A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eyc headlight problem



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old April 8th 21, 02:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,213
Default Safety inflation

On 4/7/2021 7:13 PM, sms wrote:

MHLs for children are widespread but ironically these tend to promote
more cycling ...


That's absolute bull****, totally illogical and as usual, totally free
of evidence.

Feel free to prove me wrong. An example of proof would be a step
increase in bicycling immediately after the imposition of a mandatory
helmet law.

For reference: As noted among the many links I posted in the past day or
two, Australian states experienced step _decreases_ in cycling after
imposition of mandatory helmet laws. This is why so many who hope to
increase cycling are against such laws - for example the European
Cycling Federation, British Cycling, Cycling UK (formerly the CTC),
Copenhagenize and many more.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #182  
Old April 8th 21, 03:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,213
Default Safety inflation

On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation.

Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL
headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's
claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike
Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between
bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe?

And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous...


You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's
a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a
personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point
is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal
judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least
"not safe enough."

And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in
cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection
was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while
wearing a helmet?
and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe.

The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the
trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your
bicycling hackles.


Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing?


You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have
been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is
now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing
forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides.

But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars:
For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and
fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his
collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the
reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the
couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT
IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING
COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!"

Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've
driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand
miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power.

Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling
them they must not have a brain? Really?

The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock
them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they
disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding
bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with
brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats,
or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and
shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with
questionable, if any, safety benefit.

"Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only
_one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of
situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the
only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just
pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you.


It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me.


Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you
didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You
wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark.

BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line...


That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we
should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative
consequences.

One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its
benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading
people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute
necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does
dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity?

Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a
proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because
of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill
for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or
ask me for citations.

Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want
this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad
happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been
done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local
news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why?
Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??)

But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm
irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything
from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans
("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those
don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a
lawyer...

We played a gig recently that included the Irish tune "Lonesome Road to
Dingle." I mentioned to the audience that my wife and I actually
bicycled that road during our bike tour of Ireland. The audible comment
from a woman in the crowd: "Weren't you afraid?"

Are there some people who are too scared? Yes, but they're not the ones with DRLs and fluorescent jerseys because I see those guys and gals out riding all the time. Nobody gives me a hard time because I don't have a DRL or (usually) a fluorescent jersey. I have to admit that my Gabba jersey is safety green.


The ones who are too scared are NOT riding, because they don't have a
DRL or fluorescent jersey, they're told they really need them, and they
don't want to do an activity that's so DANGEROUS that such stuff is
necessary.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #183  
Old April 8th 21, 04:23 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,650
Default Safety inflation

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation.
Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL
headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's
claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike
Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between
bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe?

And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous...

You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's
a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a
personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point
is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal
judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least
"not safe enough."

And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in
cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection
was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while
wearing a helmet?
and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe.
The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the
trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your
bicycling hackles.


Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing?

You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have
been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is
now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing
forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides.

But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars:
For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and
fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his
collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the
reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the
couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT
IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING
COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!"

Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've
driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand
miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power.

Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling
them they must not have a brain? Really?


Yes, really. Wait until you encounter a person who has been in an accident in one of those cars, which, BTW, had more conventional glass. They were more dangerous for me working ambulance. Accident victims looked like they were put through a blender, assuming the car didn't burst into flames and bake them -- burning flesh is one of the worst imaginable smells. I think those cars are fine for parades, but I wouldn't want one for daily driving -- for a lot of reasons. People can collect and drive whatever they want, but I think it is a poor choice for actual, every day driving in traffic -- but my perspective may be unique.


The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock
them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they
disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding
bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with
brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats,
or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and
shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with
questionable, if any, safety benefit.
"Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only
_one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of
situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the
only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just
pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you.


It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me.

Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you
didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You
wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark.

BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line...


That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we
should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative
consequences.

One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its
benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading
people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute
necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does
dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity?

Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a
proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because
of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill
for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or
ask me for citations.

Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want
this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad
happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been
done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local
news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why?
Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??)

But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm
irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything
from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans
("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those
don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a
lawyer...


What is that supposed to mean? If you have an issue, then go sponsor legislation. I don't know what it would be: "The Frank Krygowski the world is too safe law." We can call it "Frank's law." I have no idea what it would do other than complain about safety inflation.

We played a gig recently that included the Irish tune "Lonesome Road to
Dingle." I mentioned to the audience that my wife and I actually
bicycled that road during our bike tour of Ireland. The audible comment
from a woman in the crowd: "Weren't you afraid?"
Are there some people who are too scared? Yes, but they're not the ones with DRLs and fluorescent jerseys because I see those guys and gals out riding all the time. Nobody gives me a hard time because I don't have a DRL or (usually) a fluorescent jersey. I have to admit that my Gabba jersey is safety green.

The ones who are too scared are NOT riding, because they don't have a
DRL or fluorescent jersey, they're told they really need them, and they
don't want to do an activity that's so DANGEROUS that such stuff is
necessary.

I've met those people in the elevator -- eating doughnuts and drinking sodas at 8:00 AM. I'm absolutely sure they would ride if not unreasonably terrified of riding. Meanwhile, in the real world, people are out riding their bikes. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-...e-boom-is-real Specialized is out of stock. Safety inflation is killing cycling.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #184  
Old April 8th 21, 04:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,622
Default Eyc headlight problem

On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:43:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I'm not any sort of Civil Engineer but I worked for a while with a guy
that built roads for a living and according to him the underlying
foundation is the most important part of a road, particularly allowing
for water drainage. He also said that these design criteria have been
know since the days when the Romans were building roads :-)


I read somewhere that the underlying foundation *was* the road, and
the concrete or asphalt on top was just a raincoat.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
  #185  
Old April 8th 21, 01:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,207
Default Safety inflation

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:27:58 p.m. UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm
irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything
from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans
("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those
don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a
lawyer...

Snipped
- Frank Krygowski


Most of those warnings and many others are placed on objects or in instructions in order to avoid litigation if the person using them manages to injure themselves. That's because so many people have managed to win ridiculous lawsuits because of some slight injury that resulted from a stupid use of the item. If people weren't so quick to launch a lawsuit, or were willing to accept that the injury was THEIR fault, there wouldn't be such a need for those ridiculous warnings.

Cheers
  #186  
Old April 8th 21, 03:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,388
Default Safety inflation

On 4/7/2021 8:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I've met those people in the elevator -- eating doughnuts and drinking sodas at 8:00 AM. I'm absolutely sure they would ride if not unreasonably terrified of riding. Meanwhile, in the real world, people are out riding their bikes. https://www.pdxmonthly.com/news-and-...e-boom-is-real Specialized is out of stock. Safety inflation is killing cycling.


Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California.

Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack
a fluorescent jersey. The vast majority of transportational cyclists are
not wearing spandex or lycra.

As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational
cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because
some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with
whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or
online.

Some people are intent on having everyone use the same stuff that they
use, whether it's cars, bicycles, smart phones, computers, etc.. it's a
personal affront to them when others don't follow what they do. A better
approach is to explain to people, if they ask, why you chose what you
did, including the pros and cons. If they then make what you consider to
be a poor choice just keep quiet, you tried.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
β€œIt's best not to argue with people who are determined to lose. Once
you've told them about a superior alternative, your responsibility is
fulfilled and you can allow them to lose in peace.” – Mark Crispin,
inventor of the iMAP e-mail protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------





  #187  
Old April 8th 21, 04:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,213
Default Safety inflation

On 4/7/2021 11:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/7/2021 1:16 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 8:06:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation.
Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL
headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's
claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike
Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between
bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe?

And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous...

You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's
a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a
personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point
is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal
judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least
"not safe enough."

And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in
cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection
was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while
wearing a helmet?
and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe.
The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the
trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your
bicycling hackles.

Yes, I rode in old cars and didn't wear seatbelts, etc., and I was in a unique position starting at an early age to see the benefits of modern -- gasp -- safety improvements. The metal dashes and non-collapsing steering columns, and absence of passenger restraints in old vehicles tended to mangle the occupant and allowed them to be ejected from the car. Anyone with a brain would chose the safer option. Why not? Why is that a bad thing?

You've avoided addressing the issue. Expectations regarding safety have
been inflating for many, many years. What was once acceptably safe is
now often demonized as dangerous. You seem to be OK with that continuing
forever. I'm not. I believe that at a certain point there are downsides.

But as to "Anyone with a brain would choose the safer option" in cars:
For a wedding in our family, I was able to borrow from a friend (and
fellow cyclist) a classy looking 1950s or 1960s Buick from his
collection. It was used by the couple to drive from the church to the
reception, then toward the honeymoon. It was a tremendous hit with the
couple and with the attendees. It might amaze you that nobody said "BUT
IT DOESN'T HAVE A PADDED DASH OR SEATBELTS OR A COLLAPSIBLE STEERING
COLUMN! CHOOSE A SAFER OPTION!"

Another example: One of my best friends owns a 1930 Model A. We've
driven to music gigs in it, and he's taken it on trips of a thousand
miles or more. I assure you, he has plenty of brain power.

Would you mock those people to their faces for their choices, telling
them they must not have a brain? Really?


Yes, really. Wait until you encounter a person who has been in an accident in one of those cars, which, BTW, had more conventional glass. They were more dangerous for me working ambulance. Accident victims looked like they were put through a blender, assuming the car didn't burst into flames and bake them -- burning flesh is one of the worst imaginable smells. I think those cars are fine for parades, but I wouldn't want one for daily driving -- for a lot of reasons. People can collect and drive whatever they want, but I think it is a poor choice for actual, every day driving in traffic -- but my perspective may be unique.


The problem I have is that there certainly ARE people who would mock
them, and mock others who make "safety" choices of which they
disapprove. Here, we've had Scharf saying that the tech geniuses riding
bikes in Silicon Valley all use DRLs, and implying that "people with
brains" all do likewise. Bicyclists who choose to ride with normal hats,
or none at all, absolutely get mocked ("no brain to protect") and
shouted at ("Where's your helmet???"). And that's for devices with
questionable, if any, safety benefit.
"Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only
_one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of
situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the
only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just
pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you.

It's certainly neurotic for you. You're like Cassandra on a bike. I don't particularly care what personal choices people make so long as they do not make riding more dangerous for me.

Sorry, the evidence you've given here is that you DO care. If you
didn't, your postings on the topic would have been far, far briefer. You
wouldn't have made the "anyone with a brain" remark.

BTW, there are books about everything, and your arguments simply beg the question of what is safe enough. 1952 safe? 1992 safe? Should we go back to smoking and getting our feet X-rayed in shoe stores? Where do you draw the line...


That is precisely the question. My general answer would be that we
should at least acknowledge that Safety Inflation has negative
consequences.

One negative is the "dangerization" of bicycling. Given its
benefit-to-risk ratio, for which I can give many citations, dissuading
people produces public health detriments - and claiming absolute
necessity of helmets, DRLs, bike lanes, day-glo clothing etc. does
dissuade people. Why would you need those for a safe activity?

Another negative is the restriction of childhood experiences. It's a
proven fact that kids have far less freedom than in decades past because
of inflated parental fears, and it's widely thought that this bodes ill
for society. Look up the Free Range Children movement for details. Or
ask me for citations.

Another negative is the fleecing of customers. "Of _course_ you'll want
this extra-cost safety feature! Just think if, God forbid, something bad
happened..." or worse, "It shall be illegal to do what has always been
done, and mandatory to buy what was never before needed." (Our local
news told people they should NEVER buy a used child seat for a car. Why?
Because it may have been damaged in a crash. What the heck??)

But I admit, I am dismayed by the mousification of society. I'm
irritated at the ridiculous "Safety First!" labels applied to everything
from screwdrivers ("Always wear eye protection!") to soup cans
("Caution: After microwaving, contents will be hot!") If many of those
don't look ludicrous to you, something's wrong - but then, you are a
lawyer...


What is that supposed to mean? If you have an issue, then go sponsor legislation. I don't know what it would be: "The Frank Krygowski the world is too safe law." We can call it "Frank's law." I have no idea what it would do other than complain about safety inflation.


Alternately, if you don't like me discussing our society's ever
increasing paranoia, sponsor legislation. You're probably better at that
than I am.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #188  
Old April 8th 21, 04:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,213
Default Safety inflation

On 4/8/2021 10:21 AM, sms wrote:

Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California.

Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack
a fluorescent jersey.


But I'm betting the "safety" people are telling them they should be
wearing fluorescent clothing. And if things progress as they did with
helmets, states will begin considering, then passing Mandatory
Fluorescent Laws. Please note, that happened in France. Cyclists are
legally required to wear safety vests on rural roads at least under
certain conditions.

As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational
cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because
some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with
whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or
online.


AFAIK, most of that paragraph is still false. But we know one of your
objectives is to make it true. Because one can never be too safe, right?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #189  
Old April 8th 21, 05:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,650
Default Safety inflation

On Thursday, April 8, 2021 at 8:24:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/8/2021 10:21 AM, sms wrote:

Ohio is obviously a very different place than Oregon or California.

Out on the left coast no one is scared of riding a bicycle if they lack
a fluorescent jersey.

But I'm betting the "safety" people are telling them they should be
wearing fluorescent clothing. And if things progress as they did with
helmets, states will begin considering, then passing Mandatory
Fluorescent Laws. Please note, that happened in France. Cyclists are
legally required to wear safety vests on rural roads at least under
certain conditions.
As to DRLs, it is true that the vast majority of transportational
cyclists do have DRLs on their bicycles, by default. It's not because
some mystery group told them to go out and buy one, the DRL came with
whatever bicycle light that they bought, whether at a bicycle shop or
online.

AFAIK, most of that paragraph is still false. But we know one of your
objectives is to make it true. Because one can never be too safe, right?


Were you beaten by a school crossing guard or something? What is the genesis of this recent anti-safety jihad? I ride most every day, and nobody bugs me about not having a DRL or wearing a fluorescent jersey or really anything. I haven't seen a bicycle safety message in years, although I'm not looking and don't go to shops. Who are these "safety" people? Is this about helmets? Did somebody criticize you for not wearing a helmet?

When I go skiing, the liftys are neurotic about masks -- and I was mask shamed while out on a walk early in the pandemic, but that's about it for safety scolding. My neighbor panics and scolds me when I climb my 22' extension ladder because I'm an old dude and in the demographic for falls.

Ah, I have fallen prey to the walking safety thing, but not because of warnings or messages from regulators. My wife and I got reflective vests for walking at night because the Ninja walkers scare the snot out of us when we're driving at night -- and we have a ton of walkers in our neighborhood. Their are nights when it feels like a street fair with everyone standing in the street yaking or walking their dogs. I really like the lighted dog vests. I don't like the 30 foot reel leashes. No French Nazi collaborators making us wear vests.

About DRLs, I'd say less than half the commuters pre-pandemic were using DRLs in real daylight. There were lots of them in drear or dusk, including me. I see club riders and even racers using them when I'm weekend riding -- again, probably 50% or less. I'll try to keep an accurate count next time.. I don't think they're helpful in full sunlight, although a rear flasher is helpful in dappled sun-through-trees, at least according to the one panicked motorist who said he couldn't see me under the trees on Larch Mountain. He was a nice guy, and he was right because I was losing other cyclists in the hard shadows. I still don't take a flasher up there, however -- and one of the typical dying Tinkerbell flashers wouldn't work in any event, and a lot of DRLs do fall into that category. You ride up on someone and look down at the fender or seat post and see this light once you get there. I do wonder why people bother with those.

-- Jay Beattie.




  #190  
Old April 8th 21, 07:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,622
Default Safety inflation

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 05:24:15 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

Most of those warnings and many others are placed on objects or in instruc=
tions in order to avoid litigation if the person using them manages to inju=
re themselves. That's because so many people have managed to win ridiculous=
lawsuits because of some slight injury that resulted from a stupid use of =
the item. If people weren't so quick to launch a lawsuit, or were willing t=
o accept that the injury was THEIR fault, there wouldn't be such a need fo=
r those ridiculous warnings.


And this leads to safety deflation. I regularly wrap the power cord
around appliances with instructions that clearly state that the power
cords should not be wrapped around them. I know that they mean "do
not wrap cord around hot appliance", but they dare not say that
because some suester would say "the appliance had been unplugged for
five whole seconds!".

Sooner or later I'll disregard a warning that means what it says. Most
precautions are obvious to anyone who can be trusted to tie his shoes
without supervision, but once in a while a warning reveals concealed
information.

Other safety inflation: our local politicians are sure that if a
yield sign is required, a stop sign is even safer. As a result yield
signs are found only in roundabouts, where the politicians had enough
sense to let road designers choose the signs. So every stop sign is
presumed to be a yield sign if the driver can't see evidence to the
contrary, and we are left on our own to evaluate each intersection
with no help from the signs.

Thank goodness most of my car driving is on city streets.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last headlight you will ever need somebody[_2_] Techniques 115 April 28th 14 02:12 AM
Headlight Tom $herman (-_-) Techniques 16 August 17th 12 03:43 AM
LED Headlight HughMann Australia 12 August 30th 06 11:51 AM
LED headlight problem solved Ron Hardin General 8 April 3rd 06 10:42 AM
Headlight Bruni Techniques 8 August 31st 03 06:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.