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
  #131  
Old April 5th 21, 02:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 783
Default Safety inflation

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant
"safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier
for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.


A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?


That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally
false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for
cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"


Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads.


While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more
enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t
always the most enjoyable automobile experience.

This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people
also enjoy riding it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail
Ads
  #132  
Old April 5th 21, 02:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Safety inflation

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 19:42:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.


A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?


That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally
false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for
cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"


Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads.


To further the subject, if bike paths are necessary for the safety of
the cyclist because roads are too dangerious then isn't it logical to
disallow bicycling riding on roads and highways to protect the poor
cyclist from such a dangerious pastime?

More bike safety. I just came across
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and...icycle-deaths/
which says, in part, that 33% of bicycle deaths in 2018 were NOT the
result of a motor vehicle crash.

If 1/3rd of the bicycle deaths are NOT the result of a motor vehicle
crash then logically they must be largely the fault of the cyclist.
Perhaps mandatory education and licensing of cyclists is the answer to
making the sport safer.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #133  
Old April 5th 21, 05:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,606
Default Safety inflation

On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 2:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski


As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same.

Lou, I have never said I mind anybody using systems other than mine, IF
they don't dazzle other road users.

What I mind is people saying my system or similar systems can't be any
good. Jay mocks them as "mood lights" good only for slow level riding.
Scharf claims road cyclists get injured by tree branches due to StVZO
standards, or claims that he can't see when riding at low speed. Those
claims are false, and that's what I'm saying.

If you're complaining about intolerance, you're complaining about the
wrong people.


How do you mock a light? "Hah, you weak and inadequate light . . . I mock you!" [light weeps, spirits crushed]. I call my LUXOS a mood light for the additional reason that it has an art deco beam pattern, like the Chrysler building, except more angular. What is intolerant about that? I'm not prescribing a light for anyone. People can buy whatever light they want, so long as they don't shine it in my eyes. Just don't tell me that my dyno is all I need. How would you even know what I need?

-- Jay Beattie.



  #134  
Old April 5th 21, 07:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,334
Default Safety inflation

On 4/4/2021 9:21 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

How do you mock a light? "Hah, you weak and inadequate light . . . I mock you!" [light weeps, spirits crushed].


The way I do it is when I see someone with a weak and inadequate light I
scream "I SPIT on your light." It seems to have the proper effect.

  #135  
Old April 5th 21, 09:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,334
Default Safety inflation

On 4/4/2021 6:07 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

snip

While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more
enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t
always the most enjoyable automobile experience.

This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people
also enjoy riding it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail


Exactly.

If the goal is to make riding more enjoyable, and to get more people out
riding, both for transportation or for pleasure, it's necessary to
understand what is preventing people from riding and address those
concerns. Proclaiming "well I have no problem riding in traffic and
therefore no one else should either" is exceptionally selfish and foolish.

In my area, the county water district encourages the development of
multi-use paths along waterways (creeks and rivers). Since roads usually
already have bridges over these waterways it's pretty easy to construct
a path that has very few, if any, surface road crossings. The waterways
also happen to often run from housing-rich areas to jobs-rich areas.

While you can't reach the same peak speeds riding on these paths that
you can on roads, the dearth of traffic lights and stop signs generally
makes your average speed higher, and it's a lot more pleasant to be able
to ride 10-15 miles without constantly stopping and starting. These
multi-use paths are extremely popular.

Cities and counties in my area have also constructed a lot of
bicycle/pedestrian crossings of freeways and railroad tracks that allow
cyclists to avoid dangerous intersections which are an impediment to
getting people on bicycles. Sometimes there are already arterial roads
that cross freeways but don't have freeway entrances and exits, but not
always.

Here's an example of a jobs-rich area where my wife's office is now, and
where my company used to be located, and right next to Intel's corporate
headquarters https://goo.gl/maps/HyTtkhAw7xjAbkLZ9. It was miserable
commuting across US 101 on a bicycle with those high-speed cloverleaf
freeway interchanges (freeway entrances/exits with traffic lights on all
the entrance and exit ramps are not so bad). The San Tomas Aquino Creek
trail goes under 101 about halfway between the two freeway interchanges.
The trail continues past Levi's stadium all the way to other trails that
connect up to jobs rich areas and you can go all the way up to Mountain
View by Google, and on to Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Facebook), or turn
east to go by Cisco. Even before it was an official trail, and wasn't
paved, you could use it if you were on a bicycle with proper tires.

Another once-miserable ride was to get to companies east of 101 in
Mountain View (Google, Microsoft, NASA, and in the past Silicon
Graphics, Alza, etc.). I once worked in that area as well, see
https://goo.gl/maps/94LuFXmmqdCEwMTg8. The Stevens Creek Trail is
very heavily used as a commuter route and has many intersecting shorter
trails. With the advent of electric bicycles it's become even busier.

Bicycle lanes on the shoulder of roads are even less costly, but the
reality is that painted lines have been ineffective at getting vehicles
to share the road. So a city could either hire a lot more police
officers to drive around constantly citing errant drivers or they can
put in inexpensive infrastructure that prevents errant behavior. That
errant behavior includes: a) using the bicycle lane as a motor vehicle
lane, especially as a very long right-turn lane, b) using the bicycle
lane as a parking area, c) using the bicycle lane as a lane to wait to
turn into a crowded parking lot, d) using the bicycle lane as place to
park construction or service vehicles working on a house or business, e)
using the bicycle lane as a loading and unloading zone, f) police using
the bicycle lane as a convenient place to pull motor vehicles over to
write tickets, g) motorists pulling off into the bicycle lane to take a
phone call or to enter an address into their navigation app or GPS, the
list goes on and on. These protected bike lanes don't have "walls" as
one clueless poster here likes to claim, unless a curb is really just a
very low wall, see https://goo.gl/maps/h3XUU5KCvk2PmBZx5.

A separated bike lane is not costly and solves most of the problems
listed above. The question to ask is whether public roads should be
designed for road users of all kinds, or should they be designed solely
for the convenience of motor vehicle owners. Most of the complaints
about the installation of protected bicycle lanes were along the lines
of "where am I going to park?" or "where will my gardener park his truck?"

Another issue to get people out of their cars is to address security
when parked. Installing lockers and/or secure parking devices helps with
this. In areas with parking shortages, the cost of these facilities is
lost in the noise compared to the cost of adding vehicle parking spaces
(there are often minimum parking requirements for office, retail, and
commercial space based on the type of business, and the number of
expected employees and customers). A parking garage costs between
$40,000 and $80,000 per space to construct, or you can pave over green
space for about $5000 per space, but few people think that converting
parks and playing fields into parking lots is a good idea).
  #136  
Old April 5th 21, 09:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sepp Ruf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default Eyc headlight problem

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2021 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I think it was Jay Beattie who suggested the 800 lumen number. I
merely stole it from him. I agree that 800 lumens probably too much.
However, if such a high power dynamo product ever arrives on the
market, there will surely be a lumens war among vendors to see who
can advertise the largest number. At that time, 800 lumens will be
reserved for purists and regulatory agencies.


This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery
lumens, conversion looks like:
https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/

The beams look better in reality than they appear on youtube, but I cannot
recommend the upgrade to Jay because he seems mortally afraid of further
increasing his dynamo system's sunk cost (and because a Luxos not considered
watertight).

Yep, safety inflation is real.


Since when is being able to see "safety inflation"? Let's go for a night
ride sometime, you and your bottle dyno and light, and me and my whatever
light I chose. I'll wait for you at the bottom. On flat roads and the
bike path through South Waterfront I can get by with a little flea-watt
flasher or a clip on flashlight from 1968 -- or my old Wonder Light. But
that is not where I do (or did pre DST) most of my riding.


Frank is not acquainted with Portland's exotic rain-forest, mountain-bunny
routes. If you are interested in a regular contest, ask a local, like your
son, to take the dyno lamp. Make sure you use Specialized's prototype Zn-C
matrix battery fork for extra power!

Everything
involves a descent, often on old broken concrete roads. I've done those
on dyno only, and its inadequate except at a creeping pace.


When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer
of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic
concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al
Gore, you simply won't get a permit.
  #137  
Old April 5th 21, 04:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,606
Default Eyc headlight problem

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 1:53:37 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 4:32:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/3/2021 12:57 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


I think it was Jay Beattie who suggested the 800 lumen number. I
merely stole it from him. I agree that 800 lumens probably too much.
However, if such a high power dynamo product ever arrives on the
market, there will surely be a lumens war among vendors to see who
can advertise the largest number. At that time, 800 lumens will be
reserved for purists and regulatory agencies.

This is how a low and high beams, 400 dynamo, optional 400 extra battery
lumens, conversion looks like:
https://www.velomobilforum.de/forum/index.php?attachments/pxl_20210121_153046943-jpg.231317/

The beams look better in reality than they appear on youtube, but I cannot
recommend the upgrade to Jay because he seems mortally afraid of further
increasing his dynamo system's sunk cost (and because a Luxos not considered
watertight).


Mortally afraid is more like "it would be stupid." I have enough lights.

Yep, safety inflation is real.


Since when is being able to see "safety inflation"? Let's go for a night
ride sometime, you and your bottle dyno and light, and me and my whatever
light I chose. I'll wait for you at the bottom. On flat roads and the
bike path through South Waterfront I can get by with a little flea-watt
flasher or a clip on flashlight from 1968 -- or my old Wonder Light. But
that is not where I do (or did pre DST) most of my riding.

Frank is not acquainted with Portland's exotic rain-forest, mountain-bunny
routes. If you are interested in a regular contest, ask a local, like your
son, to take the dyno lamp. Make sure you use Specialized's prototype Zn-C
matrix battery fork for extra power!
Everything
involves a descent, often on old broken concrete roads. I've done those
on dyno only, and its inadequate except at a creeping pace.

When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer
of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic
concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al
Gore, you simply won't get a permit.


They don't re-do concrete, at least not often in town -- it gets asphalt. One of my routes was repaved in the last year or so, but I think some of neighborhoods don't want repaving because the broken concrete roads act as natural speed bumps. Two, essentially parallel streets: https://tinyurl.com/4n2dfzp8 and next door: https://tinyurl.com/kdrfm2t8
Look out for the manhole down the street: https://tinyurl.com/8a8w383f

I have no idea why they paved one and not the other. I rarely go down those roads -- they're part of the return route from anywhere east, and my pre-plague commute home. I creep up them, LUXOS B blazing the way. This is where I see people's feet before the people -- or their dogs with lighted dog vests.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #138  
Old April 5th 21, 04:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,134
Default Safety inflation

On 4/4/2021 9:07 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 12:16:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant
"safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier
for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

A question comes to mind here. If special paths/roads/call 'em what
you like, are necessary for the safety of cyclists isn't it proof that
the public highways are dangerious for cyclists?


That's what a certain cohort would have you believe. And it's generally
false. Yes, there are dangerous roads; but most roads are quite safe for
cycling.

The question viewed from the opposite direction is "if public
roads/etc., are safe for cyclists are special bike paths necessary?"


Most such facilities are not necessary. Many are worse than normal roads.


While not strictly “necessary”, car free facilities can certainly be more
enjoyable to ride, in much the same way that active logging roads aren’t
always the most enjoyable automobile experience.

This “linear park” is near my house and I ride it often. Many other people
also enjoy riding it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall...Regional_Trail


Linear parks (AKA MUPs) can be very pleasant. One of my favorite 40 mile
rides makes use of a seven mile trail along a river. That trail is
especially nice because it's little known, goes from pretty much nowhere
to nowhere, is usually very empty, and is scenic. It was built by a very
charitable local family.

There are a few others in our area. But regarding "safety inflation":
I'm sure many of the people who haul their bikes on their cars to ride
the MUPs back and forth do so because of "safety." However, our bike
club members have FAR more crashes per mile traveled on those MUPs than
on roads. I wish I'd kept formal notes over the years, but I remember
hearing about concussion with unconsciousness (yes, despite helmet),
dislocated shoulder, broken collar bone, broken shoulder, broken rib and
many abrasions, bruises etc. all happening to competent road riders.

Those were due to bollards, bad edges (i.e. riding off the pavement and
being unable to steer back on), a slippery wood bridge, slippery mud
across the pavement, pedestrians' random motion, a kid on a bike failing
to stop, and so on. But the biggest underlying cause may be total
relaxation - as in "I'm on a nice safe path, so I don't have to take care."

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #139  
Old April 5th 21, 04:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,134
Default Safety inflation

On 4/5/2021 12:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 2:00 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op zondag 4 april 2021 om 18:16:52 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant "safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens of
examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways that
have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can give
examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

As someone who is perfectly OK with my dynohub light system I can understand that people have different needs. Bad night vision, climbs, down hills, lot of light distraction. As long as they don't blind other road users I don't mind other people use different and/or mor powerfull light systems. Maybe you should do the same.

Lou, I have never said I mind anybody using systems other than mine, IF
they don't dazzle other road users.

What I mind is people saying my system or similar systems can't be any
good. Jay mocks them as "mood lights" good only for slow level riding.
Scharf claims road cyclists get injured by tree branches due to StVZO
standards, or claims that he can't see when riding at low speed. Those
claims are false, and that's what I'm saying.

If you're complaining about intolerance, you're complaining about the
wrong people.


How do you mock a light? ... I call my LUXOS a mood light...


That's one way.

I'm not prescribing a light for anyone. People can buy whatever light they want, so long as they don't shine it in my eyes. Just don't tell me that my dyno is all I need. How would you even know what I need?


I'm saying the same things, but from the opposite side of the fence.

Don't me people need 800 lumens, or dyno systems are good only for slow
speed flatlanders or for riding under streetlights, don't tell me road
riders will get concussions from tree branches if they have beams with
proper cut-offs, or that it's foolish to ride without a blinking headlight.

(Yes, I know some of those statements came from SMS or Tom instead of you.)

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #140  
Old April 5th 21, 04:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,334
Default Eyc headlight problem

On 4/5/2021 1:53 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

When will you finally invite a few fixie-riding antifa for a blissful summer
of subbotnik road repairs?! Oh, wait, repairing and recreating historic
concrete plates is horrendously "CO2 emissions intensive." If you aren't Al
Gore, you simply won't get a permit.


hmm, San Jose could use subbotnik road repairs. Some buckets of hot tar
deployed surreptitiously on a Sunday morning could do wonders. When out
riding (or driving) the condition of pavement changes (Pavement
Condition Index (PCI)) significantly from city to city depending on how
much money they're willing to spend on paving.

When I cross over the border from my city (84/100) to San Jose (66/100)
the difference in ride quality, especially on a bicycle is dramatic
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/PCI_table_2019_data.pdf. If you
fall below 80 the cost of getting back above 80 increases exponentially.
Many cities, including mine, cut back on paving during Covid because of
loss of tax revenue, but not to the extreme where the roads would
deteriorate below an 80 PCI.

I stopped taking my Brompton on the train to San Francisco because the
roads around the train station are so bad a 16" wheeled bicycle just
doesn't cut it, though a longer way around, using the multi-use path
along the bay, is fine, and much more scenic (there is actually both
green unprotected bike lane AND a multi-use path)
https://goo.gl/maps/RpZ6K42PKdWyFm4e8.

Now I see that they've installed (gasp) protected bicycle lanes going
from the train station to the jobs-rich areas and have repaved the road
https://goo.gl/maps/iwqPp4NF7QHsjmcT6. Don't look Frank! Hopefully
this will stop the biggest scourge of vehicles using the bike lanes for
their own purpose, Uber & Lyft drivers.

By the way, when concrete roads are resurfaced out here, they are
resurfaced with asphalt. Concrete plates are great when new, and they
last a long time, but they are horrendously expensive to repave with new
concrete.


 




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 04:14 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.