Handlebar rotation

On 7/7/2017 1:59 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 09:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/7/2017 10:26 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 19:34, wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote:

Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles
for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris
randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop
bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it
better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and
the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a
1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now
strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own
in a self-supported manner while still receiving
recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA.

Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance
bicycle riding without Joerg built lights.


It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current
state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't,
and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way.
And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical
systems when I was a teenager.

The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden
_successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary.


As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going
to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if
they can't afford new ones.


There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those
will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is
actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person
who does well without the overkill item.


A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is
IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would
never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles.
There are good reasons why not.


For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride.
About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly
fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has
occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh,
perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car,
despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without
blinkies.


I have never been hit from behind either but the number of
close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear
lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very
expensive to accomplish.

Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it
ain't so :-)

We've been over this multiple times, but:

If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way
down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast,
I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never
be able to see a big reduction.

Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close
calls are almost always due in part to rider error -
specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the
right.


Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died
because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk
tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM*

Well, Frank is right. Bicycles offer a far smaller target and if you
wear bright clothing so that you don't catch drivers unaware you're
pretty safe.


AFAIR she had a bright jersey on.


Unless you ride in an area and at times drunk drivers are on the
road.


Not just those, also texting ones and more recently stoned drivers.

I found that lights are far better than any neon-colored jersey.
Someone with 1/2 watt LEDs that do a police cruiser spiel like mine
can be seen from half a mile away and gets the attention. End of this
video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3iZ-Ch7pY

The end of that video shows the bike light indoors in a dark room.
Nobody here is saying that taillights are not valuable in the dark. In
fact, I think they should be a legal requirement after dark. (Currently,
only about three states require them instead of reflectors.)

I'm arguing against the currently fashionable superstition that a blinky
taillight makes a practical difference in ordinary daylight. I've seen
no decent evidence that it does. ...


I have, big time. Therefore, mine is lit anytime you see my bike on
roads. On bike paths I turn it off during the day.



... I've observed many dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of riders with daytime blinkies. In no case did I spot the
cyclist only because he had a blinky. In almost every case, I noticed
the cyclist first and only later saw "Oh, he's running his magic blinky."

Just like in this advertising photo:
https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO

I meant at a much greater distance and also not some li'l Walmart blinky
but a real light.

Joerg, that taillight in the link is advertised as specifically designed
to be used in daytime. They claim it's visible in daylight a mile away,
but it's still not as visible as the rider himself. This is what I've
seen time and again on the road, including with one guy I know who has
an array of _three_ bright blinkies on his back rack.

I think the people who brag about the purported benefits must be the
same people who brag about how snapping their fingers keeps the
elephants away.

I saw that photo at least ten times before I wondered "So it's a
bicyclist being passed by a car. What are they advertising?" I thought
it was funny that they pretend you wouldn't see the rider unless he had
the taillight under his saddle.

Oh, and he's riding too far to the right. There's no way that car can
give three feet of clearance without crossing the yellow line. That
means the rider should make that clear by his lane position.


And get a ticket in places like CA.

And we've been over that issue many times. Previously I've posted
citations of California law plus recommendations of CA bike safety
organizations. They all disagree with you.

You could try posting links to a bunch of stories about such tickets
being given. If they're not imaginary, that is.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 07/07/2017 3:33 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/6/17 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:00 PM, sms wrote:


What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a
change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much
more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles
turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and
fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because
they can see you.

I've seen no evidence that those claims apply to "most of us here."
Instead, what I've seen is evidence that you (i.e. Stephen M. Scharf)
and Joerg firmly believe that.

Actually, you believe it too. The issue is that you've become so
invested in false narrative, on a variety of subjects related to
cycling, that you're unwilling to publicly admit what you know is true.

We have a president like that.

If we're going to say "most of us" I expect most of us define adequate
lighting as enough lighting necessary when it's dark out or raining. In
other words when visibility is low. I see hundreds of bikes on my
commute and unless it's before sunrise, after sunset or in the rain I
don't see lights.

Argue the utility if you like - maybe you're right, but stop with the
declarations that you're with the majority.

On 7/7/2017 2:02 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-07 07:51, wrote:
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 7:33:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote:

[...]

Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could
find without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells
me that there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was
killed for every 10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously,
statistically, bicycle riding is a very dangerious pastime!

Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these
dangerious devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike!


I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories,
real people, real grieving families and all that. People like
Justin Vega:

http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/



In San Francisco almost ALL of the bicycle deaths are from cyclists
running lights or stop signs. I run stop signs as well but only when
no other traffic is present or when I would hold up traffic at other
stop signs by not running the sign.


Out here most get smasehd into from behind. "Taking the lane" can be
deadly out here and nobody in their right mind does that.

I call bull****. First, bicyclist deaths are very rare. Dying from
falling out of bed is about as common as dying from a bike crash.

But there's no way "most [bike fatalities] get smasehd from behind." The
data set that gave the highest percentage of hit-from-behinds was
generated by the useless League of American Bicyclists, but it was far
from scientific. It involved hiring interns to scour the web for bike
deaths and see if the related article mentioned the nature of the crash.
The so-called "data" was unofficial, it omitted all crashes the
interns couldn't find, it relied on second- or third-hand information,
and it still came up with just 40% hits from behind.

Other studies have put the number far lower, as low as 10%, and most of
those were probably unlit cyclists riding at night.

Controlling a narrow lane is emphatic advice given in the education
programs run by the American Bicycle Education Association, the League
of American Bicyclists, CAN-BIKE in Canada, the Bikeability bike
education in Britain, etc.

Why is it that Joerg thinks he knows more than all the instructors of
all those programs?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/7/2017 3:33 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/6/17 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:00 PM, sms wrote:


What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a
change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much
more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles
turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and
fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because
they can see you.

I've seen no evidence that those claims apply to "most of us here."
Instead, what I've seen is evidence that you (i.e. Stephen M. Scharf)
and Joerg firmly believe that.

Actually, you believe it too.

That's a perfect example of speaking from perfect ignorance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:33:58 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 20:11, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 13:02:57 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote:

Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and
years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An
essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course,
do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the
'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but
no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that
anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still
receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA.

Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding
without Joerg built lights.


It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current
state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive
most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had
bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager.

The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden
_successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary.


As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get.
Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't
afford new ones.


There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim
or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity.
But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill
item.


A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not
overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster
at type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not.


For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15
people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime
rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every
week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been
hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!)
without blinkies.


I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls
has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission
accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish.

Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-)

We've been over this multiple times, but:

If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way down, it
must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast, I almost never
experience such a close call; therefore I'd never be able to see a big
reduction.

Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close calls are
almost always due in part to rider error - specifically, inviting close
passes by riding too far to the right.


Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died because
of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk tried to
evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM*

[...]

You mean to say that you were run into on Blue Ravine and died? Or
this is just something that you saw on the TV?


I didn't have an operation to turn me into a woman :-)

It was shortly after we moved here about 20 years ago. That and several
other serious accidents combined with (or rather, caused by) the lack of
cycling infrastructure resulted in me and lots of others to mothball the
bikes for many years. While those accidents were not always fatal many
were what the medical folks call "life-changing" where riders became
crippled for the rest of their lives.


So what you are actually saying is that bicycles are dangerious. and
as the U.S. notion seems to be that one must do everything possible to
protect the poor consumer then logically these dangerious bicycles
should be banned to protect society.


But even so, www.statista.com reported to be something in the
neighborhood of 66.52 million bicycle riders in Spring 2016.... and
one woman died?


That was one example of many. We have about one death a month in the
area, on average. Many are hit from behind.


Actually 726 died in the U.S. in 2014 ( the latest year I could find
without looking very hard) and in 2014 the above site tells me that
there were 67.33 million cyclists. So one cyclist was killed for every
10,096.4 that rode a bike. Obviously, statistically, bicycle riding is
a very dangerious pastime!

Perhaps the government should be encouraged to ban these dangerious
devices. Save Lives! Ban a Bike!


I read about them in our local paper and those are real stories, real
people, real grieving families and all that. People like Justin Vega:

http://fox40.com/2017/05/26/sacramen...d-25-year-old/


Certainly. But do you read in your local papers about the thousands,
millions?, of bicycle riders who quite happily ride around with never
an accident?

Of course not as a happy, contented rider isn't newsworthy, it is the
blood and guts strewn all over the road that makes the headlines. So,
essentially, you are reading a media what dotes on death. And so, of
course, you read about deaths.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 07:38:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 7:54:44 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

Well, I ride in what is generally considered the 2nd, or third, most
chaotic traffic in the world and I have seen no evidence whatsoever,
in the past 10 years or so, that a blinkie on a bike had decreased the
number of close calls.

I might add that those blinkies only maintain maximum (barely visible in daylight) brilliance for a ride or two and rapidly fade to the point where another rider behind you can see it only because he knows it's there.

I might also add that the number of all the "close calls" I have had
can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, perhaps without
using the thumb.

I don't believe that these are close calls. I believe that they are drivers giving you a close pass to frighten you and prove that they are kings of the road.

Not in Bangkok traffic. Or at least I have never observed anyone
passing me closely deliberately. Certainly I have had close passes but
the car or bus that just passed me closely passed the car in front of
me just as closely. In fact it is common to have a bus, who normally
travels in the outside lane hesitate to pass as the driver is a bit
hesitant to pass too closely. It is very common at an intersection.
You stop on the side of the road and a bus pulls up behind you. There
is room for him to slide by but unless you wave him by he will sit
there behind you rather then try to pass.

Live is not perfect but certainly it is appears to be far less
dangerious here then I read about there.


In fact I would suggest that if you are having more then a very few
actual "close calls" riding in what would be classed as far less
chaotic traffic then I normally ride in that the reason is not a
blinking light, or lack thereof.

That's pretty nasty John. I love it.

No, it is reality.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:41:02 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 19:54, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 12:14:33 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote:

Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles for years and
years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris randonnée was held in 1891. An
essentially non-stop bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course,
do it better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and the
'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a 1,200 km ride but
no longer an official randonnée and now strictly a permanent that
anyone could ride on their own in a self-supported manner while still
receiving recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA.

Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance bicycle riding
without Joerg built lights.


It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current
state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't, and I derive
most of my income from not thinking that way. And yes, I already had
bicycles with real electrical systems when I was a teenager.

The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden
_successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary.


As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going to get.
Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if they can't afford
new ones.


There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those will claim
or pretend that their favorite overkill item is actually a necessity.
But that's disproven by every person who does well without the overkill
item.


A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is IMO not
overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would never pass muster at
type certification for motor vehicles. There are good reasons why not.

You don't suppose that is because the auto is capable of speeds in
excess of 100 kpm, do you?


No, because they already had that in the days they put-putted slightly
faster than a horse. Heck, even the mofas (Motor-Fahrrad, translates to
motor bicycle) had lights that always worked, in the 70's when I lived
in Germany. Mandatory by law.


For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride. About 15
people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly fashionable daytime
rear blinkies. This particular ride has occurred once per week every
week except in winter for, oh, perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been
hit by a car, despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!)
without blinkies.


I have never been hit from behind either but the number of close calls
has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear lights. Mission
accomplished. The best is, this was never very expensive to accomplish.

Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it ain't so :-)

Well, I ride in what is generally considered the 2nd, or third, most
chaotic traffic in the world and I have seen no evidence whatsoever,
in the past 10 years or so, that a blinkie on a bike had decreased the
number of close calls.

I might also add that the number of all the "close calls" I have had
can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, perhaps without
using the thumb.

In fact I would suggest that if you are having more then a very few
actual "close calls" riding in what would be classed as far less
chaotic traffic then I normally ride in that the reason is not a
blinking light, or lack thereof.


It is. This is not hustling and bustling San Francisco, New York,
Bangkok or Phuket. Here we have lots of high-speed county roads and
thoroughfares where almost everyone drives 10-15mph above the speed
limit and with various levels of distraction. How do you think all those
"veered off the road, over-corrected and rolled over" accidents without
the participation of any other traffic happen?

But Joreg, we have big roads here too., My "new" Sunday ride is on a
major route from Bangkok to the eastern seaboard. A 6 - 8 lane
highway, limited access, high speed and still we don't seem to have
the vast number of crashes that you seem to have in California.

From the numbers I see, total traffic associated deaths in California
were 3,074 in 2014. Bicycle deaths were 128, or 4.1% of all traffic
deaths.

Yes Sir! Bicycling is a dangerious pastime.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:26:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/7/2017 10:26 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 19:34, wrote:
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 1:02:53 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 3:14 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-06 12:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-07-05 17:49, John B. wrote:

Yet people have been riding long distances on bicycles
for years and years. The first Paris - Brest - Paris
randonnée was held in 1891. An essentially non-stop
bicycle ride of 1,200 km. The British, of course, do it
better with the 1433 km London Edinburgh London 2017 and
the 'mericans have the Boston-Montreal-Boston, again a
1,200 km ride but no longer an official randonnée and now
strictly a permanent that anyone could ride on their own
in a self-supported manner while still receiving
recognition (validation) from Randonneurs USA.

Think of it, 126 years of successful long distance
bicycle riding without Joerg built lights.


It's simple. Most humans have a habit of accepting current
state-of-the-art as "that's as good as it gets". I don't,
and I derive most of my income from not thinking that way.
And yes, I already had bicycles with real electrical
systems when I was a teenager.

The detail you're missing is that people have always ridden
_successfully_ without the systems you deem necessary.


As I said, people got used to that this is all they are going
to get. Just like people get used to walking in worn shoes if
they can't afford new ones.


There are always people who are into overkill. Some of those
will claim or pretend that their favorite overkill item is
actually a necessity. But that's disproven by every person
who does well without the overkill item.


A vehicle where the light does not go out or dim way down is
IMO not overkill. The lighting "system" bicyles have would
never pass muster at type certification for motor vehicles.
There are good reasons why not.


For just one example: I'm just back from another club ride.
About 15 people were on the ride. Two of them had the newly
fashionable daytime rear blinkies. This particular ride has
occurred once per week every week except in winter for, oh,
perhaps ten years. Nobody has ever been hit by a car,
despite the thousands of person-miles ridden (GASP!) without
blinkies.


I have never been hit from behind either but the number of
close calls has noticeably decreased since I have bright rear
lights. Mission accomplished. The best is, this was never very
expensive to accomplish.

Now you can stick the head in the sand again and pretend it
ain't so :-)

We've been over this multiple times, but:

If your number of close calls for hits-from-behind has gone way
down, it must have been pretty high to begin with. By contrast,
I almost never experience such a close call; therefore I'd never
be able to see a big reduction.

Why don't those close calls happen to me? Because those close
calls are almost always due in part to rider error -
specifically, inviting close passes by riding too far to the
right.


Yeah, right. The woman who rode in the lane on Blue Ravine died
because of that. The other woman in the pickup truck who was drunk
tried to evade but the lane was now too narrow and *BAM*

Well, Frank is right. Bicycles offer a far smaller target and if you
wear bright clothing so that you don't catch drivers unaware you're
pretty safe.


AFAIR she had a bright jersey on.


Unless you ride in an area and at times drunk drivers are on the
road.


Not just those, also texting ones and more recently stoned drivers.

I found that lights are far better than any neon-colored jersey. Someone
with 1/2 watt LEDs that do a police cruiser spiel like mine can be seen
from half a mile away and gets the attention. End of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3iZ-Ch7pY

The end of that video shows the bike light indoors in a dark room.
Nobody here is saying that taillights are not valuable in the dark. In
fact, I think they should be a legal requirement after dark.
(Currently, only about three states require them instead of reflectors.)

I'm arguing against the currently fashionable superstition that a blinky
taillight makes a practical difference in ordinary daylight. I've seen
no decent evidence that it does. I've observed many dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of riders with daytime blinkies. In no case did I spot the
cyclist only because he had a blinky. In almost every case, I noticed
the cyclist first and only later saw "Oh, he's running his magic blinky."

Just like in this advertising photo:
https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO

I saw that photo at least ten times before I wondered "So it's a
bicyclist being passed by a car. What are they advertising?" I thought
it was funny that they pretend you wouldn't see the rider unless he had
the taillight under his saddle.

Oh, and he's riding too far to the right. There's no way that car can
give three feet of clearance without crossing the yellow line. That
means the rider should make that clear by his lane position.

Some time ago a group of cyclists passed me on a fairly straight
section of road, normal day, no overcast or haze, and interestingly
the one who was noticeably visible the longest was noticeable because
he was wearing a pair of knee socks in a very lurid orange color. Long
after blinkies could no longer be seen those bright orange legs going
up and down were very noticeable.

But having said that I do suspect that bright colored jerseys and
blinking lights fore and aft probably do increase one's visibility (or
maybe noticiblity) although to what extent they decrease accidents is
arguable.

The most recent bike deaths reported here was a woman, very drunk,
that plowed into the rear of a group of 4 cyclists, in broad daylight,
on a main street killing two and injuring two. The news article was an
announcement of her appealing a two year prison sentence and court
ordered compensation payments to the families of several million baht
(1 million baht is about $30,000). Whether bright lights would have
prevented this is certainly debatable.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:29:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/7/2017 3:33 PM, sms wrote:
On 7/6/17 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2017 11:00 PM, sms wrote:


What most of us have found is that using adequate lighting causes a
change in behavior of motor vehicles because the cyclists is much
more visible. You have fewer close calls. You have fewer vehicles
turning left in front of you as you approach a traffic light, and
fewer vehicles exiting parking lots or driveways in your path because
they can see you.

I've seen no evidence that those claims apply to "most of us here."
Instead, what I've seen is evidence that you (i.e. Stephen M. Scharf)
and Joerg firmly believe that.

Actually, you believe it too.

That's a perfect example of speaking from perfect ignorance.

Well, he IS a politician.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 11:25:19 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:26:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm arguing against the currently fashionable superstition that a blinky
taillight makes a practical difference in ordinary daylight. I've seen
no decent evidence that it does. I've observed many dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of riders with daytime blinkies. In no case did I spot the
cyclist only because he had a blinky. In almost every case, I noticed
the cyclist first and only later saw "Oh, he's running his magic blinky."

Just like in this advertising photo:
https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=QBL2UTKO

I saw that photo at least ten times before I wondered "So it's a
bicyclist being passed by a car. What are they advertising?" I thought
it was funny that they pretend you wouldn't see the rider unless he had
the taillight under his saddle.

Oh, and he's riding too far to the right. There's no way that car can
give three feet of clearance without crossing the yellow line. That
means the rider should make that clear by his lane position.

Some time ago a group of cyclists passed me on a fairly straight
section of road, normal day, no overcast or haze, and interestingly
the one who was noticeably visible the longest was noticeable because
he was wearing a pair of knee socks in a very lurid orange color. Long
after blinkies could no longer be seen those bright orange legs going
up and down were very noticeable.

There's value in highlighting or spotlighting the alternating left-right-left
motion of a human being. Our brains are hard-wired to detect that characteristic
human motion.

With bikes, this is most frequently done with pedal reflectors. They are very
effective at night. I suppose day-glo socks or shoes would do the same job
in daylight.

I haven't heard of lighted pedals, but I'd bet they'd be very effective at night.



But having said that I do suspect that bright colored jerseys and
blinking lights fore and aft probably do increase one's visibility (or
maybe noticiblity) although to what extent they decrease accidents is
arguable.

And that's one of my main points regarding these visibility enhancers. Does it
matter if a motorist sees you from 2000 feet away instead of from 1000 feet
away? I very much doubt it makes a practical difference in a significant
number of cases.

But "practical difference" and "significant numbers" make no difference to
purchasers of magical trinkets. Those people are all about "Well, it _might_
help" and "It can't hurt" and "But what if the ONE example is YOU??"

I suppose that's fine if they keep their superstitions to themselves. But
some do not, as we've seen.

- Frank Krygowski