#11
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/15/2017 11:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2017 11:05 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:46:28 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 3/15/2017 7:39 PM, John B. wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/14/2017 11:15 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:09:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: But the point I was discussing was whether too brief or too dim standlights really kill or seriously injure _stationary_ bicyclists. I've never heard of such a case. I think it's yet another exaggerated danger. Bicycle lighting seems to be divided into "see where your going" and "be seen" parts. Standlights are in the "be seen" part. If so, then using a relatively narrow forward facing headlight is inadequate and a poor substitute for all around "be seen" type lighting. So far, no driver has tried to kill me while I'm stationary, but it's possible. To help prevent such a threat, I would need all around illumination because I don't know from what direction the driver might approach and I do NOT need to see where I'm going (because I'm not going anywhere). Some kind of flashing headband, flashing arm bands, or maybe downward facing flood lights to illuminate an area. Maybe an LED illuminated vest, which is now popular among highway workers: https://www.amazon.com/HIGH-VISIBILITY-VEST-COMPLIANT-REFLECTIVE/dp/B01L2US0EY https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP08L-Illuminated-Flashing-Feature/dp/B008WAE2XQ https://www.amazon.com/SE-EP07L-Flashing-Illuminated-Safety/dp/B004J663A2 I don't know which type of "be seen" lighting might be most effective, but any of the aformentioned would be better than a dim forward facing standlight. Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much stationary "be seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen" safety inflation mentality. We're facing the same mentality regarding our local forest preserve. Some people want to cut down every dead or dying tree within 100 feet of any trail because, well, it _could_ fall on somebody and kill them. Sheesh. I have worked in area where it is probable that no one has ever cut down a tree until we arrived and there never was a problem with dead or diseased trees falling down. One problem with cutting down trees that "could" fall down is that in a hurricane many perfectly healthy trees get blown down. Perhaps the cutting of all trees taller than the average human "could" lives. And, of course, banning the ownership of bicycles "could" save ~900 lives a year. A bicycle ban? How's that 100-year worldwide Heroin ban working? Works great! Allows a considerable number of common ordinary people to make a "decent" living. True the demand does seems to be decreasing but the widening the demand for amphetamines, which can be made at home rather than waiting for a crop to ripen and getting all bound up with buying futures and warehousing raw materials. As an aside, do you think anyone wants the "war on drugs" to be won? Examples: U.S. Coastguard budget (numbers adjusted to 2013 dollars): 1950 - $1,439,312,446 2013 - $ 7,051,054,000 The total DEA budget is difficult to ascertain but: The total budget of the DEA from 1972 to 2014, according to the agency website, was $50.6 billion. The agency had 11,055 employees in 2014. For the year 2014 the average cost per arrest made was $97,325. An estimate by The Cato Institute, in 2010, states that the legalizing of drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure. Or to put it a different way, The War on Drugs is costing the U.S. an estimated $41.3 billion dollars a year. Do you think that anyone wants all that lovely lolly to disappear? To make a sort of meta-point: People often claim that the discussions here are worthless. In particular, because nobody here ever changes their mind. But it's partly because of information I've gotten here (corroborated elsewhere) that I now believe most drugs should be legalized. I think the U.S. should more or less follow the Portugal strategy, with perhaps some minor modifications. No one analyzed this subject better than the genius Ludwig von Mises: “Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments... Why limit the government’s benevolent providence to the protection of the individual’s body only?” Mises asks. “Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music?” and further: “He who wants to reform his countrymen must take recourse to persuasion. This alone is the democratic way of bringing about changes. If a man fails in his endeavors to convince other people of the soundness of his ideas,” Mises concludes, “he should blame his own disabilities. He should not ask for a law, that is, for compulsion and coercion by the police.” Which of course brings us right down to 2017. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dynamo Lights viz Battery Lights in snow qand slush? | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 6 | March 4th 15 11:36 PM |
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights. | Mrcheerful | UK | 153 | November 4th 14 10:19 AM |
Maybe it's safer to run red lights than to wait for green lights. | SMS | General | 16 | September 24th 08 09:51 PM |
Light Theft (solutions — small pocket lights, or heavy duty well secured lights?) | David Johnson | UK | 24 | August 29th 07 02:32 PM |
Break lights turn lights and handle bar lights | Truepurple | Techniques | 30 | November 17th 03 05:02 AM |