|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 13:23:59 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote: John B. wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:52:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:25:55 AM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 2/12/2018 5:00 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote: No, Joerg is claiming that ordinary StVZO tail lights that are visible from 500 meters in Europe are not good enough for his and fellow Californians' impaired sense of vision, and why he feels tail lights that feature 5000 ft+ visibility are preferable. And he is trying to confuse what can actually be powered by dynamo with what he "remembers" seeing, back then, on inspecified cycles in traffic. The StVZO lights are woefully inadequate. Don't forget that you need one that is visible in the daytime as well. You need a daytime taillight exactly as much as you need a tall flippy flag. In fact, the flippy flag is more visible under many circumstances. Here you go: http://www.parkerflags.com/Bicycle-Flags-Prodlist.html You can't be too safe! - Frank Krygowski Some interesting statistics. Thailand passed a law some years ago that all motorcycles must have their lights on when being operated. Day or night, the normal front and rear lights must be on when the vehicle is moving. The results: These lighted vehicles are now involved in 73% of all highway accidents, in fact these lighted vehicles now account for more accidents then all other vehicles combined. Amazing how lights can make you safe in one hemisphere while (apparently) doing little or nothing to make you safe in another. Interestingly, bicycles, although bright lights are rarely seen, make up about 2% of highway accidents in Thailand. about the same as in the U.S. -- Cheers, John B. So what was the accident rate for motorcycles before? 50%? 90%? One number doesn't give a lot of insight here. Difficult to say as (1) the law came into effect 5 to 7 years ago and (2) (strangely) Thai statistics are reported in the Thai language so unless someone wants to take the trouble to translate a particular year they are unintelligible to most. As for quoting a single year's accidents and then shouting "Danger! Danger!" it seems to be the norm, both here and in other reports. -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:54:27 -0800, sms
wrote: On 2/13/2018 5:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:52:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:25:55 AM UTC-5, sms wrote: On 2/12/2018 5:00 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote: No, Joerg is claiming that ordinary StVZO tail lights that are visible from 500 meters in Europe are not good enough for his and fellow Californians' impaired sense of vision, and why he feels tail lights that feature 5000 ft+ visibility are preferable. And he is trying to confuse what can actually be powered by dynamo with what he "remembers" seeing, back then, on inspecified cycles in traffic. The StVZO lights are woefully inadequate. Don't forget that you need one that is visible in the daytime as well. You need a daytime taillight exactly as much as you need a tall flippy flag. In fact, the flippy flag is more visible under many circumstances. Here you go: http://www.parkerflags.com/Bicycle-Flags-Prodlist.html You can't be too safe! - Frank Krygowski Some interesting statistics. Thailand passed a law some years ago that all motorcycles must have their lights on when being operated. Day or night, the normal front and rear lights must be on when the vehicle is moving. The results: These lighted vehicles are now involved in 73% of all highway accidents, in fact these lighted vehicles now account for more accidents then all other vehicles combined. Amazing how lights can make you safe in one hemisphere while (apparently) doing little or nothing to make you safe in another. Interestingly, bicycles, although bright lights are rarely seen, make up about 2% of highway accidents in Thailand. about the same as in the U.S. -- Cheers, John B. So what was the accident rate for motorcycles before? 50%? 90%? One number doesn't give a lot of insight here. LOL, exactly the right question. Also, what else changed besides the lighting requirement? Some people don't WANT to understand the difference between correlation and causation! But, but, nothing changed except that the motorcycles had to turn their lights on. I do agree however that "Some people don't WANT to understand the difference between correlation and causation!" It is perfectly true and most commonly observed among those who are striving to convince others that bright bicycle lights make one safer. -- Cheers, John B. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/13/2018 1:10 PM, jbeattie wrote:
When it comes to DRLs, correlation is about all we have. I haven't seen a single study where are driver claimed he or she saw a bicyclist and avoided an accident during daylight hours because of a light. LOL, you're sounding like the people that think that there are entities running around funding every possible double-blind study. They are very good at trying to promote doubt with every study that proves something that doesn't fit their agenda. It's not just the Odense study on DRLs, it's also all the studies on motorcycle headlights, both steady and modulated. Sometimes you have to look at other relevant studies and extrapolate. Sometimes you just have to use logic and common sense, and not dismiss every thing you don't like, without any facts or logic by screaming "danger danger," like our fried from Ohio. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:43:14 -0800, sms
wrote: On 2/13/2018 1:10 PM, jbeattie wrote: When it comes to DRLs, correlation is about all we have. I haven't seen a single study where are driver claimed he or she saw a bicyclist and avoided an accident during daylight hours because of a light. LOL, you're sounding like the people that think that there are entities running around funding every possible double-blind study. They are very good at trying to promote doubt with every study that proves something that doesn't fit their agenda. It's not just the Odense study on DRLs, it's also all the studies on motorcycle headlights, both steady and modulated. You don't view a study that was 100% financed and supported by Reelight that. strangely enough, proved that using the Reelight magnet powered light was Good! Good! Good! is just a tiny bit suspect? Probably not as it supports YOUR assertions that bright lights make Bikes safe. But I suspect that you never actually read the study, did you? After all Reelight seems to be strangely reticent in announcing the power of their lights. They only describe it as " a smart little bike light with bright clear illumination". But One does wonder how powerful a tiny little one LED lamp powered by a magnet attached to the spokes really is? Strange that someone who advocates large powerful bicycle lights would be a proponent of such a tiny little light. -- Cheers, John B. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:08:10 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:43:14 -0800, sms wrote: On 2/13/2018 1:10 PM, jbeattie wrote: When it comes to DRLs, correlation is about all we have. I haven't seen a single study where are driver claimed he or she saw a bicyclist and avoided an accident during daylight hours because of a light. LOL, you're sounding like the people that think that there are entities running around funding every possible double-blind study. They are very good at trying to promote doubt with every study that proves something that doesn't fit their agenda. It's not just the Odense study on DRLs, it's also all the studies on motorcycle headlights, both steady and modulated. You don't view a study that was 100% financed and supported by Reelight that. strangely enough, proved that using the Reelight magnet powered light was Good! Good! Good! is just a tiny bit suspect? Probably not as it supports YOUR assertions that bright lights make Bikes safe. But I suspect that you never actually read the study, did you? After all Reelight seems to be strangely reticent in announcing the power of their lights. They only describe it as " a smart little bike light with bright clear illumination". But One does wonder how powerful a tiny little one LED lamp powered by a magnet attached to the spokes really is? Strange that someone who advocates large powerful bicycle lights would be a proponent of such a tiny little light. A tiny little one LED lamp that reduces the number of SOLO accidents by over one-quarter. Moreover, the benefits were greatest during the day and not at twilight or even night -- which is odd. You look at these studies and really wonder how valid they are. Not that a DRL is a bad thing, but again, during bright daylight, I see clothes long before lights. Jan Heine thinks you should wear ninja outfits to hide from the cars. https://janheine.wordpress.com/2014/...rget-fixation/ He rides fat tires and knows everything, so that's what I'm going to do. -- Jay Beattie. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/14/2018 7:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip A tiny little one LED lamp that reduces the number of SOLO accidents by over one-quarter. Moreover, the benefits were greatest during the day and not at twilight or even night -- which is odd. Why is that odd? At night, most riders in that area were probably already using some sort of lights, but most were probably not turning them on in the daytime, either to save the battery or to reduce drag. There is just not going to be a double-blind study, conducted in 37 different cities throughout the world, to determine that the same benefits that DRLs provide to motorcycles and vehicles, are enjoyed by cyclists using DRLs, At some point you have to take the smaller studies and realize that while they may not be perfect, neither are they severely flawed. Understand that those that dismiss the benefits of DRLs are not doing so because they actually believe that there are no benefits, they are doing so because it is part of an agenda that they are promoting. It's the same thing with helmets. When every study shows a benefit, it makes no difference to them. They'll search for any extremely small issue with the study and try to blow it up out of proportion. Yet no one would think any worse of them if they simply stated "yes, there is a benefit to wearing a helmet if you're in a head-impact crash, but those crashes are sufficiently rare that there is no need for a compulsory helmet law, and each adult should be free to choose the amount of risk they are willing to accept." |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/14/2018 7:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
snip A tiny little one LED lamp that reduces the number of SOLO accidents by over one-quarter. Moreover, the benefits were greatest during the day and not at twilight or even night -- which is odd. Why is that odd? At night, most riders in that area were probably already using some sort of lights, but most were probably not turning them on in the daytime, either to save the battery or to reduce drag. There is just not going to be a double-blind study, conducted in 37 different cities throughout the world, to determine that the same benefits that DRLs provide to motorcycles and vehicles, are enjoyed by cyclists using DRLs, At some point you have to take the smaller studies and realize that while they may not be perfect, neither are they severely flawed. Understand that those that dismiss the benefits of DRLs are not doing so because they actually believe that there are no benefits, they are doing so because it is part of an agenda that they are promoting. It's the same thing with helmets. When every study shows a benefit, it makes no difference to them. They'll search for any extremely small issue with the study and try to blow it up out of proportion. Yet no one would think any worse of them if they simply stated "yes, there is a benefit to wearing a helmet if you're in a head-impact crash, but those crashes are sufficiently rare that there is no need for a compulsory helmet law, and each adult should be free to choose the amount of risk they are willing to accept." |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/14/2018 5:08 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:43:14 -0800, sms wrote: On 2/13/2018 1:10 PM, jbeattie wrote: When it comes to DRLs, correlation is about all we have. I haven't seen a single study where are driver claimed he or she saw a bicyclist and avoided an accident during daylight hours because of a light. LOL, you're sounding like the people that think that there are entities running around funding every possible double-blind study. They are very good at trying to promote doubt with every study that proves something that doesn't fit their agenda. It's not just the Odense study on DRLs, it's also all the studies on motorcycle headlights, both steady and modulated. You don't view a study that was 100% financed and supported by Reelight that. strangely enough, proved that using the Reelight magnet powered light was Good! Good! Good! is just a tiny bit suspect? Probably not as it supports YOUR assertions that bright lights make Bikes safe. But I suspect that you never actually read the study, did you? After all Reelight seems to be strangely reticent in announcing the power of their lights. They only describe it as " a smart little bike light with bright clear illumination". But One does wonder how powerful a tiny little one LED lamp powered by a magnet attached to the spokes really is? Strange that someone who advocates large powerful bicycle lights would be a proponent of such a tiny little light. It's also laughable that Scharf (AKA "sms") has spent years telling us that dynamo lights are totally inadequate. But he sings the praises of a tiny light that blinks on only when a spoke magnet passes its little pickup coil. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/14/2018 11:33 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/14/2018 7:11 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip A tiny little one LED lamp that reduces the number of SOLO accidents by over one-quarter. Moreover, the benefits were greatest during the day and not at twilight or even night -- which is odd. Why is that odd? At night, most riders in that area were probably already using some sort of lights, but most were probably not turning them on in the daytime, either to save the battery or to reduce drag. It's odd, Stephen, because a "solo accident" means the rider fell down all by himself. Those Reelights are far, far too dim to act as show-the-road headlights at night, and it's TOTALLY impossible for them to help the rider avoid hazards in the daytime. So if the rider has been given a magic light to test and reports that it saves him from falling down, it indicates a bull**** study. Understand that those that dismiss the benefits of DRLs are not doing so because they actually believe that there are no benefits, they are doing so because it is part of an agenda that they are promoting. One agenda I promote is accurate research. One agenda you promote is pretending that your own weird personal choices should be used by all other cyclists. And that the only studies that count are the ones that agree with your personal choices, no matter how bad those studies are. And let's see, what have your personal choices been? Homemade headlights. Flippy flags on bicycles. Styrofoam hats, of course. Blinding marine strobe taillights day and night. Headlights that glare in others' eyes, day and night. Elaborate coffee carrying systems. Am I missing any? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 10:09:25 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2018 11:33 AM, sms wrote: On 2/14/2018 7:11 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip A tiny little one LED lamp that reduces the number of SOLO accidents by over one-quarter. Moreover, the benefits were greatest during the day and not at twilight or even night -- which is odd. Why is that odd? At night, most riders in that area were probably already using some sort of lights, but most were probably not turning them on in the daytime, either to save the battery or to reduce drag. It's odd, Stephen, because a "solo accident" means the rider fell down all by himself. Those Reelights are far, far too dim to act as show-the-road headlights at night, and it's TOTALLY impossible for them to help the rider avoid hazards in the daytime. So if the rider has been given a magic light to test and reports that it saves him from falling down, it indicates a bull**** study. Understand that those that dismiss the benefits of DRLs are not doing so because they actually believe that there are no benefits, they are doing so because it is part of an agenda that they are promoting. One agenda I promote is accurate research. One agenda you promote is pretending that your own weird personal choices should be used by all other cyclists. And that the only studies that count are the ones that agree with your personal choices, no matter how bad those studies are. And let's see, what have your personal choices been? Homemade headlights. Flippy flags on bicycles. Styrofoam hats, of course. Blinding marine strobe taillights day and night. Headlights that glare in others' eyes, day and night. Elaborate coffee carrying systems. Am I missing any? I wear a styrofoam hat; I wear high-viz sometimes, and I use a bunch of different lights -- and even a DRL when its overcast or raining. So, I'm already half-way to believing. But when a study involving the safety benefits of a lame little hub-level blinky shows that it reduces solo daytime accidents by over 25%, that doesn't pass the smell test. Does the light improve wet-road grip? Braking power? Attention? Maybe the riders are just more vigilant being in a study group. I'm more vigilant when I know I'm being studied, particularly when I'm being studied by a cop. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dynamo Lights viz Battery Lights in snow qand slush? | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 6 | March 4th 15 10:36 PM |
Cheap lights using CR123 batteries | Tom Anderson | UK | 3 | January 18th 11 02:33 AM |
Rechargable Cells/batteries for Lights | Keiron Kinninmont | Techniques | 8 | December 25th 06 11:58 PM |
Lights without batteries? | Steve Watkin | UK | 9 | May 16th 06 10:04 PM |
Rechargeable batteries with LED lights | David Ward | Techniques | 8 | March 17th 05 03:40 AM |