A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

visibility of DRL



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 5th 19, 01:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 6:01 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 12:15, 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.Â* 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.Â* I found myself on google street view on my ride home
last fall.Â* I got passed by the car, and then passed it, and got
passed again.Â* So I, and the bike, are in a bunch of pictures,
from the front and behind, over several blocks.Â* This one gives a
good view of the headlight.Â* It's more visible than I'd have
expected.Â* 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.


Next to the red car behind it, less visible:

https://goo.gl/maps/dNQBiRm4z672


Yes, because he chose a red jacket. If he chose yellow, he'd be better
off with the red car as background.

But then he might come upon a yellow car. Perhaps he should use green?

The obvious solution is to carry a full wardrobe of various colors and
quickly change jackets depending on traffic conditions.

Much more seriously: "less visible" than some theoretical maximum is not
necessarily a problem. A cyclist needs to be visible _enough_. And
despite the currently fashionable fear mongering, that does not require
any technology that wasn't common 20 years ago.

Good grief, Joerg, how did you survive riding 20 years ago??

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #22  
Old April 5th 19, 01:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 4:35 PM, 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



Dream big!
http://tesladownunder.com/WorldsBrightestBike.htm


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


  #23  
Old April 5th 19, 01:22 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 6:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 2:35:52 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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


The commuter scrum: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

Imagine if all those people had eye-popping, retina burning flashers and headlights.


We vacationed (and rode) in Amsterdam late last year. Eye-popping
headlights and taillights were completely absent. (That was true in
their bike lanes and on streets with no bike lanes.) In fact, I was
surprised to see a fair number of "stealth" bicyclists at night.

(In some of the darker areas, seeing them required some attention.
Especially when walking, one had to pay lots of attention to safely get
across a bike lane.)

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #24  
Old April 5th 19, 01:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 5:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 2:35:52 PM UTC-7, 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


The commuter scrum: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

Imagine if all those people had eye-popping, retina burning flashers and headlights.

And why do you need mega-light DRLs anyway? The vaunted Odense study proved that a tiny, induction powered front light prevented bicycle accidents -- even one-bike accidents, which is pretty amazing. http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-s...odense-denmark https://www.reelight.com/collections...s/products/cph

I'm fine with safety equipment that isn't annoying or unsafe. I'm not going to prescribe for others. Get your vest and flippy flag, clog the facility riding 8mph, but 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.


"tiny, induction powered front light prevented bicycle
accidents"

I resemble that remark.

Haven't died in traffic for some 50 years of regular riding.
My 6v tire drive dynamos & SA GH6 DynoHub are a real upgrade
from French Wonder leg lights (even I have some minimal
standard).

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


  #25  
Old April 5th 19, 01:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default visibility of DRL

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
  #26  
Old April 5th 19, 01:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default visibility of DRL

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.

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


  #27  
Old April 5th 19, 01:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 6:17 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/3/2019 9:58 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
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

And one that will make Frank happy:
https://goo.gl/maps/S1QRDrdpBhz


I used your Street Views to track you along the street for quite a
while. Looks to me like in most photos, the light is visible only as a
white dot. (I suspect the photos where it looks brighter happened to
capture a moment when your handlebars twitched a big more toward the
Google car.) Overall, I doubt very much that it will make any more
difference than, say, if you painted a white circle on the middle of
your chest.

Which is not to say your light - or a white circle - has zero value in
daylight. There's data out there showing that motorcyclists who choose
white helmets get hit a bit less than motorcyclists who choose dark
helmets. However, that doesn't justify forcing all motorcyclists to wear
only white hats.

Some here will say that the problem is your Busch & Mueller headlight,
which is designed for lighting the road but not glaring in the eyes of
other road users. They have called for super-bright lights with
unsophisticated round beams, the kind that can irritate or even blind
others.


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.


Agreed but out in the real world it's a real problem:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16669326

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


  #28  
Old April 5th 19, 01:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 8:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

"tiny, induction powered front light prevented bicycle accidents"

I resemble that remark.

Haven't died in traffic for some 50 years of regular riding. My 6v tire
drive dynamos & SA GH6 DynoHub are a real upgrade from French Wonder leg
lights (even I have some minimal standard).


I just got back from an evening ride. On that bike, a B&M Eyc headlight
is powered by an old Union rim driven dynamo (it used to be tire
driven). I noticed once again that it lit up stop signs roughly a
quarter mile away.

If the light rays are bright enough to make it to the sign then bounce
back to my eye, they will certainly be bright enough in the eye of a
motorist who's that far away.

Andrew, what bulb are you using in the Dynohub headlamp? I've wondered
about the NL432 LED bulb from Reflectalite:
http://www.reflectalite.com/LEDpage.html#anchor78877

See the section "STURMEY ARCHER VINTAGE DYNOHUBS" down the page a bit.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #29  
Old April 5th 19, 01:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default visibility of DRL

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:32:48 -0400, 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.


Yes, I am aware of that but given that the bicycles seem to be
demanding special considerations for themselves, one assumes because
it is so dangerous to ride a bicycle on the public roads and highways,
that they must have special paths, why should they not comply to the
safety equipment demanded for other vehicles.

It is to make themselves safer but they seem to want to avoid this on
the one hand and demand their own safe paths on the other.

Or are bicycles somehow God's chosen people and have rights that are
denied to the other users of the highway.

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.


Sure, because they are longer, wider and higher than many other users.
But is that a reason for the tiny insignificant bicycle to be without
safety features whatsoever?

--
cheers,

John B.

  #30  
Old April 5th 19, 02:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default visibility of DRL

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
visibility Frank Krygowski[_4_] Techniques 145 July 1st 16 02:14 AM
visibility [email protected] Techniques 0 September 3rd 15 11:34 PM
visibility Zebee Johnstone Australia 33 July 1st 06 06:38 AM
visibility wle Techniques 2 December 9th 03 07:59 PM
know where i can get a visibility flag? George Stuteville Recumbent Biking 13 October 13th 03 10:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


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