles
per fatality.



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.

And we've been over that issue many times. Previously I've posted
citations of California law plus recommendations of CA bike safety
organizations. They all disagree with you.

You could try posting links to a bunch of stories about such tickets
being given. If they're not imaginary, that is.


You can only get out of it in court if the lane was not of
sub-standard witdth and even then you have to find an attorney who
defends you pro bobo or you will be out thousands more than the ticket
cost.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...for-the-devil/

It is California Vehcile Code 21202 and a violation costs $197.

https://www.ticketsnipers.com/traffi...c-ticket-fines


Ok, head back in the sand now so you can pretend it ain't happening :-)

I'd previously read about the illegal harassment on the PCH. It's why I
included the phrase "links to a BUNCH of stories."


That's your usual answer when you run out of words. I could give 100
examples and then you'd say "But now I want 1000!".

And your usual answer is "Look, here's another case I found after an
hour of Googling. It's in New South Wales. That's TWO cases worldwide,
so it PROVES this is a big problem!!!" Sheesh.

I've got no time for this nonsense, have to build a 3rd trunk for the
MTB. At 100F that's no fun but I need it next week because of the 100F.

[...]


BTW, about the PCH, you need to read this:
https://patch.com/california/malibu/...-a-deep-breath

Nothing new here.

What will be new is when (or if) you ever understand it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-07-08 19:01, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 13:46:46 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-07 18:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:33:58 -0700, 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.


So what you are actually saying is that bicycles are dangerious.


No, motor vehicles are. Or to be more precise, their operators.


... and
as the U.S. notion seems to be that one must do everything possible to
protect the poor consumer then logically these dangerious bicycles
should be banned to protect society.


If there is no willingness to enforce traffic rules regarding the fair
treatment of cyclists, and in the US largely there isn't, then
separating their traffic paths from those of motor vehicles is best.
Some communities such as Folsom understand this while others like ours
don't.


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/


Certainly. But do you read in your local papers about the thousands,
millions?, of bicycle riders who quite happily ride around with never
an accident?


Sure. However, the number of severe and fatal accidents per traveled
mile is much higher for a cyclists than for a car driver. That's what
matters. If I ride to Rancho Cordova in my car that is safer than
cycling. Or used to be. Now much of the ride is possible via abandoned
roads, dirt paths and bike paths. So now I use the road bike or MTB.


Of course not as a happy, contented rider isn't newsworthy, it is the
blood and guts strewn all over the road that makes the headlines. So,
essentially, you are reading a media what dotes on death. And so, of
course, you read about deaths.


I know the statistics and those are facts.

The facts are that bicycle injuries are relatively few and usually
minor. In California only about 4% of all traffic deaths are cyclists


Per mile they are larger than for car drivers. Much larger. Therefore,
cycling in regular traffic is more dangerous than doing the same trip in
a car. I ride anyhow but that's my personal choice. Most of my neighbors
do not share that choice.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:06:59 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 10:46 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Joerg, that taillight in the link is advertised as specifically designed
to be used in daytime. They claim it's visible in daylight a mile away,
but it's still not as visible as the rider himself.


There I disagree. From experience, as a rider as well as a motorist.
In our paper they mentioned a Danish study of many thousand cyclists
where daytime light reduced accidents by 16%. I believe that. You have
the right not to believe it.

We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've forgotten. One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen



" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.

Car collisions account for about a third of all bicycle related injury accidents nationally -- meaning two-thirds are not car-related.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way it
was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that I
used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision but
many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often truck
drivers).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-08 18:53, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 15:07:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 10:46 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Joerg, that taillight in the link is advertised as specifically designed
to be used in daytime. They claim it's visible in daylight a mile away,
but it's still not as visible as the rider himself.


There I disagree. From experience, as a rider as well as a motorist.
In our paper they mentioned a Danish study of many thousand cyclists
where daytime light reduced accidents by 16%. I believe that. You have
the right not to believe it.

We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've forgotten. One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.


Wrong again. From http://www.aafp.org/afp/2001/0515/p2007.html

"The precise contribution of rider errors (losing control, speed,
performing stunts, inexperience), motorist errors, environmental
hazards (objects in the road, loose gravel) or bicycle mechanical
failure in causing bicycle crashes is unclear, although they are
probably all significant. Faster riding speed does appear to be
associated with serious injury, fatality and mountain-biking crashes.
The role of other factors such as distance of trip, duration of ride
and sidewalk riding is also not clear."

But you did read the reference to speed and MTB crashes. If cars are
at fault they must be pretty small to roar around on those narrow
mountain trails smashing bicycles.


Quote "Neck aches and back aches are common complaints" ... phhht.
What's next? Do we now also include butt sores car drivers develop from
sitting too much?


On the other hand apparently you California Boys know something that
the professionals don't know.


What professionals?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-09 07:13, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 6:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:


We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've forgotten. One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.

First, your statement is a deflection. The point is, the Danish study
was not a proper, unbiased study. It was more of an advertising
campaign designed to sell the lights that were given away to volunteers.

But second, your statement wasn't even a good deflection. By FAR, the
main cause of bicycling injury is simply falling off.


Proof, please.


... Yes, cars are
implicated in most bike deaths; ...


Aha, now you begin to understand. So are serious injuries. Again, t is
not just about death. If a rider is crippled or laid up and thus out of
work for weeks that also counts.


... but bike deaths are about as rare as
falling-out-of-bed deaths. American bicyclists do over 10 million miles
per fatality.


Per mile, fatalities _and_ serious injuries of cyclists are higher than
those of car drivers.




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.

And we've been over that issue many times. Previously I've posted
citations of California law plus recommendations of CA bike safety
organizations. They all disagree with you.

You could try posting links to a bunch of stories about such tickets
being given. If they're not imaginary, that is.


You can only get out of it in court if the lane was not of
sub-standard witdth and even then you have to find an attorney who
defends you pro bobo or you will be out thousands more than the ticket
cost.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/2014...for-the-devil/

It is California Vehcile Code 21202 and a violation costs $197.

https://www.ticketsnipers.com/traffi...c-ticket-fines


Ok, head back in the sand now so you can pretend it ain't happening :-)

I'd previously read about the illegal harassment on the PCH. It's why I
included the phrase "links to a BUNCH of stories."


That's your usual answer when you run out of words. I could give 100
examples and then you'd say "But now I want 1000!".

And your usual answer is "Look, here's another case I found after an
hour of Googling. It's in New South Wales. That's TWO cases worldwide,
so it PROVES this is a big problem!!!" Sheesh.

I've got no time for this nonsense, have to build a 3rd trunk for the
MTB. At 100F that's no fun but I need it next week because of the 100F.

[...]


BTW, about the PCH, you need to read this:
https://patch.com/california/malibu/...-a-deep-breath


Nothing new here.

What will be new is when (or if) you ever understand it.


It's not me who doesn't understand here :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-08 18:45, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jul 2017 07:46:25 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-07 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2017 1:59 PM, Joerg wrote:
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.

Joerg, that taillight in the link is advertised as specifically designed
to be used in daytime. They claim it's visible in daylight a mile away,
but it's still not as visible as the rider himself.


There I disagree. From experience, as a rider as well as a motorist. In
our paper they mentioned a Danish study of many thousand cyclists where
daytime light reduced accidents by 16%. I believe that. You have the
right not to believe it.


Did you read the entire survey study? Actually read the study
findings?

The test was designed, and did, influence the Danish government to
change the law and allow always on lighting systems.


Ah, now come the conspiracy theories. What makes you believe daytime
running lights were ever not allowed? Especially in Scandinavia where
that started out very early.


It used an always on light system compared with a rider controlled
system and the lights were tiny little lights mounted on the forks.
The test riders were collage students that were enlisted to
participate in the test. I would have guessed is that a survey of red
streamers on the handle bar ends would have demonstrated the same
thing.

But why bother. As you California Boys describe it blinding bright
light will cause automobile to come to a full stop, or swerve off the
roads, to let you go by, a phenomena that, to date, nobody else, in a
number of different countries, has described.

As I previously wrote, "Only in California".


It has also worked in the Netherlands, and in Belgium, and in Germany,
and ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-07-09 07:44, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 15:59, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 3:06:59 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-08 14:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/8/2017 10:46 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Joerg, that taillight in the link is advertised as specifically
designed
to be used in daytime. They claim it's visible in daylight a mile
away,
but it's still not as visible as the rider himself.


There I disagree. From experience, as a rider as well as a motorist.
In our paper they mentioned a Danish study of many thousand cyclists
where daytime light reduced accidents by 16%. I believe that. You have
the right not to believe it.

We've discussed that Danish study before. Perhaps you've forgotten.
One
gem was that the participants who applied to be in the study so they
would be given the lights (um... no bias there, right?) also reported
far fewer single bike crashes than those who were not given the free
lights. In other words, they toppled off their bikes less.

Understand, those lights given away were not "see the road" headlights
that might show up road obstacles. Their spoke-driven blinkies
intended
as "be seen" lights. Now why would free "be seen



" lights cause a
reduction in simply toppling off a bike? Unless, that is, the people
who applied to get the lights and vouch for... oops, "study" their
effectiveness were simply being a lot more careful than normal riders?


Falling off a bike is not the main cause of injury or death. Colliding
with motor vehicles is.

Car collisions account for about a third of all bicycle related injury
accidents nationally -- meaning two-thirds are not car-related.
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

When was the last time you were hurt on a bike? Were you hit by a car?


No but that is because I am primarily using a mountain bike, the way it
was meant to be used. The reason I got hurt a lot as a kid was that I
used a regular bicycle on motocross tracks without wearing any
protective gear.

Other people's accidents did not always involved a direct collision but
many were caused by evasive action because of car drivers (often truck
drivers).


In case by "hurt" you meant any sort of injury and not just very serious
ones, I had several vehicle collisions with a manageable degree of
injury. For example:

Driver pulled out into main road, said he grossly underestimated my
speed ... *BAM* ... my body dented the side of his Volkswagen Polo (used
to be called Fox in the US) so badly that I had to help the old guy
getting out. The driver side door would no longer open from the inside.
Lots of bruises, a pretzeled bike, and I vowed never to buy such a car.

Another: I had a green light, stepped on it, the obviously impatient
driver of a Mercedes 280S decided he can still do a left turn before I
get there, floored it, didn't work ... *BAM* ... I hit the right rear
fender. He fled the scene.

Plus a few other incidents.

Two of my university buddies were not so lucky. Both hit from behind, in
the lane, in the city (Aachen, Germany). Serious with a hospital trip
each. One had a ruptured spleen, the other lost a kidney. In one of the
cases the offending motorist helped my half conscious friend to a phone
booth close by to call an ambulance and then he quietly high-tailed it.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/