visibility of DRL

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:14:39 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

...don't f****** blind me with your mega-light DRL! Consider this my very brief manifesto. Violators will be insulted with grammatically complex, late Victorian put-downs provided by Andre Jute.

BUMM's Cyo is the first generally distributed bicycle lamp that is adequate.. The Cyo is also only as powerful as the lamps on my first Porsche. Considering that that Porsche inherited its lamps from early Volkswagen Beetles with 6V electrics, that doesn't leave a lot of blinding power.

Now, if we were talking of the six 8in Cibie I had across the front of my rally cars, I'd scorch your eyeballs...

Andre Jute
"Eminent Victorians" is the first lie Lytton Strachey told, on the cover of his book

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:38:01 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:56:59 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?
--
cheers,

John B.

Common sense? In some states, not mine because it is controlled
by Republicans sadly, motorcyclists are required by LAW to wear
helmets. So by your reasoning, WE MUST make car and truck drivers
wear a helmet too. If vehicle "A" the motorcyclist must wear a
helmet, then vehicle "B" the car or pickup driver must also wear a
helmet. Your logic.

Well, I suppose that the logic is that in a car you are protected by
all that sheet metal and plastic that surrounds you and have a safety
belt to ensure that you don't fly out and hit the pavement. On a
motorcycle your only protection is your skin. Which I suppose is why
racing motorcycle riders wear leather :-)

As for politics: If only your state was Democrat then I guess that
motorcyclists would be able to wear helmets?
--
cheers,

John B.

wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

When following some farm equipment or antiques you'll notice
they use hand signals, just as we do.


"WE" may mean you, me, and maybe one other guy, as I can't ever
remember, in some 20 or 30 years, seeing another bicycle give a hand
signal. Never!
--
cheers,

John B.



Most cyclists here in Quebec signal turns. It’s required by the vehicle
code. Seems to me it was the same in the states that I lived in though I
don’t remember it being a legal requirement or not.

--
duane

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:32:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In Ontario Canada bicyclist are supposed to have at night working front
light a reed rear light or reflector, reflectors on the front and rear
wheels, reflective tape on the front forks and rear seat stays and also a
working horn or bell. That's the LAW here. Yet most bicyclists I see have
none of those at night. The odd one will have front light that's hardly
discernible even without other traffic. Fortunately very few bicyclists
hereabouts have bought into the ultra-bright lights camp.

Cheers


If you cross into Quebec you need a full set of reflectors in the daytime
and a white front light and red rear light at night. Rear reflector isn’t
enough at night and lights don’t replace reflectors during the day.

Tickets are up to 400 bucks without them and not rare.

--
duane

On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote:

snip

I've read you and others going on about lights that blind oncoming
riders but frankly I don't see how that happens if the light is aimed
to illuminate the road. I use a regular single cell (3.7 VDC)
flashlight with the normal "unsophisticated" round beam and if I aim
it to illuminate the road it does not shine in the eyes of oncoming
riders, in fact after reading your various posts about blinding lights
I tested my lights.

I tested this, in full darkness, by parking the bike and walking a
distance in front of the bike and then turning and walking back toward
the bike. If the flashlight is aimed to illuminate the road it doesn't
shine in my eyes.

At other times I have observed where the light shines on autos that I
overtake in traffic and the beam seems to hit a car at about the level
of the tail lights.

Thus it would appear that blinding bicycle lights are simply aimed to
shine in approaching traffic's eyes. I might point out also that a
normal bicyclist's eyes are at a height above the roof level of the
average modern automobile.

This is not to say that it can't happen rather that it appears to be
just one of the usual short comings of the bicyclist.

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were on vacation in a city south of
here. On a riverside bike path at night, we were assaulted by one of
those glaring beams used by a rider coming the opposite direction. We
had to stop by the side of the bike path and shield our eyes until he
rode by. But I'm sure he felt very virtuous as well as safe.

We were passed by only one other cyclist. She had no lights at all.

So much for the Golden Mean.

In general flashlights are bad because there can be a *lot* of bleed
outside the designed boresight angle. I suffer from this a lot from
people coming the other way at night, but tbf, it is very variable, with
some flashlights having little bleed. How do I tell? The conical beam
shape is a dead giveaway. With respect to your test, not a bad idea.
By IQ-X doesn't even illuminate tail lights/reflectors, and still throws
a beam some 20ft down the road, and in an exact mirror of your test, I
fitted a flashlight to the handlebars to try and determine the angle at
which the same occurred. It required *my* light to be set far to far
down to be useful.

On 05/04/2019 02.52, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

snip

I was coming back into town around dusk but not fully dark when a
bicyclist with a very bright strobing light was riding towards me.
His light was so blinding that I had to stop and turn my head because
I could not see a dang thing because of his light. He never offered
to adjust his light so that it didn't shine in others eyes. I often
wonder; what would happen if a bicyclist blinded another road user
that was driving/riding around a curve or if there was debris on the
road? Is it possible that the other person could have an accident?

I solved this particular problem with a 1000+ lumen flashlight and a
remote switch. Over the course of a month there was a marked
improvement, so by the end of winter I barely need to use it anymore :-)

On 4/4/2019 9:45 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:09:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


When following some farm equipment or antiques you'll notice
they use hand signals, just as we do.


"WE" may mean you, me, and maybe one other guy, as I can't ever
remember, in some 20 or 30 years, seeing another bicycle give a hand
signal. Never!

Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a bicycle give a hand signal
either. Neither has a piece of farm equipment.

OTOH, it's pretty easy to see a _bicyclist_ give a hand signal. Just
observe me sometime.

O.K. You, me, Muzi and maybe one other guy :-)

On Hwy 41 south going into Chicago last week I saw a '53
Mercury signal a turn with arm out the window. His brake
lights were working, just not turn indicators.


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

On 4/5/2019 12:28 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:05:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 3:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in the
street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a male
toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby
seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.

For some "Danger! Danger!" people, it's not enough to be clearly
visible. They're not satisfied unless they are absolutely the most
noticeable people on the street, visible from a mile away.

What's next? Several of these per bike, with lights fastened to the top?

https://www.amazon.com/Safety-Flags-...=fsclp_pl_dp_2


--
- Frank Krygowski

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Yes, we've got one couple in our village who take walks wearing those.
The village is very pedestrian friendly, to the point that the president
of a pretty prominent local manufacturing firm moved here on his
doctor's recommendation, since he needed to walk for his heart health.

But nothing is safe enough for some.

I find it sort of strange. The apparent terror in which some modern
Americans seem to live.

When I was a kid we played football in a field in our regular clothes
although often we stipulated that it was "Tag" not "Tackle". People
played baseball with regular caps, people skied with nothing but ear
warmers.

Now it seems that one requires special equipment to participate yet I
can't remember anyone being injured. Well, the cousin of a good friend
broke his leg in several places ski jumping on a 35 meter hill but
that was because of across wind blowing him off center and no safety
gear in the world would have saved him.

When I was 6 years old I walked to school on a common 2 lane blacktop
road. My mother accompanied me the first two days of school and I went
alone after that. And, yes she did caution me about "look both ways
before you cross the road" and I wasn't unique, everyone walked to
school.

My point isn't that one should not wear safety gear if one desires to
but all the fear that seems to be shown... "OOOH! Bicycling is so
dangerous", yet from the age of 12 un till 16 I rode everywhere on a
bike and all the other boys in town did also, and there weren't any
bicycle lanes, and I don't remember any one telling us how dangerous
it was. And, I might add that I've been riding for 20 years, or so,in
a country with the second highest per capita road death rate in the
world... with only one close call and that was because I ran a stop
sign.

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

Not only England. Embrace the resistance!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ree-range-kids


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

AMuzi wrote:
On 4/5/2019 12:28 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:05:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 3:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in the
street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a male
toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby
seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the
gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem
seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.

For some "Danger! Danger!" people, it's not enough to be clearly
visible. They're not satisfied unless they are absolutely the most
noticeable people on the street, visible from a mile away.

What's next? Several of these per bike, with lights fastened to the top?

https://www.amazon.com/Safety-Flags-...=fsclp_pl_dp_2


--
- Frank Krygowski

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility
workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It
seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Yes, we've got one couple in our village who take walks wearing those.
The village is very pedestrian friendly, to the point that the president
of a pretty prominent local manufacturing firm moved here on his
doctor's recommendation, since he needed to walk for his heart health.

But nothing is safe enough for some.

I find it sort of strange. The apparent terror in which some modern
Americans seem to live.

When I was a kid we played football in a field in our regular clothes
although often we stipulated that it was "Tag" not "Tackle". People
played baseball with regular caps, people skied with nothing but ear
warmers.

Now it seems that one requires special equipment to participate yet I
can't remember anyone being injured. Well, the cousin of a good friend
broke his leg in several places ski jumping on a 35 meter hill but
that was because of across wind blowing him off center and no safety
gear in the world would have saved him.

When I was 6 years old I walked to school on a common 2 lane blacktop
road. My mother accompanied me the first two days of school and I went
alone after that. And, yes she did caution me about "look both ways
before you cross the road" and I wasn't unique, everyone walked to
school.

My point isn't that one should not wear safety gear if one desires to
but all the fear that seems to be shown... "OOOH! Bicycling is so
dangerous", yet from the age of 12 un till 16 I rode everywhere on a
bike and all the other boys in town did also, and there weren't any
bicycle lanes, and I don't remember any one telling us how dangerous
it was. And, I might add that I've been riding for 20 years, or so,in
a country with the second highest per capita road death rate in the
world... with only one close call and that was because I ran a stop
sign.

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there
roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the
right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite
interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

Not only England. Embrace the resistance!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...ree-range-kids



I hear they taste better than kids who are raised in pens.

Tosspot wrote:
On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote:

In general flashlights are bad because there can be a *lot* of bleed
outside the designed boresight angle. I suffer from this a lot from
people coming the other way at night, but tbf, it is very variable, with
some flashlights having little bleed. How do I tell? The conical beam
shape is a dead giveaway. With respect to your test, not a bad idea.
My IQ-X doesn't even illuminate tail lights/reflectors, and still throws
a beam some 20ft down the road, and in an exact mirror of your test, I

20ft - are you so greatly enjoying seeing all of the beam? I'd suggest you
set it to at least 20 yards if you ride more than half as fast as Jay or Joerg.

fitted a flashlight to the handlebars to try and determine the angle at
which the same occurred. It required *my* light to be set far to far
down to be useful.