visibility of DRL

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:49:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Cheers

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road who walk the highway into town and back each day. They wear yellow vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road. They also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing traffic that is closest to them. Seems kind of like common sense to me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+ mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you into the dash, windshield, side door, etc. Or eject you from the car. If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village wear seatbelts? The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect. But as you know, the law does not work that way. Just like bike helmets, helmets do work in some/most situations. Not all of course. So we require by law that helmets are worn all the time.

Actually, we don't require bike helmets to be worn all the time. At
least not for adults in this country, except for a very few cities where
those laws are largely ignored. There are more states where helmets are
required for kids of certain ages, but those laws too are largely ignored.

And again, this is how safety inflation happens. "It might help _some_
time!!!" so "safety" nazis say it's unreasonable to _ever_ omit it.

What puzzles me is the lack of, say, stepladder helmet promotion. Or
pedestrian helmet promotion. Why on earth are those dangerous activities
absolved of helmet requirements?

One of the "selling" points of the three point safety belt wasn't that
it was a better constraint, which it was/is, but that it was easier to
use.

I find it interesting that a safety device can be promoted, not by it
being safer, but by it being easier to use.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 16:51:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 4:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing
high-visibility* workmens' vests complete with the multiple
reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing
is getting into everything.

Cheers

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road
who walk the highway into town and back each day.* They wear yellow
vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road.* They
also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing
traffic that is closest to them.* Seems kind of like common sense to
me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+
mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you
into the dash, windshield, side door, etc.* Or eject you from the
car.* If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then
WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village
wear seatbelts?* The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts
when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher
and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect.* But as
you know, the law does not work that way.* Just like bike helmets,
helmets do work in some/most situations.* Not all of course.* So we
require by law that helmets are worn all the time.

Actually, we don't require bike helmets to be worn all the time. At
least not for adults in this country, except for a very few cities where
those laws are largely ignored. There are more states where helmets are
required for kids of certain ages, but those laws too are largely ignored.

And again, this is how safety inflation happens. "It might help _some_
time!!!" so "safety" nazis say it's unreasonable to _ever_ omit it.

What puzzles me is the lack of, say, stepladder helmet promotion. Or
pedestrian helmet promotion. Why on earth are those dangerous activities
absolved of helmet requirements?

Oh, and what about this guy? No helmet!!!

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...rk-el-capitan/

I doubt that from 3.000 ft. a helmet is going to be of much help if
you fall :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:00:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 3:44 AM, wrote:

As for politics: If only your state was Democrat then I guess that
motorcyclists would be able to wear helmets?

It does seem to be true that it's invariably Democrats who push
mandatory helmet laws.

But to John's question: There is no jurisdiction, AFAIK, that forbids
helmets. Motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists are all free
to wear helmets if they choose.

I was really responding to the O.P.'s statement that "my state is
controlled by Republicans" and seemed to be alluding to that as a
reason that there was no helmet law.

Some people portray the helmeteers and the helmet skeptics as being
mirror images, so to speak. But only the helmeteers try to use the laws
to force their opinions on others.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/5/2019 5:55 PM, wrote:

I see some small (100 - 125cc) motorcycles that are everywhere here
are now equipped with turn signals and some riders even use them.

Whoa! I think all cars and trucks here come with turn signals, but few
seem to use them.

When I see a car with its turn signal blinking, I tell my wife "Look!
He's a European!"

I say the same thing when I see someone walking.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 14:07:13 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 3:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in the
street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a male
toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby
seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the
gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem
seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.

For some "Danger! Danger!" people, it's not enough to be clearly
visible. They're not satisfied unless they are absolutely the most
noticeable people on the street, visible from a mile away.

What's next? Several of these per bike, with lights fastened to the top?

https://www.amazon.com/Safety-Flags-...=fsclp_pl_dp_2


--
- Frank Krygowski

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility
workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems
to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

I admit to owning one of those. I have worn it walking during
snowstorms, to make it less likely to be run over by a plow guy low on
sleep or some person making an emergency run to the packie*.

I have also worn it, when cycling, over a nonreflective winter coat,
when none of my cycling jackets was warm enough. If it's dark and
wintry I want to be visible.

On the other hand, I agree that wearing one on a quiet street, on a nice
night (or broad day), is a bit over the top.


I think that anything that provides more visibility of the individual
is "better". I once posted about the cyclist I saw wearing orange knee
socks that I could see going up and down almost a kilometer away.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 11:50:30 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-04-04 18:18, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 12:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of
daytime running lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo,
which I leave on all the time, because I can't tell the
difference if it's on or off. I found myself on google
street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed by the
car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind,
over several blocks. This one gives a good view of the
headlight. It's more visible than I'd have expected. This
was about an hour before dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind
you in the street view and it seems you need a better rear
light. And as a male toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting
in that rose-colored baby seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the
gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem
seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.


Next to the red car behind it, less visible:

https://goo.gl/maps/dNQBiRm4z672

I am not talking about you or me seeing him. I am talking about
the slightly soused dude who is keeping an eye on his smart phone.

What about the moth effect!
https://www.poconorecord.com/article...NEWS/207150316 What if
the soused dude who is keeping an eye on his smart phone has a
seizure induced by the flasher! What if he is so distracted, he
wouldn't notice the second coming -- let alone a retina burning
blinky! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!


Especially at night I had neighbors who passed me later say "Man, from
the distance I thought it was a cop so I tried to be on my best
behavior". Objective accomplished.

Interesting as I thought that cops in California had flashing blue
lights?
--
cheers,

John B.

wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:31:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:32:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In Ontario Canada bicyclist are supposed to have at night working front
light a reed rear light or reflector, reflectors on the front and rear
wheels, reflective tape on the front forks and rear seat stays and also a
working horn or bell. That's the LAW here. Yet most bicyclists I see have
none of those at night. The odd one will have front light that's hardly
discernible even without other traffic. Fortunately very few bicyclists
hereabouts have bought into the ultra-bright lights camp.

Cheers


If you cross into Quebec you need a full set of reflectors in the daytime
and a white front light and red rear light at night. Rear reflector isnÂ’t
enough at night and lights donÂ’t replace reflectors during the day.

Tickets are up to 400 bucks without them and not rare.

Out of curiosity have bike collisions decreased and if so is it a
result of the lights or a result of the $400 fines which likely tend
to make bicycles ride in a more law abiding manner?
--
cheers,

John B.



Are you asking me if reflectors in daylight have decreased collisions? I
don’t know but I doubt it. I have them because they’re mandated but I have
seen no difference. I haven’t seen any stats.

As far as lights at night, I see less stealth cyclist than before so that’s
probably due to the fines. I have no idea if that helps reduce collisions
but I imagine it does. Again, I haven’t seen any stats.

My point was that if Sir Ridesalot crosses into Quebec at night with a rear
reflector and not a rear light he risks a ticket.

--
duane

On 4/5/2019 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:14:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 1:28 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

"Commodity for marketing" is precisely correct.

I've probably mentioned the book _Risk_ by Dan Gardner. It's largely
about the psychology of risk in the modern world. One of his major
points is that fear mongering helps profits. Newspaper headlines,
nightly news preview clips, etc. often spotlight horrors or potential
horrors because people reflexively want to learn more about any danger.
Gardner explains that the reflex is built into our brains.

Of course, companies like Trek are happy to market using fear to sell
lights. Bell and Giro are happy to use fear to sell helmets. Countless
bike companies are happy to use fear to sell disc brakes. People for
Bikes, Streetsblog etc. are happy to use fear to sell "protected" bike
lanes, as agents for Alta Planning and similar consulting firms.

Much of the above selling is done not directly by the companies
themselves, but by their agents - do-gooder institutes, compliant
magazine editors, academics desperate for publications, etc.

Not to mention freelance hand wringers posting here and talking to their
friends...


Generally, that was my point that, for whatever reason, Americans seem
to, at least from what I read on the Internet, live in a world of
fear. I read that kids can't walk to school, "because it isn't safe",
that riding bicycles is not safe although statistically it is, based
on numbers of drivers/riders and number of deaths , safer then driving
a car, and on and on, "It's not safe".

Or perhaps the ancestors were just a much braver generation. Think of
it. Your ancestors left their home country and travelled on a small
boat as much as three months, and landed in a country where they had
nothing and didn't even speak the same language as the inhabitants,
who looked down on them as "foreigners".

Oh, I've thought about that a lot!



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 15:31:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2019 2:50 PM, Joerg wrote:


Especially at night I had neighbors who passed me later say "Man, from
the distance I thought it was a cop so I tried to be on my best
behavior". Objective accomplished.

Similarly, I've had multiple people comment on how good my lights were.
On my nighttime route home from work, there were two different instances
where a motorist and a motorcyclist spontaneously complimented my lights
as we sat at a red light, saying they could see my lights "from way back
there." I've had pedestrians shout "nice lights" when I rode by. I had a
co-worker on a committee remark about seeing my "space-shipey" lights
when I rode by her house. I had a colleague from work stop me after he
drove by to ask "What's that super bright light down by your rear axle?"
(It was a reflector.)

I've had many motorists wait inordinately long for me to pass before
either making left turns across my path, or pulling out from stop signs
to my right. In all those cases, at least three cars would have had time
to make the same maneuver before I got to the intersection.

All the above is with lights that were powered by a 3 Watt dynamo,
and/or very ordinary reflectors. In almost all cases, the lights weren't
even LED. They were halogen bulbs.

A post rather reminiscent of Jorge and his story of how his bright
lights prevented motorists pulling out of parking into his path.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 12:03:31 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2019-04-04 17:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 6:01 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 12:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime
running lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave
on all the time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on
or off. I found myself on google street view on my ride home
last fall. I got passed by the car, and then passed it, and got
passed again. So I, and the bike, are in a bunch of pictures,
from the front and behind, over several blocks. This one gives a
good view of the headlight. It's more visible than I'd have
expected. This was about an hour before dark, and overcast
November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in
the street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a
male toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that
rose-colored baby seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the gray
Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem seeing him
if I were in a car or on a bike.


Next to the red car behind it, less visible:

https://goo.gl/maps/dNQBiRm4z672

Yes, because he chose a red jacket. If he chose yellow, he'd be better
off with the red car as background.

But then he might come upon a yellow car. Perhaps he should use green?

The obvious solution is to carry a full wardrobe of various colors and
quickly change jackets depending on traffic conditions.


No, just lights of motorcycle-grade brightness. Good enough.


Much more seriously: "less visible" than some theoretical maximum is not
necessarily a problem. A cyclist needs to be visible _enough_. And
despite the currently fashionable fear mongering, that does not require
any technology that wasn't common 20 years ago.

Good grief, Joerg, how did you survive riding 20 years ago??


Simple. Automotive technology is and was most of the time decades ahead
of bicycle technology, and so was I. Even 30+ years ago my bicycles had
a real electrical system including a rechargeable battery. At first a
small lead-acid battery, kind of heavy. Then NiCd and now LiIon. I
skipped the NiMH era. While my road bike still has the dynamo that used
to keep batteries charged I no longer use that dynamo. The LiIon pack is
good enough for 4h rides with the ship fully lit and I don't need DRL on
bike paths which, of course, I prefer. Meaning I can ride all day and
re-charge at home.

Why not go all the way and mount the radio and air conditioner. Think
of the luxury.

A cop in Germany wanted to give me a ticket for "non-StVZO compliant
lights". Unfortunately for him I was able to prove foreign residency so
he had to let me _and_ the bright lights go.

Next upgrade, some day, is a 8V - 5V switchmode converter so I can plug
in USB stuff. Turns out my bike's MP3 player which has its own battery
only lasts 2h and then it would last all day. If another rider's cell
phone runs out of juice I could help them out as well.

It may take another 10-20 years until the bicyle industry figures this
out. Or maybe never.

Why in God's world would one want an MP3 player on a bicycle? Or a
cell phone that runs out of juice. If one wants to listen to music an
jabber on the telephone just stay at home enthroned on the sofa in the
"Front Room" with the TV on.
--
cheers,

John B.