Overhanging trees on trails

On 7/31/2013 11:10 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:43:46 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:19:08 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:



You're changing the subject. No need for light above the road,

remember?



That's not at all what I said.



There is no need for a flashlight-style radially symmetric beam that casts so much light upward that it blinds other road users, remember? That's what Scharf is advocating, and that's what Sir Ridesalot was defending with his claim that storms lower tree branches during the night and cyclists run into them with their heads.



Euro-standard headlamps do cast light above the road. I know you, like most of the other advocates of round flashlight-style beams, have never used a Euro-standard bike headlight. That's why you're buying the Scharf propaganda that _no_ light is thrown upward, and that terrible harm is likely when a tree branch bends down.



But you, Dan, have at least ridden a motorcycle. You've driven a car. The headlight beams on those vehicles are designed so most of the light goes on the road, but obviously some light goes upward. If it didn't, car headlights would appear dark from a 2nd story window.



Euro-standard bike headlights are similar. Most of the light goes onto the road, which makes eminently good sense. Some of the light goes upward. Users do NOT end up hitting their head on tree limbs.



A cyclist who shines bright lights in other road (or MUP) users' eyes to "protect" himself from this imaginary hazard is not very bright - so to speak.



- Frank Krygowski

*BULL **** Frank!*

You did so state, even if it was by insinuation, (which incidently seems to be your forte an modus operandi)that a bicyclist does not need a light that shows low hanging branches. Now the problem here is that most bicyclists who do ride in an area where there are low hanging branches know to ride with a decent light that has enough upward light to show those low hanging branches and thus they DON'T ride into them.

Low hanging branches, or broken branhes sticking out of trees are NOT A ****ING IMMAGINARY HAZARD to bicyclists who ride trails or rail-trails at night.

Also, you're the one who often takes a poster's comments and twists their meaning to imply that the poster is yelling DANGER! DANGER! when in fact it is your conclusion based on your erroneous interpretation that results in you being the DANGER! DANGER! crier.

Ditto.

No one here has advocated lights that blind other drivers. What has been
advocated is the following:

1) Lights the illuminate off to the sides and slightly upward so
overhead hazards, and street signs, can be illuminated.

2) Flashing LED lamps that have been scientifically proven to get
vehicle drivers' attention and prevent accidents.

There are lights available for both vehicles and bicycles that are
blindingly bright, but no one here has advocated using them. The one
that Peter White has sold, he has stopped selling (or at least has
stopped stocking).

The issue here is that Frank advocates extremely poor quality lighting
with the rationalization that good lighting is unnecessary, then he
states ludicrous reasons why this is the case, such as the idea that
panel trucks driving down a road will knock down any low branches so
there is no need for cyclists to be able to see them at night. He caps
it off with a proclamation that since he can find no news reports online
that show deaths or injuries by cyclists hitting branches that it must
be a non-existent issue.

What is the color of the sun is on his planet?

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 10:39:24 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 8:29 AM, Joe Riel wrote:

Dan O snip writes:

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/after_activists_install_quality_bike_lane_in_10_mi nutes_for_350_seattle_fol

Those look like crap bike lanes.

[door zone]

snip


Designated bike lanes to the left of street parking are not nearly as
much of an issue as when there is no bike lane and the cyclists is
expected to ride as far to the right as possible.

Well, motorist expectations aside, the requirement is as far right as
*practicable*, and the door zone is not at all practicable.

Well... it kind of *is*, which only makes matters worse, because people
who aren't aware of the door zone hazard (I guess there could be some),
or aren't aware that they don't have to do what they're told if it's
going to endanger them - these people might be drawn in to the door
zone by the bike lane, which makes that bike lane worse than none.

Bike lanes should be better conceived, and I wouldn't ride there, and
you wouldn't ride there, but it does go to show the support for
facilities.

On Wednesday, 31 July 2013 19:29:00 UTC+1, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 11:10 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:43:46 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:19:08 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:







You're changing the subject. No need for light above the road,



remember?







That's not at all what I said.







There is no need for a flashlight-style radially symmetric beam that casts so much light upward that it blinds other road users, remember? That's what Scharf is advocating, and that's what Sir Ridesalot was defending with his claim that storms lower tree branches during the night and cyclists run into them with their heads.







Euro-standard headlamps do cast light above the road. I know you, like most of the other advocates of round flashlight-style beams, have never used a Euro-standard bike headlight. That's why you're buying the Scharf propaganda that _no_ light is thrown upward, and that terrible harm is likely when a tree branch bends down.







But you, Dan, have at least ridden a motorcycle. You've driven a car. The headlight beams on those vehicles are designed so most of the light goes on the road, but obviously some light goes upward. If it didn't, car headlights would appear dark from a 2nd story window.







Euro-standard bike headlights are similar. Most of the light goes onto the road, which makes eminently good sense. Some of the light goes upward. Users do NOT end up hitting their head on tree limbs.







A cyclist who shines bright lights in other road (or MUP) users' eyes to "protect" himself from this imaginary hazard is not very bright - so to speak.







- Frank Krygowski



*BULL **** Frank!*



You did so state, even if it was by insinuation, (which incidently seems to be your forte an modus operandi)that a bicyclist does not need a light that shows low hanging branches. Now the problem here is that most bicyclists who do ride in an area where there are low hanging branches know to ride with a decent light that has enough upward light to show those low hanging branches and thus they DON'T ride into them.



Low hanging branches, or broken branhes sticking out of trees are NOT A ****ING IMMAGINARY HAZARD to bicyclists who ride trails or rail-trails at night.



Also, you're the one who often takes a poster's comments and twists their meaning to imply that the poster is yelling DANGER! DANGER! when in fact it is your conclusion based on your erroneous interpretation that results in you being the DANGER! DANGER! crier.



Ditto.



No one here has advocated lights that blind other drivers. What has been

advocated is the following:



1) Lights the illuminate off to the sides and slightly upward so

overhead hazards, and street signs, can be illuminated.



2) Flashing LED lamps that have been scientifically proven to get

vehicle drivers' attention and prevent accidents.

My experience cotrlling a motor car shows that high intensity white/green/blue flashing lights to be unsafe in that, when in my face, they mesmerize. My natural desire it to go towards the light.




There are lights available for both vehicles and bicycles that are

blindingly bright, but no one here has advocated using them. The one

that Peter White has sold, he has stopped selling (or at least has

stopped stocking).

Well at least some sellers may be bothered.




The issue here is that Frank advocates extremely poor quality lighting

with the rationalization that good lighting is unnecessary, then he

states ludicrous reasons why this is the case, such as the idea that

panel trucks driving down a road will knock down any low branches so

there is no need for cyclists to be able to see them at night. He caps

it off with a proclamation that since he can find no news reports online

that show deaths or injuries by cyclists hitting branches that it must

be a non-existent issue.



What is the color of the sun is on his planet?

On 07/31/2013 12:43 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:19:08 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:

You're changing the subject. No need for light above the road,
remember?

That's not at all what I said.

There is no need for a flashlight-style radially symmetric beam that
casts so much light upward that it blinds other road users, remember?
That's what Scharf is advocating, and that's what Sir Ridesalot was
defending with his claim that storms lower tree branches during the
night and cyclists run into them with their heads.

Euro-standard headlamps do cast light above the road. I know you,
like most of the other advocates of round flashlight-style beams,
have never used a Euro-standard bike headlight. That's why you're
buying the Scharf propaganda that _no_ light is thrown upward, and
that terrible harm is likely when a tree branch bends down.

But you, Dan, have at least ridden a motorcycle. You've driven a car.
The headlight beams on those vehicles are designed so most of the
light goes on the road, but obviously some light goes upward. If it
didn't, car headlights would appear dark from a 2nd story window.

Euro-standard bike headlights are similar. Most of the light goes
onto the road, which makes eminently good sense. Some of the light
goes upward. Users do NOT end up hitting their head on tree limbs.

A cyclist who shines bright lights in other road (or MUP) users' eyes
to "protect" himself from this imaginary hazard is not very bright -
so to speak.

- Frank Krygowski


Exactly... there's a time and place for flashlight-type beam patterns,
but it's off-road, or being used as a "high beam." The idea that there
is *no* stray light above horizontal with a typical German bicycle
headlight must originate from someone who's never used one... they're
quite adequate for typical on-road or in-traffic riding. The idea that
there will never be any low-hanging branches (or ivy, etc.) is kind of a
strawman; I personally haven't had any issue with same. I haven't
ridden as many miles as some who are reading this, but over the past few
years a great amount of it has been done at night, with only an IQ Cyo
(and a taillight of course) for light.

The idea that one has to blind oncoming traffic to be safe is kind of
silly...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 7/31/2013 12:56 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:

Exactly... there's a time and place for flashlight-type beam patterns,
but it's off-road, or being used as a "high beam."

The idea as to why the symmetrical beams are only required for off-road
riding is that in on-road riding the only requirements are to be able to
light up the road surface in front of the cyclist and for the cyclist to
make themselves visible to vehicles.

Peter White's site states: "When you're riding on a trail in the woods
with trees all around, it helps to have a large symmetrical beam, so
that you can see tree branches that might cross your trail at head
height. So for trail riding, a low beam isn't the safest. But on a road
with automobile traffic, low branches aren't going to be in your way,
and so light doesn't need to be focused above the road surface."

But White's statement that light doesn't need to be focused above the
road surface is demonstrably false. Branches and other obstacles are
quite likely to be in your way even in road riding. Besides branches,
it's often necessary to read overhead street signs which can be on a
pole at moderate height, or up above an intersection. Hence, a "low
beam" isn't the safest for road riding either.

The bottom line is that it's beneficial to have a symmetrical beam that
illuminates not only the road surface in front of you, but also off to
the sides and slightly upward. Whether it's a purpose-built bicycle
light or a flashlight in a bicycle mount is immaterial. The _only_
reason that lower power lights have a beam focused only on the road
surface is that the limited available light needs to be focused on the
road surface. If they tried to do a symmetrical beam with a low power
light it would be even more useless.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:47:35 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 12:56 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:



Exactly... there's a time and place for flashlight-type beam patterns,

but it's off-road, or being used as a "high beam."



The idea as to why the symmetrical beams are only required for off-road

riding is that in on-road riding the only requirements are to be able to

light up the road surface in front of the cyclist and for the cyclist to

make themselves visible to vehicles.



Peter White's site states: "When you're riding on a trail in the woods

with trees all around, it helps to have a large symmetrical beam, so

that you can see tree branches that might cross your trail at head

height. So for trail riding, a low beam isn't the safest. But on a road

with automobile traffic, low branches aren't going to be in your way,

and so light doesn't need to be focused above the road surface."



But White's statement that light doesn't need to be focused above the

road surface is demonstrably false. Branches and other obstacles are

quite likely to be in your way even in road riding. Besides branches,

it's often necessary to read overhead street signs which can be on a

pole at moderate height, or up above an intersection. Hence, a "low

beam" isn't the safest for road riding either.



The bottom line is that it's beneficial to have a symmetrical beam that

illuminates not only the road surface in front of you, but also off to

the sides and slightly upward. Whether it's a purpose-built bicycle

light or a flashlight in a bicycle mount is immaterial.


beneficial FOR YOU to light up a significant amount above horizontal. Rude to other road users and dangerous to them, bystanders, and yourself.

The _only_

reason that lower power lights have a beam focused only on the road

surface is that the limited available light needs to be focused on the

road surface. If they tried to do a symmetrical beam with a low power

light it would be even more useless.

No, not the only reason. You also don't want to be sharing the road with road users who are dazzled/blinded by your light.

nate

On 7/31/2013 4:16 PM, N8N wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:47:35 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 12:56 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:



Exactly... there's a time and place for flashlight-type beam patterns,

but it's off-road, or being used as a "high beam."



The idea as to why the symmetrical beams are only required for off-road

riding is that in on-road riding the only requirements are to be able to

light up the road surface in front of the cyclist and for the cyclist to

make themselves visible to vehicles.



Peter White's site states: "When you're riding on a trail in the woods

with trees all around, it helps to have a large symmetrical beam, so

that you can see tree branches that might cross your trail at head

height. So for trail riding, a low beam isn't the safest. But on a road

with automobile traffic, low branches aren't going to be in your way,

and so light doesn't need to be focused above the road surface."



But White's statement that light doesn't need to be focused above the

road surface is demonstrably false. Branches and other obstacles are

quite likely to be in your way even in road riding. Besides branches,

it's often necessary to read overhead street signs which can be on a

pole at moderate height, or up above an intersection. Hence, a "low

beam" isn't the safest for road riding either.



The bottom line is that it's beneficial to have a symmetrical beam that

illuminates not only the road surface in front of you, but also off to

the sides and slightly upward. Whether it's a purpose-built bicycle

light or a flashlight in a bicycle mount is immaterial.


beneficial FOR YOU to light up a significant amount above horizontal. Rude to other road users and dangerous to them, bystanders, and yourself.

No more rude than a vehicle's high beams. The difference is that a
vehicle doesn't have to worry about things like tree limbs, and they can
switch to high beams only when it's necessary to do things like light up
street signs.

A symmetrical beam bicycle light or flashlights should be aimed down a
few degrees off horizontal so the hot spot isn't shining directly into
driver's eyes. This is also the best position in terms of directing the
light far enough ahead of the bicycle, in not wasting light by
illuminating the sky.

No, not the only reason. You also don't want to be sharing the road with road users who are dazzled/blinded by your light.

You're incorrect. A 500 lumen light is not going to blind other road
users. When it's flashing they will see you and (usually) not do stupid
things in front of you.

The bottom line is that a properly aimed symmetrical beam is much more
useful and safe than a beam with two much cutoff at the top.

road photos...move to the left

http://www.suggest-a-fix.com/index.p...-breathtaking/


search Google Images for uh 'overhanging trees'

On 07/31/2013 09:51 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 4:16 PM, N8N wrote:
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:47:35 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 7/31/2013 12:56 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:



Exactly... there's a time and place for flashlight-type beam patterns,

but it's off-road, or being used as a "high beam."



The idea as to why the symmetrical beams are only required for off-road

riding is that in on-road riding the only requirements are to be able to

light up the road surface in front of the cyclist and for the cyclist to

make themselves visible to vehicles.



Peter White's site states: "When you're riding on a trail in the woods

with trees all around, it helps to have a large symmetrical beam, so

that you can see tree branches that might cross your trail at head

height. So for trail riding, a low beam isn't the safest. But on a road

with automobile traffic, low branches aren't going to be in your way,

and so light doesn't need to be focused above the road surface."



But White's statement that light doesn't need to be focused above the

road surface is demonstrably false. Branches and other obstacles are

quite likely to be in your way even in road riding. Besides branches,

it's often necessary to read overhead street signs which can be on a

pole at moderate height, or up above an intersection. Hence, a "low

beam" isn't the safest for road riding either.



The bottom line is that it's beneficial to have a symmetrical beam that

illuminates not only the road surface in front of you, but also off to

the sides and slightly upward. Whether it's a purpose-built bicycle

light or a flashlight in a bicycle mount is immaterial.


beneficial FOR YOU to light up a significant amount above horizontal.
Rude to other road users and dangerous to them, bystanders, and yourself.

No more rude than a vehicle's high beams.

Exactly. And when you encounter a vehicle using high beams in traffic,
you think "what a rude a-hole!" (besides from "ow, my eyes!")

The difference is that a
vehicle doesn't have to worry about things like tree limbs, and they can
switch to high beams only when it's necessary to do things like light up
street signs.

And so can you, if you have a proper bicycle light for road use, and
another super bright one for "high beam."


A symmetrical beam bicycle light or flashlights should be aimed down a
few degrees off horizontal so the hot spot isn't shining directly into
driver's eyes. This is also the best position in terms of directing the
light far enough ahead of the bicycle, in not wasting light by
illuminating the sky.

A symmetrical beam needs to be aimed down more than "a few degrees" to
not potentially cause glare.

No, not the only reason. You also don't want to be sharing the road
with road users who are dazzled/blinded by your light.

You're incorrect. A 500 lumen light is not going to blind other road
users. When it's flashing they will see you and (usually) not do stupid
things in front of you.

Bull****. I can blind you with a lot less than 500 lumens. And
flashing lights are just obnoxious. (and irrelevant, as apparently
you're capable of mounting only one light to a bicycle, so a flasher
isn't a very good idea if you're worried about seeing after dark, now is
it?)


The bottom line is that a properly aimed symmetrical beam is much more
useful and safe than a beam with two much cutoff at the top.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. But that's OK, keep wondering why
people think you're an asshole while you blind them with your inferior
lights.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 8/1/2013 5:58 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. But that's OK, keep wondering why
people think you're an asshole while you blind them with your inferior
lights.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong, and there's no
upside in that.