Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:31:47 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 5:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 20:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 10:32:58 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/11/2015 10:13 PM, sms wrote:


The fact is that StVZO has detailed rules regarding legal lights.
Technically, many of the LED lights that have been being produced did
not meet the the StVZO requirements in terms of the requirements for
lamps with non-removeable bulbs. It is not that LEDs were illegal, but
most of the LED lamps being produced were illegal. Thankfully they just
let this go.

The StVZO regulations are arcane and convoluted but if they had wanted
to enforce the letter of the law then most of the LED lamps that were
being sold, could not be sold. A "bulb" could not draw more than 2.64W
(2.4W + 10%).

Are you now claiming that the LEDs drew more than 2.64 Watts? Or if
not, what exactly are you claiming?

--
- Frank Krygowski

I can just imagine SMS standing at the side of the road and yelling himself hoarse whilst shouting at every passing bicyclist without a DRL or bright flashing lights, "YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE!"

Cheers

I can only assume that there are literally heaps of dying and dead
cyclists lining the California highways.

I've never been a "danger danger" like our friend from Ohio.

The best method of educating people is to set an example. Using proper
lighting is the best example. When people ask me where I got my lights,
or the handlebar mount, I tell them, but that's about it.


"Educating people"? How so? Telling people you gotta have a lite to
ride a bike?

Of course that old guy in Greece used to wander around with a lantern
in the day time.... looking for an honest man he was.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 10:31:48 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
I've never been a "danger danger" like our friend from Ohio.

The best method of educating people is to set an example. Using proper
lighting is the best example. When people ask me where I got my lights,
or the handlebar mount, I tell them, but that's about it.

Yet more bull****! You're saying that it's very dangerous to ride a bicycle in the daytime UNLESS YOU HAVE BRIGHT FLASHING DLRs! That's the same as shouting "DANGER! DANGER!" The simple fact that you continue to ignore is that MILLIONS, I repeat, MILLIONS of bicyclists commute each and every day and in very heavy traffic without using DLRs. SHHESH!

Cheers


How cruel. People see Swarfe's bike. They crowd around shouting "WHERE
DID YOU GET THAT LIGHT". He tells them about his web site and he makes
a couple of bucks.

What, you deny him a chance to make an honest dollar?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 07:32:43 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 5:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:15:40 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 7/11/2015 5:25 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I had expected that there would be a whole slew of screeching brakes
and cars swerving out of my way.... Damn! it was discouraging, not a
single car or truck seemed to notice my special, super, deluxe,
blinking light.

They all noticed it. That's why there was no screeching of brakes and
swerving. They saw you because you were conspicuous and they did not
have to make any sudden moves.


Well this morning I tried it without the light and Bless Me, I
couldn't tell the difference. The cars, buses and trucks acted just
like they did the day I tested the flasher.

You must have had a built in bias, or you were riding in such a way that
making yourself more conspicuous made no difference.


I haven't changed my riding style in 20 years and I don't believe that
I am biased. I have both a front and rear flashing light on my bikes
but I certainly don't allege that the cars treat me differently when
the flashers are on, as you do. In fact, as I said, I can't see any
difference whatsoever, lights on, off, flashing, or not installed.

I haven't tried the flag idea but I do, occasionally see people
carrying a 12 ft. length of PVC pipe on their shoulder. Perhaps that
might be a good idea.
--
cheers,

John B.

Am 10.07.2015 um 21:31 schrieb sms:
On 7/10/2015 12:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

But keep in mind that statistics are like opinions, except worse
because people present them as facts. The raw data is the fact -- and
like Frank points out, the conclusions drawn from the DRL data are
suspicious -- much like helmets preventing broken legs (mine does,
BTW). I don't trust epidemiology about 74% of the time.

Frank's problem has long been that he doesn't understand the difference
between correlation and causation. The "helmets prevent broken legs"
schtick that he is so fond of is a direct result of this failure of
being able to distinguish between correlation and causation.

He does but those people who markte helmets by mentioning papers that
try to demonstrate causation by claiming correlation don't.

Do you know the 'contra-positive' rule of formal logic?

A = B is equivalent to -B = -A.

Causation implies correlation. Therefore failed correlation implied no
causation.

Rolf

Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

On 13/07/2015 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

It does. So what are you trying to say with "all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus and there must be a good reason for this."

On 7/13/2015 5:26 AM, Duane wrote:
On 13/07/2015 8:06 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.07.2015 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
On 7/9/2015 12:11 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Something really bad must be happening if somebody like you sits in the
front of the bus! You can clearly see that all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus, and there must be a good reason for this
(you grandad might remember).

Something must have gotten screwed up when you translated whatever it is
you meant to say.

Do the key words Alabama and 1956 ring a bell?

It does. So what are you trying to say with "all people like you always
sit in the rear of the bus and there must be a good reason for this."

Whatever he meant to say got lost in translation.

On 7/13/2015 1:40 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 10.07.2015 um 21:31 schrieb sms:
On 7/10/2015 12:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

But keep in mind that statistics are like opinions, except worse
because people present them as facts. The raw data is the fact -- and
like Frank points out, the conclusions drawn from the DRL data are
suspicious -- much like helmets preventing broken legs (mine does,
BTW). I don't trust epidemiology about 74% of the time.

Frank's problem has long been that he doesn't understand the difference
between correlation and causation. The "helmets prevent broken legs"
schtick that he is so fond of is a direct result of this failure of
being able to distinguish between correlation and causation.

He does but those people who markte helmets by mentioning papers that
try to demonstrate causation by claiming correlation don't.

I've never seen that, but I don't pay attention to marketing claims by
helmet companies. I look at statistics and data from studies that have
nothing to gain no matter what the conclusion.

Do you know the 'contra-positive' rule of formal logic?

A = B is equivalent to -B = -A.

Causation implies correlation. Therefore failed correlation implied no
causation.

That's why no normal person would ever claim causation when only
correlation exists. That's why control groups are used and only one
variable is changed at a time.