IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 02/05/2019 12:00 p.m., Duane wrote:
On 02/05/2019 11:39 a.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based
on your
own assumptions?Â* Not very scientific.Â*Â* The cyclist could be stopped
at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting.
Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk.Â* But you can’t spout stats that mean
nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding
while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a
suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the
drunk driving laws.


Like I said, I don't doubt there are drunks on bikes.Â* I just don't know
any people that ride drunk and I know a lot of cyclists.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was
illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in
front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major
arterial.Â* There was no question that the driver saw us.Â* My son was
looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6"
wearing pink arm warmers.Â* I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it
would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse.Â* There are people who
just don't give a f***.


I know all of this.Â* I ride a bike and sometime I ride it in a city.
I've had assholes pull out in front of me when I was center lane and had
eye contact.Â* There are no placebos.


I meant to say there are placebos but no magic bullets.

My argument was with spouting stats that have no meaning and imbuing
meaning.Â* Fake news is getting on my nerves.Â* If John's stats showed
that the cyclist was drunk AND the cause of the accident it would be
different than just saying the dead cyclist had a few beers.Â* And saying
2% of road fatalities were cyclists when cyclists probably make up .5%
of road users is different than saying only 2% of fatalities are cyclists.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:03:26 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 02/05/2019 12:00 p.m., Duane wrote:
On 02/05/2019 11:39 a.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based
on your
own assumptions?Â* Not very scientific.Â*Â* The cyclist could be stopped
at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting.
Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk.Â* But you can’t spout stats that mean
nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding
while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a
suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the
drunk driving laws.


Like I said, I don't doubt there are drunks on bikes.Â* I just don't know
any people that ride drunk and I know a lot of cyclists.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was
illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in
front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major
arterial.Â* There was no question that the driver saw us.Â* My son was
looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6"
wearing pink arm warmers.Â* I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it
would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse.Â* There are people who
just don't give a f***.


I know all of this.Â* I ride a bike and sometime I ride it in a city.
I've had assholes pull out in front of me when I was center lane and had
eye contact.Â* There are no placebos.


I meant to say there are placebos but no magic bullets.

But there are real bullets. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/6a...4a44d1df0a.jpg Better than a DRL.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 02/05/2019 12:19 p.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:03:26 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 02/05/2019 12:00 p.m., Duane wrote:
On 02/05/2019 11:39 a.m., jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based
on your
own assumptions?Â* Not very scientific.Â*Â* The cyclist could be stopped
at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting.
Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk.Â* But you can’t spout stats that mean
nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding
while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a
suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the
drunk driving laws.


Like I said, I don't doubt there are drunks on bikes.Â* I just don't know
any people that ride drunk and I know a lot of cyclists.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was
illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in
front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major
arterial.Â* There was no question that the driver saw us.Â* My son was
looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6"
wearing pink arm warmers.Â* I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it
would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse.Â* There are people who
just don't give a f***.


I know all of this.Â* I ride a bike and sometime I ride it in a city.
I've had assholes pull out in front of me when I was center lane and had
eye contact.Â* There are no placebos.


I meant to say there are placebos but no magic bullets.

But there are real bullets. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/6a...4a44d1df0a.jpg Better than a DRL.

-- Jay Beattie.


We ride on a highway through this small town called St-Eustache. The
shoulder is gravel and we are in the lane to the right. The latest thing
is the pickup trucks that pull in front of the peloton and burn rubber
in the gravel on the side of the road spraying it in our faces. I would
love to have this on my bike when that happens.

On 02/05/2019 14.36, Ralph Barone wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking
and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S.
data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km
ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three
times as bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's
not an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that
per mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled
is the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to
see walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on
a bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3
times as high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling
marginally safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially
it's the same order of magnitude per hour of activity.

On the whole I don’t strongly dislike with you on this, but if
average walking speed is 5 km/hr, then walking becomes safer than
cycling once the cyclist exceeds 17.5 km/hr. So if I’m commuting to
work (around 20 km/hr average) I’m a little less safe, but if I’m
fully loaded touring (around 15 km/hr), I’m a little more safe.

But agreed, cycling is not like juggling flaming chainsaws through a
war zone with a bullseye painted on your back.


Or standing on a hill in a thunderstorm waving a big copper rod shouting
all the Gods are ****S!

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 10:46:22 AM UTC+1, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 01.05.2019 um 20:08 schrieb Andre Jute:
for instance the savings banks and building societies in Britain are
tiny local to massive national co-operatives with special legislative
protection against business school ram raiders who want to strip
their assets.

Please put this wording onto the past tense. All British Saving Banks
and Co-Operatives were changed to normal share-holding companies in the
mid-1990's, giving a nice little windfall to their members (which was
obliterated during the banking crash of 2008/09 for those not having
cashed in before that time).

Thanks for the headsup, Rolf.

Andre Jute

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:55:52 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 02/05/2019 14.36, Ralph Barone wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 30.04.2019 um 07:43 schrieb Ralph Barone:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

John Pucher (you cited one of his papers) in "Making Walking
and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe," estimates from U.S.
data that bicyclists suffer 109 fatalities per billion km
ridden. Pedestrians suffer 362 fatalities per billion km, three
times as bad!

That says bicycling is safer than walking, per mile. And it's
not an anomalous result. Data from many countries confirms that
per mile, bicycling is safer than walking.

I’m not sure that quoting the accident stats per mile travelled
is the way to do it.
[..]

If we convert these to hourly rates, I wouldn’t be surprised to
see walking suddenly become safer than cycling.

Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on
a bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3
times as high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling
marginally safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially
it's the same order of magnitude per hour of activity.

On the whole I don’t strongly dislike with you on this, but if
average walking speed is 5 km/hr, then walking becomes safer than
cycling once the cyclist exceeds 17.5 km/hr. So if I’m commuting to
work (around 20 km/hr average) I’m a little less safe, but if I’m
fully loaded touring (around 15 km/hr), I’m a little more safe.

But agreed, cycling is not like juggling flaming chainsaws through a
war zone with a bullseye painted on your back.


Or standing on a hill in a thunderstorm waving a big copper rod shouting
all the Gods are ****S!

Some people are real Darwin-helpers!

AJ

On 5/2/2019 5:52 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:


Given the numbers above, you need to ask: is the average speed on a
bicycle 3 1/2 times as fast as the average pedestrian?

My gut feeling is: no, the average speed on a bicycle is only 3 times as
high as the average speed of a pedestrian, making cycling marginally
safer than walking per hour of activity but essentially it's the same
order of magnitude per hour of activity.

That sounds reasonable enough to me.

And to dig out of the rabbit hole in which we've descended:
I'm sure we'll never be able to get super-precise numbers on risk that
will satisfy everyone.

But I remain astonished at the number of bicyclists who will argue long
and hard to "prove" that their favorite activity really IS extremely
dangerous. I haven't encountered that same mindset in swimmers, rock
climbers, sky divers, hikers, canoeists...

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/2/2019 6:43 AM, Duane wrote:

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk. But you can’t spout stats that mean nothing
to make a point.

I do know a couple guys who have ridden very drunk. In fact, they have
gotten kicked out of at least one bar while on a bike ride. I don't ride
with them any more.

Those guys are middle class, living in nice neighborhoods in nice towns.
AFAIK, neither one is an alcoholic. One of them has bragged about his
career as a hell raiser.

I think if you went into certain city neighborhoods, you could find
quite a few people who regularly ride drunk. Not as avid cyclists - more
as guys who are no longer allowed to drive cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 3:43:21 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
snip


So when it’s not possible to get correct data you extrapolate based on your
own assumptions? Not very scientific. The cyclist could be stopped at a
stop light and the motorist runs him over from behind while texting. Your
stats don’t even show who is at fault much less whether the alcohol is
contributory.

I don’t doubt that there are drunks on bikes even though I don’t know
anyone who would ride drunk. But you can’t spout stats that mean nothing
to make a point.

Cyclists make mistakes, drunk or sober -- as do motorists. Riding while intoxicated is a thing and often a pretext for cops to stop a suspect on a bike. In Oregon at least, bicyclists are subject to the drunk driving laws.

The fallacy of conspicuity, riding correctness and perfect safety was illustrated yet again this morning when a car simply pulled out in front of me and my son while we were going full blast down a major arterial. There was no question that the driver saw us. My son was looking right at him, and there is no missing a guy who is 6'6" wearing pink arm warmers. I'd detail the rest of his outfit, but it would cause the vehicular cyclists to convulse. There are people who just don't give a f***.

I've had that happen to me on my motorcycle. Two young guys who had just
stopped for a red light at the stem of a T intersection. I was the only
traffic, riding across the top of the T at about 40 mph. The driver
looked at me, then purposely pulled out directly in my path, running the
red light to do so. He was laughing as he did it. It was quite a test of
my emergency braking skills.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Rolf Mantel writes:

Am 02.05.2019 um 17:19 schrieb Radey Shouman:
That ratio seems small to me, unless bike commuting in heavy traffic.

For transportation I typically walk somewhere between 3 and 3.5 mph, or
bike between 14 and 18 mph.

18 mph as a total average including all stops is rather steep even for
an experienced cyclist. Do you have streches of 5 miles without a
traffic light, without an all-way stop?

You are right, I would feel pretty good if I could average 18 mph, 14
mph is more typical. I do have stretches of over a mile usually without
a stop.

The ratio between 12 mph, which seems quite
slow for a bike, and 4 mph, which is really quite a fast walk, is 3.

Population-based, I was guessing 3 mph for walking and 9-10 mph for
cycling, when you average out the fast commuter doing 15 mph with
grandma going to the shops and kids just learning to bike. My wife
for example does not like going faster than 10 mph max speed through
town on her way to work because she want to do her 2.5 miles without
needing to change clothes, and her total cycling time is determined by
the wait at the traffic lights, bringing her average maybe to 8 or 9
mph despite cycling to work 4 times a week.

I think that cycling speed is more variable than walking speed, and
depends more heavily on conditions -- other traffic, traffic signals,
personal inclination, and so forth. It's certainly possible to travel
at 10 mph.