Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 06:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:13:56 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.


Gee, I grew up in New England and I don't remember any secondary roads
that were cow paths or even logging roads :-)

I doubt that you would remember them as such, unless you have a memory that predates your existence.

Tell me more about the cow paths that grew into roads and highways? I
really can't imagine why in the world anyone would want to have a road
from the South Pasture to the back of the barn. As for logging roads,
well that were usually sort of single ended. From the paved road to
somewhere up in the woods. Maybe well enough to drive a few yards off
the highway if you wanted to "have it off" with your girlfriend in
the back seat but hardly a means to get anywhere.

As for memory, well one can recount things that they saw with their
own eyes with a certain amount of veracity. But perhaps I should have
specified that my memory also included things that were told to me by
others. My maternal grandfather was born in 1875 and I would assume
that by the time he was ten he probably was reasonably alert and in
later years he made his fortune in the lumber business and he never
told any stories about logging roads and cow paths turning into roads.
So we are back to, say, 1885.

No, I think that you exaggerate :-)


Quite the apposite and
some of the roads must have dated back to the late 1700's for sure
(the town was chartered in 1761). In fact we lived on a dirt,
secondary road, and there wasn't any low branches and overhanging
vegetation. Big tall maple and elm trees, yes, but no bushes.
http://www.happyvermont.com/2015/10/...ds-to-explore/
Although the road pictured is actually in the next state it is typical
of the "secondary" roads I grew up on. Note the lack of overhanging
branches.

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.

I wouldn't argue that where you go there are overhanging limbs and
bushes. Mostly I'm arguing that New England roads did not evolve from
cow paths and logging roads, although I will admit that saying so does
add a bit of color to one's otherwise rather drab tales.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.

How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?

It's one of the most common mistakes in the language of argument, it's
the "Wishful thinking fallacy" a statement made according to what might
be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Frank took it a step further and offered an explanation as to why others
could not possibly have experienced this situation--the "Tree Branch
Knocker-Downer Trucks" that provide a free service to municipalities by
eliminating the need to spend public funds on tree trimming. If only it
were true.

I managed to find two examples of these incredible trucks at work:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/photos+truck+hits+tree+vancouver+neighbourhood/11741170/story.html.
Unfortunately it knocked down the whole tree, proving that judicious
tree trimming is probably a better option that tall trucks.

https://poststar.com/news/local/truck-hits-tree-tree-wins/article_6672c3bb-387a-5389-a4c7-1c214c105e97.html
proves that sometimes the tree wins when a truck tries to remove
low-hanging branches.

But the reality is that trucks try to steer clear of low hanging
branches, as do cyclists. That's why it's important to be able to see
these branches.

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:44:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 7:32 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 6:04 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

snip

All I can tell you john, is that avoiding low branches and bushes is a daily occurrence on my rides. Like frank, just because it isn't your experience doesn't mean it's no one's experience.

How many times have you seen a post on Usenet, or other forum, where the
poster proclaims that something couldn't possibly exist because they
haven't personally experienced it and dismiss the possibility that
others that have experienced it must be lying?


+1

Thank you.

There are non-snarky ways for people to discuss their own personal
preferences and experiences in their own locales. Not all equipment is
necessary or relevant everywhere in the world.

Explaining why you use, or do not use, certain equipment, without
insisting that everyone must do what you do, is a more effective
technique to get your point across.

Ah yes, and I remember the chap that used to argue vehemently that
cheap Chinese flashlights were a proper bicycle lamp, and still argues
that it is impossible to drill two holes in thin wall tubing without a
fully equipped machine shop...

As the Good Book has it, " first cast out the beam out of thine own
eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye."
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:08:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 9:18 AM, wrote:

snip

Oh, and a tree branch doesn't have to be 80mm diameter to be
a problem. Even something smallish in the face while riding
is a safety hazard. I'm not generally much excited about
safety but really anything that smacks a rider in the face
presents some unwanted aftermath scenarios. I've listened to
enough riders to believe them.

You've conflated this with putative urban killer trees in
traffic lanes, which is ridiculous and unrelated.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs. That the reason he getting on the nerves of some of us including me.

Lou

As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a safety
hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.


If what you say is even remotely true why aren't you recommending face
shields, after all they are quite common on motorcycle helmets and
would totally eliminate yet another danger to the bicycle rider.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.

Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my
commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These
were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on
another bike.

I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or
both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the
taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it
on and off.

Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that
experimenting. I judged the problem solved.

But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets
clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.

Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my
commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These
were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on
another bike.

I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or
both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the
taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it
on and off.

Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that
experimenting. I judged the problem solved.

But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets
clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment.

Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light that one
could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam, low beam,
beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out for the branch
beam. The mind boggles.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:05:47 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:08:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/1
As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a safety
hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.


If what you say is even remotely true why aren't you recommending face
shields, after all they are quite common on motorcycle helmets and would
totally eliminate yet another danger to the bicycle rider.

But then your increasing the heat danger from the lack of cooling breeze.
Although, my chain saw helmet has a mesh screen rather than the usual
clear polycarbonate.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:44:56 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:05:47 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:08:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/1
As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a safety
hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.


If what you say is even remotely true why aren't you recommending face
shields, after all they are quite common on motorcycle helmets and would
totally eliminate yet another danger to the bicycle rider.

But then your increasing the heat danger from the lack of cooling breeze.
Although, my chain saw helmet has a mesh screen rather than the usual
clear polycarbonate.

A "chain saw helmet"? I understand the face shield, but the helmet?
Maybe cut down a tree and it falls on your head?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/14/2019 7:48 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.

I did see one high/low beam bicycle light on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07THHGTHS.

It's reviewed he
https://road.cc/content/review/267368-ravemen-pr1600-front-light.

Manufacturer site: https://www.ravemen.com/product/PR1600.html.

First light I've seen with USB-C charging.

Jay: please buy this and report back.

On 10/14/2019 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

If what you say is even remotely true why aren't you recommending face
shields, after all they are quite common on motorcycle helmets and
would totally eliminate yet another danger to the bicycle rider.

I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger" philosophy that we
see one person incessantly repeating. Bicycling is not that dangerous!

Being able to see obstacles, even at night, is a sufficient and logical
precaution to take.

If you think you need a face shield then I suggest that you look into
this: https://www.coolthings.com/vizorx-bike-helmet-face-shield/: "A
full-face shield that attaches to any bike helmet, it gives cyclists a
convenient solution to keeping the chilly winds out of your face. Even
better, the stiff shield will protect your face from any debris,
ensuring both a safe and comfortable ride." Presumably this will
eliminate the need to see any debris coming straight at your face.