IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, 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.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/24/2019 5:34 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, 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.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.


Being a frequent flyer in traffic courts of various
jurisdictions, one rarely sees an actual judge. Usually a
'court commissioner' or simi8lar factotum. BTW that's also
true of many Small Claims courts.

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

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, 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.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.
--

Cheers,

John B.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less than the ticket amount?

Cheers

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 03:34:49 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/24/2019 12:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

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 :-)

Each additional police officer costs a lot of money in salary, benefits,
and support infrastructure, in my area it's about $300K per year per
additional police officer. You'd need a huge number of additional police
to have the same effect as a protected bike lane. So it would definitely
not be cheaper.

That sounds very logical until you realize that "back in the day" a
village, usually in the southern U.S. would regulate traffic speed by
simply ticketing everyone that exceeded the posted speed by even the
smallest amounts. Lo and Behold, in a week or so traffic would be
traveling at a very benign speed... usually under the posted speeds.

Of course, from what I read, that might not be acceptable in the
permissive society that y'all seem to have developed in the past 50
years, or so, so maybe that wouldn't work. And of course would be
suicide for the politician that argued that citizens should obey the
law :-)

Actually, that scheme still works pretty well, at least in my suburban village.
This place has had a reputation as a "speed trap" for at least 40 years. Why?
Because where the speed limit is 25 (set by state law, for state highways
in "village center commercial" areas) they actually write tickets. But not for
26 or 27 mph. The local newspaper looked into it many years ago and decided
that one had to be going at least 5 mph over to get a ticket.

Nonetheless, the local scuttlebutt is that they'll ticket you for one mile over.
That's probably due to people claiming "No, really, I'm _sure_ I wasn't going
37!" But it works for me. Most people do slow down, so it's easier for me to
cross the street walking, or deal with traffic while bicycling.

BTW, this place is listed on "speed trap" websites. That's fine with me. If it
weren't, I'd probably nominate it myself. Motorists already have taken too many
privileges.

- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, 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.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less than the ticket amount?

With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here.

It's not about money. The speeding tax is like any other
tax - too expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues from
it are not well spent. meh. whatever.

The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to
liberty. Rack up too many 'points' and the license is
withdrawn. Unlike illegals or career criminals, regular
taxpayers can be jailed for driving after revocation.

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

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:22:58 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 2:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
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.

You're correct, I can't be positive he feels scientifically justified by
his vague allusions of un-cited papers. Given his refusal to discuss the
studies in detail, he certainly shouldn't feel that way.

But then, what other motivation would there be? All other possibilities
would seem to be even less complimentary.

SMS does have a day job -- and probably one that exposes him to better safety literature than the average internet lurker.

I have a day job, too, although I'm eating lunch -- and I also have access to scientific literature, like this bon-bon:

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents; (2018) 108 ESAFSC 209-217. Conclusion, wear a yellow jacket:

ABSTRACT
• A randomised controlled trial with 6793 cyclists shows a reduced accident risk due to a yellow bicycle jacket.
• The test group had 47% fewer multiparty accidents with personal injury.
• The test group had 55% fewer multiparty accidents against motorised vehicles.
This study is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the safety effect of high-visibility bicycle clothing. The hypothesis was that the number of cyclist accidents can be reduced by increasing the visibility of the cyclists. The study design was an RCT with 6793 volunteer cyclists - 3402 test cyclists (with a yellow jacket) and 3391 control cyclists (without the jacket). The safety effect of the jacket was analysed by comparing the number of self-reported accidents for the two groups. The accident rate (AR) (accidents per person month) for personal injury accidents (PIAs) for the test group was 47% lower than that of the control group. For accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles, it was 55% lower. The study was non-blinded, and the number of reported single accidents was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group. This is likely a result of a response bias, since the bicycle jacket was not expected to affect the number of single accidents. To compensate for this bias, a separate analysis was carried out. This analysis reduced the effect of the jacket from 47% to 38%.

And get a flea-watt mag light (the Odense Study):

Safety effects of permanent running lights for bicycles: A controlled experiment; (2013) 50 ESACAP C 820-829

And reflective clothing

Using reflective clothing to enhance the conspicuity of bicyclists at night; (2012) 45 ESACAP C 726-730

ABSTRACT
Bicycling at night is more dangerous than in the daytime and poor conspicuity is likely to be a contributing factor. The use of reflective markings on a pedestrian's major joints to facilitate the perception of biological motion has been shown to greatly enhance pedestrian conspicuity at night, but few corresponding data exist for bicyclists. Twelve younger and twelve older participants drove around a closed-road circuit at night and indicated when they first recognized a bicyclist who wore black clothing either alone, or together with a reflective bicycling vest, or a vest plus ankle and knee reflectors. The bicyclist pedalled in place on a bicycle that had either a static or flashing light, or no light on the handlebars. Bicyclist clothing significantly affected conspicuity; drivers responded to bicyclists wearing the vest plus ankle and knee reflectors at significantly longer distances than when the bicyclist wore the vest alone or black clothing without a vest. Older drivers responded to bicyclists less often and at shorter distances than younger drivers. The presence of a bicycle light, whether static or flashing, did not enhance the conspicuity of the bicyclist; this may result in bicyclists who use a bicycle light being overconfident of their own conspicuity at night. The implications of our findings are that ankle and knee markings are a simple and very effective approach for enhancing bicyclist conspicuity at night.

And always ride in a bicycle facility when in Spain

On the effect of networks of cycle-tracks on the risk of cycling. The case of Seville; (2017) 102 ESACAP 181-190

ABSTRACT
• Risk of cycling dropped after the creation of a network of segregated bikeways.
• Connecting the bikeways increase the positive effect of bikeways on cycling safety.
• The “safety in numbers� theory is confirmed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
• Causality between risk, infrastructure and number of cyclists seems bidirectional.
We analyze the evolution of the risk of cycling in Seville before and after the implementation of a network of segregated cycle tracks in the city. Specifically, we study the evolution of the risk for cyclists of being involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, using data reported by the traffic police along the period 2000-2013, i.e. seven years before and after the network was built. A sudden drop of such risk was observed after the implementation of the network of bikeways. We study, through a multilinear regression analysis, the evolution of the risk by means of explanatory variables representing changes in the built environment, specifically the length of the bikeways and a stepwise jump variable taking the values 0/1 before/after the network was implemented. We found that this last variable has a high value as explanatory variable, even higher than the length of the network, thus suggesting that networking the bikeways has a substantial effect on cycling safety by itself and beyond the mere increase in the length of the bikeways. We also analyze safety in numbers through a non-linear regression analysis. Our results fully agree qualitatively and quantitatively with the results previously reported by Jacobsen, 2003Link to the text of the note, thus providing an independent confirmation of Jacobsen's results. Finally, the mutual causal relationships between the increase in safety, the increase in the number of cyclists and the presence of the network of bikeways are discussed.


A casual search for "daytime running lights" brings up 128 hits in the Elsevier literature database. We should discuss each and every one. In fact, I would like you, Frank, to start working on executive summaries.

I'm not taking this on until we get a list of ALL such "safety" devices. I
want info on flags, both vertical and horizontal. And different _colored_
DRLs. And clothing of every color. And horns, electric and pneumatic. And
sirens. And handlebar streamers. And fireworks. And hub spikes, like we just
saw in the movie Ben-Hur. And playing cards in the spokes. And... and...

This is important! You can't be too safe!

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:30:13 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/24/2019 7:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:34:25 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:08:29 -0400, 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.


Given that the ultimate decision on a traffic ticket can be a trial
before a judge I would assume that unless a police officer was
prepared to give very detailed evidence of exactly what happened and
why he might be inclined to not issue a ticket. Getting up in front of
a judge and mumbling something like "well, it appeared", or "I
thought", probably just isn't the thing to do in law enforcing
circles, as well as being personally embarrassing.

Are your lost wages for the day you appear in court less than the ticket amount?

With some number of iterations I think I'm experienced here.

It's not about money. The speeding tax is like any other
tax - too expensive, unfairly applied and the revenues from
it are not well spent. meh. whatever.

The reason to contest every ticket is the serious risk to
liberty. Rack up too many 'points' and the license is
withdrawn. Unlike illegals or career criminals, regular
taxpayers can be jailed for driving after revocation.

I protest that evil system by driving at or near enough to the speed limit.

I bet it frustrates them terribly.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 4/24/2019 2:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
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 don't know the details of New York politics. But I know of a person
who told a certain city's cops "You'll be fired if you don't ticket
everyone who doesn't come to an absolutely perfect stop at that stop
sign." Something over a hundred very safe motorists got tickets. I
spoke to two police chief friends of mine (from other departments) and
they confirmed the story, with rather strong disapproval.

So it seems to me that someone with high enough rank or power could
certainly change the way the cops behave, even in New York.

Has to be someone who ranks above mayor, I'm not sure who that might be.

--

AMuzi writes:

On 4/24/2019 1:11 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
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.


Warren Wilhelm Junior(stage name = Di Blasio) has no time for
bicycles. He's busy attacking hot dogs this week:

https://iotwreport.com/de-blasio-fig...fter-hot-dogs/

I didn't mean to imply that he was a cycling advocate, just that he
could not make the NYPD toe the line.

--

jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/24/2019 2:15 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
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.

You're correct, I can't be positive he feels scientifically justified by
his vague allusions of un-cited papers. Given his refusal to discuss the
studies in detail, he certainly shouldn't feel that way.

But then, what other motivation would there be? All other possibilities
would seem to be even less complimentary.

SMS does have a day job -- and probably one that exposes him to better
safety literature than the average internet lurker.

I have a day job, too, although I'm eating lunch -- and I also have
access to scientific literature, like this bon-bon:

The effect of a yellow bicycle jacket on cyclist accidents; (2018) 108
ESAFSC 209-217. Conclusion, wear a yellow jacket:

ABSTRACT
• A randomised controlled trial with 6793 cyclists shows a reduced
accident risk due to a yellow bicycle jacket.
• The test group had 47% fewer multiparty accidents with personal injury.
• The test group had 55% fewer multiparty accidents against motorised vehicles.
This study is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the
safety effect of high-visibility bicycle clothing. The hypothesis was
that the number of cyclist accidents can be reduced by increasing the
visibility of the cyclists. The study design was an RCT with 6793
volunteer cyclists - 3402 test cyclists (with a yellow jacket) and
3391 control cyclists (without the jacket). The safety effect of the
jacket was analysed by comparing the number of self-reported accidents
for the two groups. The accident rate (AR) (accidents per person
month) for personal injury accidents (PIAs) for the test group was 47%
lower than that of the control group. For accidents involving cyclists
and motor vehicles, it was 55% lower. The study was non-blinded, and
the number of reported single accidents was significantly lower in the
test group than in the control group. This is likely a result of a
response bias, since the bicycle jacket was not expected to affect the
number of single accidents. To compensate for this bias, a separate
analysis was carried out. This analysis reduced the effect of the
jacket from 47% to 38%.

And get a flea-watt mag light (the Odense Study):

Safety effects of permanent running lights for bicycles: A controlled
experiment; (2013) 50 ESACAP C 820-829

And reflective clothing

Using reflective clothing to enhance the conspicuity of bicyclists at
night; (2012) 45 ESACAP C 726-730

ABSTRACT
Bicycling at night is more dangerous than in the daytime and poor
conspicuity is likely to be a contributing factor. The use of
reflective markings on a pedestrian's major joints to facilitate the
perception of biological motion has been shown to greatly enhance
pedestrian conspicuity at night, but few corresponding data exist for
bicyclists. Twelve younger and twelve older participants drove around
a closed-road circuit at night and indicated when they first
recognized a bicyclist who wore black clothing either alone, or
together with a reflective bicycling vest, or a vest plus ankle and
knee reflectors. The bicyclist pedalled in place on a bicycle that had
either a static or flashing light, or no light on the
handlebars. Bicyclist clothing significantly affected conspicuity;
drivers responded to bicyclists wearing the vest plus ankle and knee
reflectors at significantly longer distances than when the bicyclist
wore the vest alone or black clothing without a vest. Older drivers
responded to bicyclists less often and at shorter distances than
younger drivers. The presence of a bicycle light, whether static or
flashing, did not enhance the conspicuity of the bicyclist; this may
result in bicyclists who use a bicycle light being overconfident of
their own conspicuity at night. The implications of our findings are
that ankle and knee markings are a simple and very effective approach
for enhancing bicyclist conspicuity at night.

And always ride in a bicycle facility when in Spain

On the effect of networks of cycle-tracks on the risk of cycling. The
case of Seville; (2017) 102 ESACAP 181-190

ABSTRACT
• Risk of cycling dropped after the creation of a network of segregated bikeways.
• Connecting the bikeways increase the positive effect of bikeways on cycling safety.
• The “safety in numbers� theory is confirmed both qualitatively and quantitatively.
• Causality between risk, infrastructure and number of cyclists seems bidirectional.
We analyze the evolution of the risk of cycling in Seville before and
after the implementation of a network of segregated cycle tracks in
the city. Specifically, we study the evolution of the risk for
cyclists of being involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, using
data reported by the traffic police along the period 2000-2013,
i.e. seven years before and after the network was built. A sudden drop
of such risk was observed after the implementation of the network of
bikeways. We study, through a multilinear regression analysis, the
evolution of the risk by means of explanatory variables representing
changes in the built environment, specifically the length of the
bikeways and a stepwise jump variable taking the values 0/1
before/after the network was implemented. We found that this last
variable has a high value as explanatory variable, even higher than
the length of the network, thus suggesting that networking the
bikeways has a substantial effect on cycling safety by itself and
beyond the mere increase in the length of the bikeways. We also
analyze safety in numbers through a non-linear regression
analysis. Our results fully agree qualitatively and quantitatively
with the results previously reported by Jacobsen, 2003Link to the text
of the note, thus providing an independent confirmation of Jacobsen's
results. Finally, the mutual causal relationships between the increase
in safety, the increase in the number of cyclists and the presence of
the network of bikeways are discussed.


A casual search for "daytime running lights" brings up 128 hits in the
Elsevier literature database. We should discuss each and every one.
In fact, I would like you, Frank, to start working on executive
summaries.

For those without a sugar daddy to pay Elsevier, there is always
https://sci-hub.tw .