|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/16/2018 1:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/16/2018 10:25 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: On 2/16/2018 9:03 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-15 12:16, sms wrote: On 2/15/2018 9:35 AM, Joerg wrote: snip ************************* ************************* ** ... Of course we will soon see claims that this is all self-interest by Trek, whose sole aim is to sell more lights. Everybody should know that such articles aren't very suited to foster sales of their own products but lights in general. True. But it's a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings of such article. Even though Trek is not a major supplier of bicycle lights, you can already predict the narrative that will spew forth. You saw it already with the Odense study. Yep, afterwards the usual denialist stuff roll in. Any study showing that a little mag-dyno blinky decreased daytime solo accidents by 27% is suspicious on its face. If that doesn't raise an eye-brow, you don't have eye-brows. I think, that as a lawyer, you likely understand that the fact that the DRL is powered by a magnetic dynamo is irrelevant in terms of its effectiveness. You probably also understand, unlike some others, that correlation and causation are not the same thing. O.K., let's put it this way -- a very low-powered flasher located at hub height. I have been saying correlation is not causation all along -- and thus my comments about the Odense study. They assume that the data establishes causation -- except when the data doesn't pass the smell test. Here is the explanation given in the report for the reduction in solo accidents: "The self reporting of accidents is on the other hand somewhat problematic. Prior to the study, it was expected that the bicycle running lights would reduce the occurrence of multiparty accidents involving cyclists. The initial results suggest that this is a very likely outcome, as the accident rate is 45% lower for the treatment group than for the control group, when all reported accidents are taken into account, and 61% lower when only accidents with personal injury is taken into account. The bicycle running lights were, however, not expected to affect the occurrence of solo accidents, but the initial results show; having made sure by closer examination of the accident descriptions that the accidents in question are in fact solo-accidents, that the accident rates for solo accidents are 24% (all accidents) and 27% (person injury accidents) lower for the treatment group than for the control group; the effects close to being significant. It is likely that this apparent effect on solo accidents of the bicycle running lights actually reflect a systematic under-reporting of accidents in the treatment group due to an inherent bias in favour of the bicycle running lights amongst the members of the treatment group. During the project, additional questionnaires were carried out in order to evaluate the design and functionality of the bicycle running lights. From the data gathered here, it is evident that the members of the treatment group were very fond of the running light as they found the bicycle running lights very convenient, e.g. they did not have to buy batteries any more, they did not have to fear being stopped by the police for having forgotten their bicycle lights, they felt very safe with the bicycle running lights etc. As a consequence it is likely that the treatment group has been somewhat strategic in their reporting of accidents by omitting some of the minor bicycle accidents; as reflected by the apparent under reporting of solo accidents in the treatment group. The apparent effect for solo accidents is almost the same for relevant subgroups of solo accidents, see Table 9, which suggests that the underreporting is general and not associated with certain solo accident types. O.K., so could the same light-loving study group be under-reporting multi-rider accidents? 61% reduction in PI accidents by using a weak hub-height blinky? Hmmmm. I ride and drive around bikes all the time during the day, and I've never seen a bike because it had a little Knog light. Not during the day. Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): Vertical angle 0°*** Horizontal angle ********************* −80°*** −20°*** 0°*** 20°*** 80° Front light outer diode*** 0.02*** 0.22*** 4.43*** 3.74*** 0.05 Front light inner diode*** 0.05*** 0.59*** 5.50*** 2.15*** 0.05 The table doesn't even address vertical angle. I guess the cars are really low to the ground in Denmark. You can't know the reason. It's like the famous, oft-misquoted, Thompson helmet study. Further "meta-analysis” reduced the claimed 85% reduction to between 25% and 55%. But as one report admitted "Experiments on people are unethical.* So researchers instead collect hospital data on people involved in bicycle crashes." And left out of this kind of study, by default, are all cyclists whose helmet mitigated the effect of the crash to the extent that they never went to the hospital. So in response to Jay's detailed remarks, you're switching topics to defend a notorious pro-helmet study that even the federal government now disowns? Because of a lawsuit threat, the NHTSA was force to admit the Thompson & Rivara study does not meet the government standards for accuracy. Almost 30 years of lack of corroboration finally had an effect. Perhaps, Steven, you should stick to losing one argument at a time. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:13:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/16/2018 12:33 PM, sms wrote: On 2/16/2018 9:03 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:49:50 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote: On 2018-02-15 12:16, sms wrote: On 2/15/2018 9:35 AM, Joerg wrote: snip ************************************************** * ... Of course we will soon see claims that this is all self-interest by Trek, whose sole aim is to sell more lights. Everybody should know that such articles aren't very suited to foster sales of their own products but lights in general. True. But it's a convenient excuse to dismiss the findings of such article. Even though Trek is not a major supplier of bicycle lights, you can already predict the narrative that will spew forth. You saw it already with the Odense study. Yep, afterwards the usual denialist stuff roll in. Any study showing that a little mag-dyno blinky decreased daytime solo accidents by 27% is suspicious on its face. If that doesn't raise an eye-brow, you don't have eye-brows. I think, that as a lawyer, you likely understand that the fact that the DRL is powered by a magnetic dynamo is irrelevant in terms of its effectiveness. The "magnetic dynamo" is one or two isolated magnets attached to the spokes and passing a coil built into the light. You get either one or two tiny pulses of electricity per wheel revolution. It's like a 4th grade science fair project. It can't possibly put out anywhere near the power of a real bike dynamo. Yet you're the person who has spent years claiming that real bike dynamos are completely insufficient. Are you getting a commission on these things too? A strange thing about the Reelight Study. The numbers appear to be variables. In Reelight's documentation https://www.reelight.com/pages/bike-safety The lights "Reelight has proven that our induction lights reduce the probability of accidents [...] by 47%* for accident with more than one involved party. Yet in another description, by a non Reelight source it states, "which documented a 32 % decrease in the amount of bike accidents when fixed mounted magnetic bike lights were used." http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/09/29/reelight-3/ In the earliest reports I was able to find on the study the results were stated to have been " The experiment resulted in a change in the law in Denmark, flashing lights are now legal." A study that, depending on where reported, varies by some 32% in effectiveness, does not seem like a very authoritative source. But accuracy aside both of the reports quoted above stated that "Furthermore, 85%* of our induction light users have expressed to have felt safer whilst riding in traffic.", which I believe is true, and is exactly what the two most prominent California DRL adherents are saying.... that with bright DRL's they feel safer. Unfortunately feeling safe and being safe are not necessarily based on the same conditions. -- Cheers, John B. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Vertical angle 0° Horizontal angle −80° −20° 0° 20° 80° Front light outer diode 0.02 0.22 4.43 3.74 0.05 Front light inner diode 0.05 0.59 5.50 2.15 0.05 Only salesmen (including guerilla marketing expert dimwits) would call a 5 cd front light DRL. Present DRL on Danish streets is described in UNECE Regulation 87: more than a factor 100 more intense at 0V-0H. To be fair, quoting Reelight's FAQ, some of their cr*p might have gotten a bit brighter: quote Hub Lights with flash (SL100) emits 29 cd from the front light and 10 from the rear light. Hub Lights with ReePower (SL120) emits approx. 24 cd from the front light and approx. 8 from the rear light. /quote The table doesn't even address vertical angle. I guess the cars are really low to the ground in Denmark. (It's those crushing Socialist taxes!) Not only the cars are low, but Sun is low on the horizon. Luckily, if you don't mind a bit of extra weight on your bike, Joerg will help you build an extra strong flasher for your safety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow! -- Jay Beattie |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/17/2018 11:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote: jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow! Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light could be replaced by firefly in a jar. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 20:28:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
snip DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow! Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light could be replaced by firefly in a jar. Nah. I've seen fireflies much brighter than that. And a firefly in a jar is completely organic and recyclable. No plastics at all. -- davethedave |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
dave wrote:
On 17 Feb 2018 20:28:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclude that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow! Dim; Flicker; View obstructed -- the Lucas three-way switch found a worthy, automated heir. Yes. At about 4:00 and at about 6:00 in that video, you see the light could be replaced by firefly in a jar. Had she opted for the plain "greenline" Marathon (or anything better) instead of the extra diapered one she seems to be guerilla-marketing, she could have invested the saved power in a "1.5 W" generator hub. Nah. I've seen fireflies much brighter than that. And a firefly in a jar is completely organic and recyclable. No plastics at all. You aren't advocating cruelty to live animals, are you ?!?!2 |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/17/2018 8:38 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote: jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI Wow! Even if there were a double-blind study, with a huge statistical sample, it would make zero difference because those that did not like the results would still fabricate some narrative, however ridiculous, to dismiss it. It's like explaining to an NRA member that selling AR-15s to teenagers might not be a good idea--the response will be a nonsensical diatribe about prescription drugs, mental illness, the removal of prayer from public schools, the lack of worshiping Gods, the citing of knife attacks, and of course "guns don't kill people, people kill people." You have to remember that there aren't organizations, with piles of money, chomping at the bit to fund studies that measure crashes versus number of lumens, crashes of StVZO versus non StVZO compliant lights, crashes per solid DRL versus crashed per flashing DRL versus crashes versus no DRL, or any of the various studies that are demanded by those that desperately argue against cyclists using adequate lights. At some point, it's necessary to employ logic, extrapolation, and common sense. For example, we all are aware of the benefits of DRLs on motorcycles, and they are mandatory in many states. In Canada and some other northern countries, DRLs are also mandatory for all motor vehicles. Do the benefits of DRLs extend to other vehicles like bicycles? Are you better off being more visible to other road users? Any time an equipment manufacturer conducts a study, or makes any statement about the positive effects of a product that they sell, there will be those that insist that the only reason they are doing those studies or making those statements, is to increase sales of their product. Of course the reality is that when Trek states the benefits of a DRL on their web site, https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/daytime_running_lights/ the reality is that the reader is just as likely to buy some other brand of DRL if they start doing any comparison shopping based on run-time, cost, and effectiveness. The same goes with Reelights. The same thing holds if a helmet manufacturer cites one of the many studies showing the benefits of helmets in crashes; it might encourage the purchase of a helmet, but not necessarily one from the manufacturer citing the study. No one can dispute the safety benefits of products like helmets or DRLs, so is it really unacceptable for manufacturers of those products to cite studies that prove the benefits? |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On 2/19/2018 1:38 PM, sms wrote:
On 2/17/2018 8:38 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote: jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI* Wow! Even if there were a double-blind study, with a huge statistical sample, it would make zero difference because those that did not like the results would still fabricate some narrative, however ridiculous, to dismiss it. It's like explaining to an NRA member that selling AR-15s to teenagers might not be a good idea--the response will be a nonsensical diatribe about prescription drugs, mental illness, the removal of prayer from public schools, the lack of worshiping Gods, the citing of knife attacks, and of course "guns don't kill people, people kill people." You have to remember that there aren't organizations, with piles of money, chomping at the bit to fund studies that measure crashes versus number of lumens, crashes of StVZO versus non StVZO compliant lights, crashes per solid DRL versus crashed per flashing DRL versus crashes versus no DRL, or any of the various studies that are demanded by those that desperately argue against cyclists using adequate lights. At some point, it's necessary to employ logic, extrapolation, and common sense. For example, we all are aware of the benefits of DRLs on motorcycles, and they are mandatory in many states. In Canada and some other northern countries, DRLs are also mandatory for all motor vehicles. Do the benefits of DRLs extend to other vehicles like bicycles? Are you better off being more visible to other road users? Any time an equipment manufacturer conducts a study, or makes any statement about the positive effects of a product that they sell, there will be those that insist that the only reason they are doing those studies or making those statements, is to increase sales of their product. Of course the reality is that when Trek states the benefits of a DRL on their web site, https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/daytime_running_lights/ the reality is that the reader is just as likely to buy some other brand of DRL if they start doing any comparison shopping based on run-time, cost, and effectiveness. The same goes with Reelights. The same thing holds if a helmet manufacturer cites one of the many studies showing the benefits of helmets in crashes; it might encourage the purchase of a helmet, but not necessarily one from the manufacturer citing the study. No one can dispute the safety benefits of products like helmets or DRLs, so is it really unacceptable for manufacturers of those products to cite studies that prove the benefits? So, Mr. Credulous, can YOU see the blinking lights in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I can't tell they are there even when I concentrate on the bikes with the arrows pointing to the lights. Practically speaking, they are invisible. I can't prove that something invisible could never help. But if that's your claim, I suggest you try lucky rabbits feet, St. Christopher medals and the like. They're cheaper and require less maintenance. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Battery Replacement on Lights with Internal Li-Ion Batteries
On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:19:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 2/19/2018 1:38 PM, sms wrote: On 2/17/2018 8:38 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 2:21:48 AM UTC-8, Sepp Ruf wrote: jbeattie wrote: On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-8, sms wrote: DRL Also, the Reelights are practically useless off-angle (in candela): As even 0.02 cd is not invisible (at night), you'd need much better accident data to conclute that. Yes, the Reelights are probably beneficial at night, depending on conditions. As for absolute proof that they are incredible DRLs, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I couldn't see any of those bikes without the Reelight flashers -- and without the arrows pointing to the flashers. The new generation Cio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ombe_YCrTeI* Wow! Even if there were a double-blind study, with a huge statistical sample, it would make zero difference because those that did not like the results would still fabricate some narrative, however ridiculous, to dismiss it. It's like explaining to an NRA member that selling AR-15s to teenagers might not be a good idea--the response will be a nonsensical diatribe about prescription drugs, mental illness, the removal of prayer from public schools, the lack of worshiping Gods, the citing of knife attacks, and of course "guns don't kill people, people kill people." You have to remember that there aren't organizations, with piles of money, chomping at the bit to fund studies that measure crashes versus number of lumens, crashes of StVZO versus non StVZO compliant lights, crashes per solid DRL versus crashed per flashing DRL versus crashes versus no DRL, or any of the various studies that are demanded by those that desperately argue against cyclists using adequate lights. At some point, it's necessary to employ logic, extrapolation, and common sense. For example, we all are aware of the benefits of DRLs on motorcycles, and they are mandatory in many states. In Canada and some other northern countries, DRLs are also mandatory for all motor vehicles. Do the benefits of DRLs extend to other vehicles like bicycles? Are you better off being more visible to other road users? Any time an equipment manufacturer conducts a study, or makes any statement about the positive effects of a product that they sell, there will be those that insist that the only reason they are doing those studies or making those statements, is to increase sales of their product. Of course the reality is that when Trek states the benefits of a DRL on their web site, https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/daytime_running_lights/ the reality is that the reader is just as likely to buy some other brand of DRL if they start doing any comparison shopping based on run-time, cost, and effectiveness. The same goes with Reelights. The same thing holds if a helmet manufacturer cites one of the many studies showing the benefits of helmets in crashes; it might encourage the purchase of a helmet, but not necessarily one from the manufacturer citing the study. No one can dispute the safety benefits of products like helmets or DRLs, so is it really unacceptable for manufacturers of those products to cite studies that prove the benefits? So, Mr. Credulous, can YOU see the blinking lights in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD3-Hr9kDHQ I can't tell they are there even when I concentrate on the bikes with the arrows pointing to the lights. Practically speaking, they are invisible. I can't prove that something invisible could never help. But if that's your claim, I suggest you try lucky rabbits feet, St. Christopher medals and the like. They're cheaper and require less maintenance. In modern California the flashing DRL has replaced the St. Christopher medal. No more Our Fathers, no more Hail Marys, just flip the switch. Ain't progress wonderful? -- Cheers, John B. |
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 |