#171
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:25:21 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote: On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light makes that much difference during the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8Â* I would never see this woman minus the light.Â* Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day. We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner." In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I still really believe in my taillight." IOW, no evidence; just faith. I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a collision. That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say that it's not. You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather than relying on faith. SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize he's a fundamentalist. He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing it. When told his favorite study involves impossibly dim daytime lights, and that people using those dim lights somehow claimed fewer solo accidents (like toppling off their bike), he refuses to accept the evidence of bias. He also refuses to see the bias in a study run by the company selling the lights. Someday someone might actually get a paper published on the flippy flag SMS uses. (Or is it "used to use"?) Then we'll be told any cyclist who doesn't use a flippy flag is irresponsible. -- - Frank Krygowski SMS's beliefs and promotions are what can be EXTREMELY detrimental to every bicyclist who wants the right to be able to ride on non-bicycle lane roads with a degree of safety and expectation that motorists would be held accountable for unsafe driving in the advent of a bicyclist/motor vehicle accident wherein the motorist is at fault. In SMS's world the bicyclist would be held to be at fault because 1, they were riding on the road in the first place and 2 they didn't have the plethora of SMS recommended safety devices on their bicycle. That's not to mention that SMS's fear mongering might discourage a lot of people from riding a bicycle on the road in the first place.. Cheers |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to $300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to the officer on the scene. On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence. In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read: 487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring. I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount.. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely. Cheers Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way. No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange. Cheers |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 24/04/2019 10:27 a.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:51:59 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:42:26 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light makes that much difference during the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8 I would never see this woman minus the light. Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day. We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner." In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I still really believe in my taillight." IOW, no evidence; just faith. I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a collision. That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say that it's not. You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather than relying on faith. True, because statistics never lie, 62% of the time. Judging by the video of the woman I posted, the cohort with front lights may have had less one-bike accidents because their front hub axle nuts had been recently tightened. Or the cohort may avoid bottomless puddles to keep the light from getting wet. Maybe the cohort that didn't get the light became depressed and attempted suicide by turning sharply over wet manhole covers. Who knows? I like safety things -- I've got reflective tape on my commuter and wear conspicuous clothing and even run a DRL on gloomy or rainy days, but I encounter people all the time with flaccid little blinkies that I don't see until I'm passing them. I see the people from a hundred yards away, particularly if they're wearing fluorescent jerseys. -- Jay Beattie. I see the odd DRL on a bicycle hereabouts. I don't see them from any distance unless it's fairly overcast or lightly raining. Last night I saw a bicyclist with a light on the front of the bicycle. Interestingly the area about 2 feet in front of his front wheel back to the front wheel was very bright but beyond that the road was extremely dim. I thought that if he rode into an area that was truly dark he'd have no night vision and wouldn't see much beyond that 2 feet bright area. It seems to me that far too many bicyclists think that any light makes them visible. Cheers Riding at night without decent lights is stupid. For DRLs, I don't care whether riders use a DRL or not. What I care about is being blinded at night by idiots with mis-adjusted search lights on their bikes. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 24/04/2019 10:16 a.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to $300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to the officer on the scene. On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence. In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read: 487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring. I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely. Cheers You'd have to ask someone like Jay how contributory negligence works. The way that the law here was written, avoiding a door zone was not technically specified as legal. In fact, even the avoidance of obstacles wasn't specified. In that case, maybe the cyclist has an argument. I think the change in the law here is good to let people know to avoid doors but it will also likely change the equation when trying to sue. I also like the add about riding in the same direction as traffic. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 24/04/2019 12:13 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to $300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to the officer on the scene. On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence. In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read: 487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring. I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely. Cheers Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way. No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange. Cheers Opening a car door into a traffic lane is negligent. We're not usually talking about people leaving the lane as the car is parked. We're talking about people moving over into the center of the lane in most cases. I think in that case, the driver is negligent and the cyclist is careless. Again, you'd have to ask a lawyer. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote: And the wall would have ended at the intersection anyway. What we need are enclosed elevated bicycle lanes. LOL VEBG Arthur C. Clarke's _Imperial Earth_ has them. Only a glimpse, as a passenger in a self-driving car on a narrow road passes under a bridge carrying a much wider road thronged with bicycles. His escort explains that bicycle roads must be wider to allow for human error. The main road is, essentially, a railroad with independently-powered cars; they travel very fast with very little clearance. (My take, not Clarke's.) The protagonist never saw another bicycle, so I don't know whether the riders were going somewhere or riding in circles. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 12:31:52 PM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 24/04/2019 12:13 p.m., Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:39:28 AM UTC-4, wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:16:22 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote: On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to $300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to the officer on the scene. On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence. In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read: 487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring. I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely. Cheers Could have been intent. The taxi driver intentionally, with pre-thought, opened his door to hit the bicyclist. Whether someone is breaking the law or not, it does not give you the right to harm, stop him except in some situations. Someone talks about hitting someone. Talks about committing assault. Guessing that is threatening behavior/intention. That does not give you the right to kill the person first before the hitting occurs. Just like the taxi driver does not have the right to break the law or stop a breaking of a law. I would get arrested if I stood at a stop sign and shot the tires or drivers of every car that did not come to a complete stop. They were breaking the law, so I am right to enforce the law? Does not work that way. No intent there by the taxi driver. He simply did not see the approaching bicyclist before he (the taxi driver) opened the door. Funny isn't it? If a car drives into the rear of another car the car driver that hit the car is the person judged to be at fault. Yet if a bicyclist does not leave the lane to pass a stopped vehicle and hits that vehicle it's the fault of the driver? Strange. Cheers Opening a car door into a traffic lane is negligent. We're not usually talking about people leaving the lane as the car is parked. We're talking about people moving over into the center of the lane in most cases. I think in that case, the driver is negligent and the cyclist is careless. Again, you'd have to ask a lawyer. Well, in the case I referred to, if the bicyclist had moved into the adjacent lane before passing the stopped taxi (like a motor vehicle would have to do) then the he would not have hit the door. Note that the bicyclist rode into the open door not that the door struck him whilst being opened. Would Jay's legal expertise be applicable to an incident in Ontario, Canada? Cheers |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 4/24/2019 3:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Steve Weeks wrote: On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the door? Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care. Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as much good... and be a lot cheaper :-) I think it _is_ possible to get cops to pay proper attention to these situations. It doesn't necessarily require hiring more police. It may require only having the cops' superiors direct them to stop automatically absolving motorists. Just who are these superiors that are going to do as you prefer? Would, for example, Bill de Blasio risk another confrontation with the NYPD over bicyclists? I know bicyclists often disobey laws, just as motorists do. But it does seem that New York cops in particular tend to pretend that motorists are always in the right. -- |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 4/24/2019 6:42 AM, sms wrote: On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote: I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light makes that much difference during the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8Â* I would never see this woman minus the light.Â* Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day. We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner." In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I still really believe in my taillight." IOW, no evidence; just faith. I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a collision. That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say that it's not. You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather than relying on faith. SMS is a fundamentalist who, like most of them, just doesn't realize he's a fundamentalist. He feels "all scientific" because he read one promotional study. He proudly alludes to it without ever actually analyzing or discussing it. SMS does have a weakness: He is constantly imputing feelings and motives to other people that he cannot possibly know. Sort of like you're doing here. I do admire his sangfroid, if not his intellectual rigor. When told his favorite study involves impossibly dim daytime lights, and that people using those dim lights somehow claimed fewer solo accidents (like toppling off their bike), he refuses to accept the evidence of bias. He also refuses to see the bias in a study run by the company selling the lights. Someday someone might actually get a paper published on the flippy flag SMS uses. (Or is it "used to use"?) Then we'll be told any cyclist who doesn't use a flippy flag is irresponsible. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. | Lou Holtman[_7_] | Techniques | 10 | December 24th 14 03:03 AM |
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux | Danny Colyer | UK | 3 | January 14th 09 06:21 PM |
Edelux - Wow! | Danny Colyer | UK | 10 | November 25th 08 09:05 PM |
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? | none | UK | 5 | May 27th 08 06:03 PM |