Light works

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of the
reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads out of the
tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they panic and bolt
... smack-dab onto the trail.

So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's the
problem?


I don't like turkey all that much and wild ones can be a bit tough. Wild
boar is very tasty, just had that, but I think that in a crash with a
mountain biker the boar would win. Don't want one of those to get into
road rage.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:51:57 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of
the reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads out
of the tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they panic
and bolt ... smack-dab onto the trail.

So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's
the problem?


I don't like turkey all that much and wild ones can be a bit tough. Wild
boar is very tasty, just had that, but I think that in a crash with a
mountain biker the boar would win. Don't want one of those to get into
road rage.

Tricky coves those boar. They don't even have the grace to die when you
shoot them. Bicycles will just make them grumpy.

They are tasty though. Bit tricky to lay hands on near me though as I
live in the capitalised version of the bird you don't like that much.
--
davethedave

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:51:57 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of
the reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads out
of the tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they panic
and bolt ... smack-dab onto the trail.
So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's
the problem?

I don't like turkey all that much and wild ones can be a bit tough. Wild
boar is very tasty, just had that, but I think that in a crash with a
mountain biker the boar would win. Don't want one of those to get into
road rage.

Tricky coves those boar. They don't even have the grace to die when you
shoot them. Bicycles will just make them grumpy.


In Germnay someone told me they can also be mean. When a dog approaches
them playfully they pretend they want to play, let them come close and
then ram into the dog's side to kill it.


They are tasty though. Bit tricky to lay hands on near me though as I
live in the capitalised version of the bird you don't like that much.


There probably aren't too many animals for hunting in your area. From
all the photos I've seen at Turkish families there weren't too many
densely forested areas. Which sometimes is a good thing as our local
forest is on fire right now, big time, and it looks like it is still
burning out of control. Possibly no bike rides then next few days on
acount of the thick smoke in the air.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:23:10 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:51:57 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of
the reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads
out of the tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they
panic and bolt ... smack-dab onto the trail.
So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's
the problem?

I don't like turkey all that much and wild ones can be a bit tough.
Wild boar is very tasty, just had that, but I think that in a crash
with a mountain biker the boar would win. Don't want one of those to
get into road rage.

Tricky coves those boar. They don't even have the grace to die when you
shoot them. Bicycles will just make them grumpy.


In Germnay someone told me they can also be mean. When a dog approaches
them playfully they pretend they want to play, let them come close and
then ram into the dog's side to kill it.


They are tasty though. Bit tricky to lay hands on near me though as I
live in the capitalised version of the bird you don't like that much.



There probably aren't too many animals for hunting in your area. From
all the photos I've seen at Turkish families there weren't too many
densely forested areas. Which sometimes is a good thing as our local
forest is on fire right now, big time, and it looks like it is still
burning out of control. Possibly no bike rides then next few days on
acount of the thick smoke in the air.

Dude! Srsly! Most of the coutry is covered in trees! Where there aren't
trees there are farms that farm trees. Pomegranates, oranges, apples,
hazelnuts, bananas. In non tree farming there is tobacco as an odd one
and of course the usual suspects including tall corn fields wheat and
barley. There are plenty of animals. The quantity is not a problem. The
availability is. Think for a while. You'll get there.

Forest fires are a biggie here too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAgriojRQc

Hope yours gets put out soon. Happy riding.



--
davethedave

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:23:10 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:51:57 -0700, Joerg wrote:

davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:24:29 -0700, Joerg wrote:

epic snip

The animals with the lowest IQ seem to be the turkeys. That's one of
the reasons good lights are needed. They stick their little heads
out of the tall grass, barely visible. Then when you approach they
panic and bolt ... smack-dab onto the trail.
So you crash a bit and get free roast dinner as compensation. Where's
the problem?
I don't like turkey all that much and wild ones can be a bit tough.
Wild boar is very tasty, just had that, but I think that in a crash
with a mountain biker the boar would win. Don't want one of those to
get into road rage.
Tricky coves those boar. They don't even have the grace to die when you
shoot them. Bicycles will just make them grumpy.


In Germnay someone told me they can also be mean. When a dog approaches
them playfully they pretend they want to play, let them come close and
then ram into the dog's side to kill it.


They are tasty though. Bit tricky to lay hands on near me though as I
live in the capitalised version of the bird you don't like that much.


There probably aren't too many animals for hunting in your area. From
all the photos I've seen at Turkish families there weren't too many
densely forested areas. Which sometimes is a good thing as our local
forest is on fire right now, big time, and it looks like it is still
burning out of control. Possibly no bike rides then next few days on
acount of the thick smoke in the air.

Dude! Srsly! Most of the coutry is covered in trees! Where there aren't
trees there are farms that farm trees. Pomegranates, oranges, apples,
hazelnuts, bananas. In non tree farming there is tobacco as an odd one
and of course the usual suspects including tall corn fields wheat and
barley. There are plenty of animals. The quantity is not a problem. The
availability is. Think for a while. You'll get there.

Forest fires are a biggie here too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAgriojRQc


This is one of the Youtube videos which won't run here. But yeah, there
seem to be lots of trees:

http://www.dailysabah.com/nation/201...-under-control

The photos I saw mostly looked like central Spain or Nevada. There were
orchards and all that but artificial, not much natural forest. But I
understand Turkey is a big country so has other areas.


Hope yours gets put out soon. Happy riding.


Thanks. It's not looking very good right now:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...fire/15758301/

We can see a huge plume behind the hills east of us.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:15:51 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
18:46:07 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:41:57 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/09/14 11:14, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:16 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/09/14 21:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:


Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.


Unless you restrict the type of collision to the cyclist being hit from
behind, I contend that your assertion that "..if the bicycle is hit the
results are likely to be a dead cyclist and a dented car fender" is an
exaggeration.

Errr... if you are doing 30 ?PH and the car is doing 110 ?PH then 110
- 30 = 80 ?PH. You can prove your assertion by riding at 80 ?PH into a
brick wall, and let us know whether you receive any injuries and is so
how severe.

A collision between a bicycle and motor vehicle at those speeds is rare.
Hence, most collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles do not
result in the death of the person riding the bicycle.

You also assume the bicycle was hit from behind, otherwise the closing
speed is 140 ?PH, using your numbers, and as I said, being hit from
behind is the least likely collision between a bicycle and motor vehicle
- though, as I noted earlier, the most likely to cause a fatality. A
head on collision at 140 ?PH would of course also likely be fatal, but
is even less likely to occur in the first place.


I'm not assuming anything. As I previously said I was responding to
the 110 KPH and 130 KPH that was described in the original post.

But I did read somewhere, and unfortunately I can't remember where,
that the majority of bicycle deaths are the result of an overtaking
vehicle running them down. At least the only two deaths that I've read
of here apparently was caused by that.



The majority of collisions occur when the motorist fails to give way and
the person on the bike can not or does not avoid colliding with the
other vehicle. The collision speed is rarely much more or less than the
cyclists travel speed, and most often results in bumps, bruises, scrapes
and perhaps a broken bone or two.



But why should the car "give way"? After all it is certainly contrary
to normal male behavior, isn't it? Imagine sitting a the pub and
someone grabs your beer and swigs it down. And of course you punch him
in the nose...


Straw.

Nope. I'm responding to your description that "The majority of
collisions occur when the motorist fails to give way ..."

Why should the motorist give way?

Usually because there are a pair of dashed lines across the end of the
road the motorist is on, accompanied by a triangular "Give Way" sign,
requiring the motorist to yield to traffic on the major road he is
entering.
The lines and sign are not there for street decoration, but to signify
a legal requirement.

So? You are arguing that "The majority of bicycle collisions occur
when the motorist fails to give way", i.e. stop when entering a
larger roadway?

But someone else argues that the majority of bike accidents is caused
by right (or left) hooks.

Seems like some confusion about the subject.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:34:04 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
18:46:07 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:41:57 +1000, James
wrote:

On 17/09/14 11:14, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:16 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/09/14 21:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:


Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.
Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.

Unless you restrict the type of collision to the cyclist being hit from
behind, I contend that your assertion that "..if the bicycle is hit the
results are likely to be a dead cyclist and a dented car fender" is an
exaggeration.

Errr... if you are doing 30 ?PH and the car is doing 110 ?PH then 110
- 30 = 80 ?PH. You can prove your assertion by riding at 80 ?PH into a
brick wall, and let us know whether you receive any injuries and is so
how severe.
A collision between a bicycle and motor vehicle at those speeds is rare.
Hence, most collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles do not
result in the death of the person riding the bicycle.

You also assume the bicycle was hit from behind, otherwise the closing
speed is 140 ?PH, using your numbers, and as I said, being hit from
behind is the least likely collision between a bicycle and motor vehicle
- though, as I noted earlier, the most likely to cause a fatality. A
head on collision at 140 ?PH would of course also likely be fatal, but
is even less likely to occur in the first place.

I'm not assuming anything. As I previously said I was responding to
the 110 KPH and 130 KPH that was described in the original post.

But I did read somewhere, and unfortunately I can't remember where,
that the majority of bicycle deaths are the result of an overtaking
vehicle running them down. At least the only two deaths that I've read
of here apparently was caused by that.


The majority of collisions occur when the motorist fails to give way and
the person on the bike can not or does not avoid colliding with the
other vehicle. The collision speed is rarely much more or less than the
cyclists travel speed, and most often results in bumps, bruises, scrapes
and perhaps a broken bone or two.

But why should the car "give way"? After all it is certainly contrary
to normal male behavior, isn't it? Imagine sitting a the pub and
someone grabs your beer and swigs it down. And of course you punch him
in the nose...

Straw.
Nope. I'm responding to your description that "The majority of
collisions occur when the motorist fails to give way ..."

Why should the motorist give way?

Usually because there are a pair of dashed lines across the end of the
road the motorist is on, accompanied by a triangular "Give Way" sign,
requiring the motorist to yield to traffic on the major road he is
entering.
The lines and sign are not there for street decoration, but to signify
a legal requirement.


A yes, those lines where one find lots of broken glass, chuncks of turn
signals, coolant, oil, sand, chrome-plated debris and such.

Not so much here as the larger cities hire women to sweep the streets
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:08:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/17/2014 7:46 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I'm not assuming anything. As I previously said I was responding to
the 110 KPH and 130 KPH that was described in the original post.

But I did read somewhere, and unfortunately I can't remember where,
that the majority of bicycle deaths are the result of an overtaking
vehicle running them down. At least the only two deaths that I've read
of here apparently was caused by that.

There's a lot of misinformation about that.

First, let's remember that bicycling deaths from any sort of crash are
_extremely_ rare, at least in westernized countries. (I don't know
about southeast Asia, for example.) In the U.S., there are typically
only about 700 cyclist deaths per year, which roughly matches the number
of deaths from accidentally inhaling poisonous gases, and barely exceeds
the number of deaths from falling out of bed. There are probably over
10 million miles ridden between fatalities.


Frank, you must be wrong! Why, I'm forever reading right here about
the people who have been mowed down, threatened, or almost hit by
those fiendish automobile operators, primarily in the English speaking
countries. Why, if I did return to the U.S. I think I would be
terrified to actually ride a bicycle on the public highway.

And driving a car must be equally worrying as (again) I read here that
anyone who hits a cyclist for any reason should be lynched on the
spot.

Second, I've never (IIRC) seen any claim that the majority of fatalities
are from being run down from behind. The highest claim regarding that
has come from the League of American Bicyclists, which under Andy Clarke
has morphed from a "rights to the road" organization to a "we gotta have
segregated facilities everywhere" organization. In an apparent
propaganda push, they recently claimed 40% of bike deaths were hits from
behind, but more serious researchers have shown great skepticism. For
example, LAB got their data not from crash reports, but by looking for
newspaper articles, TV reports and blog posting on deaths! So rather
than the opinion of trained traffic investigators, they're relying on
guys who might specialize in writing society columns, or dudes living in
their mom's basement.


I'm not arguing. I did say that I "read somewhere".

By contrast, the NHTSA claims roughly one quarter of bike fatalities
were hits from behind. (NHTSA also notes that one quarter of bike
fatalities happen to cyclists who have been drinking, although that's a
separate issue.) Data from Florida, IIRC, has shown that a very large
percentage of hit-from-behind fatalities are night cyclists with no
lights. Not inadequate lights, but NO lights.

It would be nice to have better nationwide data. In particular, I'd be
very curious about good data on the cyclist's road position before a
crash, since I believe that being too far _right_ is a major risk
factor. Unfortunately, most states do a terrible job of recording
details of bike crashes.


I would be nice to have some data... I read statistics based on
"people who visited an emergency clinic with head injuries", whatever
that means.

As an example... my wife once hit a motorcycle, at a stop light. To
prevent any further claims she took the driver to the local hospital
where he was treated in the emergency clinic. the result was two
Band-Aid, one to the head and one to the elbow. On the other hand when
she took me to the hospital with a broken hip the bloke in the next
bed had a broken neck and part of his ear ground off from skidding
along the pavement.

For example, years ago, a friend of mine was brushed by a motorist and
had her elbow bruised. (BTW, she admitted she was riding too far right,
tempting the guy to pass in a too-narrow lane). Anyway, I have the
crash report. The cop omitted recording anything about her bike's
safety equipment, despite having space for that on the form. And the
form has no way to record whether she was one foot from the edge of the
road, as she was, vs. at lane center, where I'd have been on that narrow
road.

If you're interested in causes of car-bike crashes, probably the best
sources are the Kevin Cross study from 1978, available at
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

and Carol Tan's Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclist, at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications...pedbike/96104/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:19:52 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/16/2014 5:21 PM, Joerg wrote:

So just because the industry is unable or unwilling to provide equipment
that allows top speed I have to forego top speed on a bicycle but not in
a car?

Makes no sense to me and I am not the kind of guy who accepts that. If
needed I'll build it myself, or at least kludge it.

I'm not sure when the turning point was, but it seems like more and more
stuff requires a hack to gain functionality that was taken away by the
manufacturer (or left in but disabled). Cars, bicycles, smart phones,
computers, come to mind.

Sometimes the functionality is taken away to reduce costs, sometimes it
is taken away in order to sell or market extra items as accessories.
Often the manufacturer has a story ready as to why what they did is a
good thing, not a bad thing.

Usually there are extra-cost add-ons you can buy to restore the
functionality that was removed, but then you're paying retail for every
add-on, plus you need to install the add-ons.

I'm not sure that is the whole story. Here we have a very distinct
"rainy season" but I see, probably the majority of, the bikes on the
road without mud guards/fenders and a closer look shows that there is
no room to fit fenders as the forks are too close to the wheels.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:17:53 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee

wrote:



John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014

08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:



On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS

wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



Bloody right I do.

If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly

they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!

By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more

right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their

sense of entitlement.

If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or

two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the

police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online

This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their

actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.

Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with

powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving

the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an

example).





Damned Right!



The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red

lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.

( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.

states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)



You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.

You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.





Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do

you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other

traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to

yourself (taking the lane)?



--

Cheers,



John B.

Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for "impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed for holding up four or more vehicles.

I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going
slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".

So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you
only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.

Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised
traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even
when it is unsafe to do so.

Major logic failure there somewhere.

I believe that a look at your state's traffic regulations will show
that the words "not impede" are applicable to all road traffic. At
least the states I lived in had laws worded that way.
--
Cheers,

John B.