Handlebar bottleholder, in-flight failure, fix

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they object
to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they add safety.
Rsearchers and safety engineers knows this since decades, else there
wouldn't be mandatory daytime lights for motorcycles in the US or for
all motor vehicles in some other countries. I do not advocate making it
mandatory on bicycles but I firmly believe it adds to the safety of
their rides. Same with helmets. Heck, the (very few) riders out here not
wearing one aren't risking my head, it's theirs.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

SHEESH! You keep saying that DRLs are need in order to ride s bicycle safely even off road.

Cheers

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:45:02 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they object
to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they add safety.
Rsearchers and safety engineers knows this since decades, else there
wouldn't be mandatory daytime lights for motorcycles in the US or for
all motor vehicles in some other countries. I do not advocate making it
mandatory on bicycles but I firmly believe it adds to the safety of
their rides. Same with helmets. Heck, the (very few) riders out here not
wearing one aren't risking my head, it's theirs.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

SHEESH! You keep saying that DRLs are need in order to ride s bicycle safely even off road.

Cheers

We in Portland ride with protective lion cages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpB0kzn9drM

-- Jay Beattie.

On 31/07/15 23:41, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-30 7:51 PM, James wrote:
On 31/07/15 00:21, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-29 7:18 PM, James wrote:
On 30/07/15 00:12, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-29 4:55 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:

What about the motorist who just sees a bright light, and assumes
that
it is a cyclist moving at between 5 and 10 mph (as motorists know we
all do) even though it's downhill? Then discovers far too late that
you are doing 25mph and a collision becomes inevitable.


That can happen when the novelty wears off due to lots of cyclists
having similar front lights. But most cyclists out here are like
Frank,
having no light at all. Others have wimpy little blinkers. So that
wear-off won't likely happen before I am riding the eternal trails.


Frank often writes of his dynamo powered bicycle lights. I suspect
lights are "standard equipment" on his bicycles.

Thus, your proclamation that "most cyclists out here are like Frank,
having no light at all." is untrue.


If he keeps his light on during the day. From what he write I do not
have that impression.


You didn't mention the lights had to be turned on.


Lights that aren't turned on are rather useless.


My lights are not turned on most of the time, but that does not mean
they are useless. On the contrary, they are exceedingly useful during
times of poor visibility.

--
JS

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they object
to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they add safety.
Rsearchers and safety engineers knows this since decades, else there
wouldn't be mandatory daytime lights for motorcycles in the US or for
all motor vehicles in some other countries. I do not advocate making it
mandatory on bicycles but I firmly believe it adds to the safety of
their rides. Same with helmets. Heck, the (very few) riders out here not
wearing one aren't risking my head, it's theirs.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

SHEESH! You keep saying that DRLs are need in order to ride s bicycle safely even off road.

Cheers

The problem is not that Joerg uses DRL and thinks they are necessary for
him to be save on his roads, but the fact that he keeps and keeps whining
about them and all the other safety and equipment reliability stuff.
Man.... He makes a simple bracket for his waterbottle holder, no big deal,
and a couple of hundred posts follow. Do you guys ever ride bike?

--
Lou

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 2:40:09 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they object
to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they add safety.
Rsearchers and safety engineers knows this since decades, else there
wouldn't be mandatory daytime lights for motorcycles in the US or for
all motor vehicles in some other countries. I do not advocate making it
mandatory on bicycles but I firmly believe it adds to the safety of
their rides. Same with helmets. Heck, the (very few) riders out here not
wearing one aren't risking my head, it's theirs.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

SHEESH! You keep saying that DRLs are need in order to ride s bicycle safely even off road.

Cheers

The problem is not that Joerg uses DRL and thinks they are necessary for
him to be save on his roads, but the fact that he keeps and keeps whining
about them and all the other safety and equipment reliability stuff.
Man.... He makes a simple bracket for his waterbottle holder, no big deal,
and a couple of hundred posts follow. Do you guys ever ride bike?

No. It's too hot. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...tland_hea.html

We're tender little flowers her in PDX and not used to the oppressive heat. My house doesn't have AC! I'm going to have to hang out at the Mexican restaurant tonight and drink Margaritas -- (de)hydrate for a ride tomorrow.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/31/2015 10:19 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/29/2015 8:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:57:32 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:48:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/28/2015 10:22 AM, Joerg wrote:


Ever tried taking off after the stop in front of a cop doing a wheelie?

No, I never did. And why would a person do that? It seems as sensible
as yelling "Hey, pig!" when passing a cop.

People forget that according to Orwell the pigs won :-)

"Hey, Pig!" is just needlessly confrontational. One time honored
alternative is the lilting "I smell baaacon".

Strange that while it seems as though it might be good manners to
insult a police officer it is apparent that if the Officer returns the
insult it is grounds for loud screams of oppression.

... and any imperfection in the actions of an officer justifies the
perp walking free.

Like that poor, misunderstood hero in Ohio?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...lish/30830777/

Nope. That's far different than "any imperfection."


"The police officer mispronounced 'Miranda.' Therefore I move to
dismiss the case against my client."

Watching police shows on tv?

Here's one that really happened:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-to-fix.shtml

A Mass state chemist dry labs drug tests for years, but is eventually
caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But what do you suppose happens to
the thousands of people wrongfully convicted based on bogus evidence?
They're still in prison, because it's too much trouble for the state to
figure out who they are.

Bogus evidence is one thing. That's deliberate falsification by cops;
and I've never said all cops are angels.

I was referring to a different thing entirely: to situations where the
defendant is clearly guilty of a serious crime, but it set free
because of some verbal or clerical error by cops or others. Google
"overturned on technicality" for some examples.

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.co...lity%E2%80%9D/

The killer pleaded guilty. But apparently they didn't make sure that
he knew that if he plead guilty, the court would think that he was
actually guilty. OK, so turn him loose.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...verturned.html
She killed someone, wrapped the corpse in a comforter and hid it under
a motel bed. They mistakenly convicted her of 2nd degree murder, but
she'd only been charged with first degree murder. OK, never mind
about that corpse; send her home.

So you're not one to agree that it's better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent one suffer? Against that prohibition on double
jeopardy in the US Bill of Rights?

When someone is said to get off on a legal technicality, what is meant
is that either the police, or the prosecution, or the court did not
*follow the law*, which is chock-full of technicalities to trip the
rest of us up.

Prosecutors and judges are more fortunate, they enjoy absolute immunity
for their official acts. Police, unless they do something really
egregious, enjoy qualified immunity. Which means that there really
isn't much of a lever to make any of them follow the bloody rules, aside
from handing them an occasional loss by disqualification.

Winning a criminal case, even for someone wrongly accused, is already
expensive, attention consuming and uncertain enough. Letting the
government do it over until the right verdict obtains is not a fit
solution for anything.

--

On 2015-07-31 3:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 2:40:09 PM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they
object to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order
to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they
add safety. Rsearchers and safety engineers knows this since
decades, else there wouldn't be mandatory daytime lights for
motorcycles in the US or for all motor vehicles in some other
countries. I do not advocate making it mandatory on bicycles
but I firmly believe it adds to the safety of their rides. Same
with helmets. Heck, the (very few) riders out here not wearing
one aren't risking my head, it's theirs.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

SHEESH! You keep saying that DRLs are need in order to ride s
bicycle safely even off road.


On some trails they do.


Cheers

The problem is not that Joerg uses DRL and thinks they are
necessary for him to be save on his roads, but the fact that he
keeps and keeps whining about them and all the other safety and
equipment reliability stuff. Man.... He makes a simple bracket for
his waterbottle holder, no big deal, and a couple of hundred posts
follow. Do you guys ever ride bike?

No. It's too hot.
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...tland_hea.html


Anything that does not instantly kill you makes you tough. Said our
drill sergeant.


We're tender little flowers her in PDX and not used to the
oppressive heat. My house doesn't have AC! I'm going to have to hang
out at the Mexican restaurant tonight and drink Margaritas --
(de)hydrate for a ride tomorrow.


We Californians are used to the heat. I just came back. Had to get some
parts for a prototype down towards the valley and used that as an excuse
for a 46mi ride. Including a brewsky he

http://relishburgerbar.com/wp-conten...background.jpg

Outdoor bar, road bike parked right next to my bar stool. I was the only
one. The bar keeper said it's too hot and everybody moved inside. Wusses
.... :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:13:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/31/2015 9:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-07-30 5:49 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

FWIW, people here don't care if you ride with DLRs. What they object
to is being told that EVERYONE MUST USE DRLs in order to be safe.


Who ever said that in this NG?

IIRC, Stephen M. Scharf came as close as possible, saying that
bicyclists who didn't use them were being foolish.

I will keep the lights lit on my bike on because I know they add safety.

More accurately, you firmly _believe_ they add safety. I've had zero
car-bike crashes in over 40 years of riding, so I disagree; had I used
your light setup for 40+ years, it couldn't have prevented even one crash.

Not that I expect that to alter your True Belief, any more than it would
change the mind of a True Believer carrying a lucky rabbit's foot.

Besides, all sorts of things "add safety." Vermont Bicycle Touring used
to attach six-foot-tall flags to each client's bicycle. They gave up
the practice after many years, even though it's "obvious" the flags "add
safety." Despite the possibility of lawsuits, their attitude was, in
the end, less simplistic than yours.

I suspect that the answer may well not be Flashing Lights. Or at least
not simply "flashing lights".

There has been considerable published research done on the color,
frequency and intensity of flashing lights as warning devices and it
is likely that a Chinese LED light does not meet even the lowest
standard for a warning device. One study , for example, demonstrates
that at common highway speeds a warning light must be bright enough,
not to simply be seen, but bright enough to attract attention, at 400
metres.

But an even more revealing factor is that, in California the most
dangerous problem with bicycle - auto crashes is the vehicle operator.

A published California Highway Patrol study of road accidents in
California illustrates the fundamental problem.

In 2012, in Los Angeles County, there were a total of 5090 bicycle -
auto collisions reported. Of these there were some 453, or about 8% of
the total in which the cause of the accident either could not defined
or was caused by extenuating circumstances. Of the remaining 4,637
accidents some 2,759 were determined to have been caused by the
bicycle and 1,878 were caused by the auto.

In other words, this study showed that nearly 2/3rds of bicycle - auto
collisions were caused by the cyclist while about 1/3rd were caused by
the automobile operator.

The California study also seems to be reinforced by data from a study
in New York that showed that 7% of bicycle accidents were on limited
access highways where bicycles were prohibited and of the remaining
some 40% were the sole cause of the cyclist while only 20% were the
sole cause of the auto.

Rather than flashing lights the determining factor in bicycle safety
appears to be the cyclist. Those who ride sensibly, obeying traffic
laws, apparently have few occasions when they are in danger on the
roads.

As Pogo said, We have sighted the enemy and he is us.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:19:48 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/29/2015 8:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:57:32 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:48:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/28/2015 10:22 AM, Joerg wrote:


Ever tried taking off after the stop in front of a cop doing a wheelie?

No, I never did. And why would a person do that? It seems as sensible
as yelling "Hey, pig!" when passing a cop.

People forget that according to Orwell the pigs won :-)

"Hey, Pig!" is just needlessly confrontational. One time honored
alternative is the lilting "I smell baaacon".

Strange that while it seems as though it might be good manners to
insult a police officer it is apparent that if the Officer returns the
insult it is grounds for loud screams of oppression.

... and any imperfection in the actions of an officer justifies the
perp walking free.

Like that poor, misunderstood hero in Ohio?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...lish/30830777/

He was just trying to keep us safe from the kind of lawless vermin that
would drive around without a front license plate, then boom, murder
charge. The world turned upside down.

"The police officer mispronounced 'Miranda.' Therefore I move to
dismiss the case against my client."

Watching police shows on tv?

Here's one that really happened:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-to-fix.shtml

A Mass state chemist dry labs drug tests for years, but is eventually
caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But what do you suppose happens to
the thousands of people wrongfully convicted based on bogus evidence?
They're still in prison, because it's too much trouble for the state to
figure out who they are.

Certainly you are correct. Think of the millions in prisons today.
Convicted by false evidence. Pitiful!
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 19:07:18 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/31/2015 10:19 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 7/29/2015 8:35 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 11:57:32 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:48:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/28/2015 10:22 AM, Joerg wrote:


Ever tried taking off after the stop in front of a cop doing a wheelie?

No, I never did. And why would a person do that? It seems as sensible
as yelling "Hey, pig!" when passing a cop.

People forget that according to Orwell the pigs won :-)

"Hey, Pig!" is just needlessly confrontational. One time honored
alternative is the lilting "I smell baaacon".

Strange that while it seems as though it might be good manners to
insult a police officer it is apparent that if the Officer returns the
insult it is grounds for loud screams of oppression.

... and any imperfection in the actions of an officer justifies the
perp walking free.

Like that poor, misunderstood hero in Ohio?

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...lish/30830777/

Nope. That's far different than "any imperfection."


"The police officer mispronounced 'Miranda.' Therefore I move to
dismiss the case against my client."

Watching police shows on tv?

Here's one that really happened:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...g-to-fix.shtml

A Mass state chemist dry labs drug tests for years, but is eventually
caught, convicted, and imprisoned. But what do you suppose happens to
the thousands of people wrongfully convicted based on bogus evidence?
They're still in prison, because it's too much trouble for the state to
figure out who they are.

Bogus evidence is one thing. That's deliberate falsification by cops;
and I've never said all cops are angels.

I was referring to a different thing entirely: to situations where the
defendant is clearly guilty of a serious crime, but it set free
because of some verbal or clerical error by cops or others. Google
"overturned on technicality" for some examples.

http://www.mygeorgiadefenselawyer.co...lity%E2%80%9D/

The killer pleaded guilty. But apparently they didn't make sure that
he knew that if he plead guilty, the court would think that he was
actually guilty. OK, so turn him loose.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...verturned.html
She killed someone, wrapped the corpse in a comforter and hid it under
a motel bed. They mistakenly convicted her of 2nd degree murder, but
she'd only been charged with first degree murder. OK, never mind
about that corpse; send her home.

So you're not one to agree that it's better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent one suffer? Against that prohibition on double
jeopardy in the US Bill of Rights?

When someone is said to get off on a legal technicality, what is meant
is that either the police, or the prosecution, or the court did not
*follow the law*, which is chock-full of technicalities to trip the
rest of us up.

Prosecutors and judges are more fortunate, they enjoy absolute immunity
for their official acts. Police, unless they do something really
egregious, enjoy qualified immunity. Which means that there really
isn't much of a lever to make any of them follow the bloody rules, aside
from handing them an occasional loss by disqualification.

Winning a criminal case, even for someone wrongly accused, is already
expensive, attention consuming and uncertain enough. Letting the
government do it over until the right verdict obtains is not a fit
solution for anything.

It is obvious that from your evidence that the major cause all the
problems is the police.

Perhaps the answer if to just disband the law enforcement agencies.
Justice can then be served by the people.
--
cheers,

John B.