A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IQ-X vs Edelux II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old April 19th 19, 11:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:56:27 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/19/2019 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the
Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists.
Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about
2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in
those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo
accidents.

The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets
attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light
mounted on the hub bolts.

Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even
solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the
fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one
ride differently.


Indeed. On the desk in front of me, I have a very similar study on
bicyclist conspicuity: Lahrmann, et. al. "The effect of a yellow bicycle
jacket on cyclist accidents," Safety Science v. 108 pp. 209-217. They
compared a 3402 riders who were given bright yellow jacket with some
refective stripes, vs. a control group of 3391 cyclists.

Yep, the riders in yellow jackets had less "personal injury crashes" all
right. But again, they were also less likely to have "single party
crashes." IOW, wearing a yellow jacket apparently helps your balance!

To work the numbers a bit differently than usual, I used their
percentages to illustrate what would happen with 10,000 cyclists with
and without magic jackets. Within a year, of the 10,000 without jackets,
280 will fall off their bike and 240 will run into a pedestrian, other
bike, or car. Of those with the magic jacket, 240 will just fall and 130
will run into a ped, bike or car.

So for 10,000 cyclists the difference is 150 crashes. But some of those
benefits are not real, since a jacket isn't likely to affect a solo
crash. Maybe the real difference would be 125, as a guess?

125 out of 10,000. That's 1.25% benefit to the magic jacket.

Surely it's time to mandate them!


Yet a day or so earlier I came across a study that showed that attire
had no effect except for a vest that said "POLICE" which did have a
profound effect on motorists behavior :-)

I also came across a study that demonstrated that autos passed closer
to riders wearing a helmet https://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
and yet another study that says "Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not
Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker,
2007".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

Note that the same study seems to have been used to prove that helmets
do, and do not, effect passing distance.

A good friend who owned a financial studies company that specialized
in doing feasibility studies once commented that it was "easy" to
design a study to prove whatever the client wanted proved :-) Which
makes one wonder how many of the "studies" simply prove preconceived
concepts.

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.
--

Cheers,

John B.
Ads
  #112  
Old April 20th 19, 12:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 454
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

incredulous wrote:
No, motorcycles, scooters, ebikes, bikes, pedestrians and trikes all have
in common small apparent object sizes compared to automobiles and trucks.
I’m not current on effective conspicuity research. On crash research, I
respect, FK, that you refer to it, but as someone who did road safety
research in the past, I’m aware of challenging differential selection
problems, much greater now that ER care is so damned expensive.

Getting back to Subject, I doubt that steady DRLs of either kind do much
good for bicyclists.


It depends on the traffic and visual environment. Much of any conspicuity
effect possibly attributable to a bicycle DRL is already being taken care of
by sensor-switched bicycle lamps that, unless aimed too low, do a sufficient
job of marking the vehicle's front in dawn, dusk, and tree/forest
situations, when uneducated or unsuspecting riders are not aware they can
see much clearer than a windshield-impaired cager or a vizor wearer.

It may be worth pointing out for young ones that for
motorcycles, running lights were for use in German cities at night
instead of headlights in an era before motorcycles or scooters had turn
signals which could be steadily lit as Americans called ‘parking lights.’
My BMW R26 had a small 5w bulb in the bottom of and illuminating the
175mm headlight cone.


Checking (then contemporary) StVO paragraph 23, I doubt these were
officially meant for anything other than standlights / position / parking
lights in stationary use due to lack of generator power / battery capacity.
Driving with just position lights illuminated has been illegal in Europe for
quite a while, though it might still rarely get ticketed.

The position light regulation applied in recent decades would be UNECE
Regulation #7, stipulating a 4cd minimum (sic! -- and a 140cd maximum)
on-axis intensity. Whereas DRL intensity in UNECE DRL Regulation #87 is
400..1500cd or so on axis, and commonly higher luminance than a traditional
5W, 50lm position light's incandescent bulb mildly glowing away behind
scattering optics.

So, without looking up 1950's technical by-regulations, I'd assume the
domestic-market BMW R26's position light was not putting out close to 140cd
into most angles, twice the bicycle-specific 70cd glare-zone maximum
permittable in outdated former versions of StVZO (now 200cd) and ISO.

IOW they were the functional equivalent of what marketers of low light
output bicycle lamps sell for lit urban streets at night, ‘to-be-seen
lights’.


In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when
labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!"
  #113  
Old April 20th 19, 01:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tosspot[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,563
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 20/04/2019 12.30, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when
labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!"


LOL! You're wasted here, consider a job in marketing :-)


  #114  
Old April 20th 19, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:56:33 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2019 6:20 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

The study, often quoted regarding always on DRLs is the
Danish study done at Odense involving something like 4,000 cyclists.
Some 2000 with the tiny little magnet powered Reelights and about
2,000 without. The study showed an amazing reduction in accidents in
those with the DRL's. In fact it also showed a reduction in solo
accidents.

The lights used were tiny little lights powered by two magnets
attached to the spokes that generated a flash as they passed the light
mounted on the hub bolts.

Given the tiny little "flea powered" lights and the fact that even
solo accidents decreased in the test group it seems likely that the
fact that one is participating in a safety study may tend to make one
ride differently.


Indeed. On the desk in front of me, I have a very similar study on
bicyclist conspicuity: Lahrmann, et. al. "The effect of a yellow bicycle
jacket on cyclist accidents," Safety Science v. 108 pp. 209-217. They
compared a 3402 riders who were given bright yellow jacket with some
refective stripes, vs. a control group of 3391 cyclists.

Yep, the riders in yellow jackets had less "personal injury crashes" all
right. But again, they were also less likely to have "single party
crashes." IOW, wearing a yellow jacket apparently helps your balance!

To work the numbers a bit differently than usual, I used their
percentages to illustrate what would happen with 10,000 cyclists with
and without magic jackets. Within a year, of the 10,000 without jackets,
280 will fall off their bike and 240 will run into a pedestrian, other
bike, or car. Of those with the magic jacket, 240 will just fall and 130
will run into a ped, bike or car.

So for 10,000 cyclists the difference is 150 crashes. But some of those
benefits are not real, since a jacket isn't likely to affect a solo
crash. Maybe the real difference would be 125, as a guess?

125 out of 10,000. That's 1.25% benefit to the magic jacket.


You're wanking in the dark again, Franki-boy. 1.25% over whatever period this study ran, repeated forever, can easily be presented as a 100% benefit.

Surely it's time to mandate them!


If these figures you're throwing around have any reality, damn right it is time to mandate yellow jackets for luddites. It would be criminal of your legislators not to.

- Frank Krygowski


It's time, Franki-boy, to admit you don't know the first thing about statistics, and don't have too much in the brains department either, if you cannot even see such a gaping chasm in your illogic.

Andre Jute.
What comes round, comes round, and soon adds up to something. It's called compounding.
  #115  
Old April 20th 19, 04:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:38:33 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 20/04/2019 12.30, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

In 2019, are 5cd to-be-seen lights selling well? Maybe online ... when
labeled "5,000,000 µcd LED!"


LOL! You're wasted here, consider a job in marketing :-)


Heh-heh. The Trading Standards Authority would put him in jail.

Still, in the last ten years bicycle lamps, despite lamentations that they still aren't as good as theycould be and should be, have come a tremendous way.

Andre Jute
The glass is half full
  #116  
Old April 21st 19, 09:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.


People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is
corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and
is published in a respected scientific journal
https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf.

Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding
double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense
study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark,
and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by
the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light
products.

Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on
motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects.
You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle
that just measure conspicuity between light on no light.

For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on
philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their
mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the
study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid.
Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still
have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers.
However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other
cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all.
  #117  
Old April 21st 19, 11:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.


People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is
corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and
is published in a respected scientific journal
https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf.

It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding
what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply
"being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of
anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one
publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published
apart... and frequently are successful.

Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding
double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense
study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark,
and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by
the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light
products.


Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered
DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced
solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on
your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce
the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or
do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone.

Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on
motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects.
You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle
that just measure conspicuity between light on no light.


Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly
an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any
way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what
you say is in any associated with facts.

For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on
philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their
mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the
study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid.
Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still
have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers.
However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other
cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all.


Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong

Which states in part:

"Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because
scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."

Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #118  
Old April 22nd 19, 12:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.


People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is
corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and
is published in a respected scientific journal
https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf.

It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding
what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply
"being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of
anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one
publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published
apart... and frequently are successful.

Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding
double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense
study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark,
and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by
the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light
products.


Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered
DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced
solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on
your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce
the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or
do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone.

Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on
motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects.
You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle
that just measure conspicuity between light on no light.


Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly
an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any
way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what
you say is in any associated with facts.


These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to
go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you
to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and
declare them to be invalid.


For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on
philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their
mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the
study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid.
Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still
have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers.
However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other
cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all.


Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong

Which states in part:

"Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because
scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."


So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific
evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've
made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God
said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary.


Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.


  #119  
Old April 22nd 19, 01:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.

People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is
corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and
is published in a respected scientific journal
https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf.

It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding
what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply
"being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of
anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one
publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published
apart... and frequently are successful.

Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding
double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense
study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark,
and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by
the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light
products.


Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered
DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced
solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on
your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce
the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or
do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone.

Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on
motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects.
You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle
that just measure conspicuity between light on no light.


Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly
an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any
way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what
you say is in any associated with facts.


These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to
go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you
to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and
declare them to be invalid.


For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on
philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their
mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the
study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid.
Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still
have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers.
However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other
cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all.


Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong

Which states in part:

"Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because
scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."


So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific
evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've
made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God
said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary.


This from a guy with a religious belief in daytime running lights, even
"flea powered" ones, and a religious belief in magic plastic hats. A man who
constantly touts "countless studies" but can't be bothered to post links to
them. A man who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to be a "world's greatest
expert" on multiple matters - helmets, lights, folding bikes, coffee...

And who bragged online about his "guerilla marketing" via various discussion
groups, at his websites which said "If you buy the items I recommend, please
start by clicking the links here so I get my commission" or words to that
effect.

- Frank Krygowski
  #120  
Old April 22nd 19, 01:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 16:39:59 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny
little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights
mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are
told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe.

The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change
in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently,
had previously been forbidden in Denmark.

People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is
corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and
is published in a respected scientific journal
https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf.

It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding
what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply
"being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of
anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one
publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published
apart... and frequently are successful.

Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding
double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense
study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark,
and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by
the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light
products.


Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered
DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced
solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on
your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce
the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or
do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone.

Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on
motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects.
You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle
that just measure conspicuity between light on no light.


Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly
an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any
way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what
you say is in any associated with facts.


These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to
go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you
to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and
declare them to be invalid.


No, I didn't find a minor flaw... I simply stated what had been
reported in the Odense study, that the tiny little lights not only
decreased the rate of multi vehicle accidents but also decreased the
number of solo accidents. By a factor of about 30%.

Isn't it amazing? That those tiny little lights could decrease the
number of solo accidents and it might be added that it not only
reduced the numbers of solo accidents but it also reduced the percent
injured in these solo accidents from 82% to 79%. , admittedly a small
percentage but a reduction never the less.


For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on
philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their
mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the
study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid.
Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still
have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers.
However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other
cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all.


Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong

Which states in part:

"Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because
scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth."


So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific
evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've
made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God
said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary.


Although you make a convincing argument it just isn't, as usual with
your statements, correct.

As I've noted before you stand up straight with your head erect and
speak in a loud and profound voice... and ignore facts.

I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire
report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title,
and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's
content) as you so obviously do.




Gee, that sounds rather like a politician, doesn't it.

--

Cheers,

John B.

--

Cheers,

John B.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. Lou Holtman[_7_] Techniques 10 December 24th 14 04:03 AM
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux Danny Colyer UK 3 January 14th 09 07:21 PM
Edelux - Wow! Danny Colyer UK 10 November 25th 08 10:05 PM
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? none UK 5 May 27th 08 06:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.