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
  #161  
Old April 7th 21, 03:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Safety inflation

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:27:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/5/2021 10:04 PM, James wrote:

snip

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.


You're using "F-Logic" of correlation not causation. Do you claim that
the reason that cycling rates are down (assuming the survey is accurate)
is because of helmet requirements and the availability of high-lumen
lights? Are there Australians that say, "screw the helmet requirement,
we'll own the libs by giving up cycling and eating junk food and
drinking Fosters?"

In terms of children cycling, Section 3.2 of the study states "A great
deal of cycling participation occurs among children, for whom much of
this riding occurs off public roads in parks and backyards. Such trips
are unlikely to be measured by any automatic or manual counting program.
A change in childhood cycling participation will have significant
effects on overall cycling participation but may not be detected as part
of counting programs."

You also can't really conclude that increases in injuries and fatalities
are due to changes in cycling rates. In the U.S. cycling participation
increased from 39.69 million in 2006 to 48.88 million in 2019 (2020 will
show an enormous increase but it's an outlier and it remains to be seen
if the increases will hold). Death rates for each year vary but don't
correlate with the increase in cycling rates. Some age groups had
increases while some age groups had decreases. The statistics don't
specify the number of cyclists in each age group. The fatality rates for
younger riders fell while the rates for older riders went up.
Speculation is that more helmet laws for those under 18 helped reduce
fatality rates in those groups, but this study doesn't prove that one
way or another.

Transportational cycling rates vary greatly based on factors unrelated
to safety equipment. I first visited China in 1987 and cycling rates
were extremely high. But that was because the only affordable
alternative to cycling was generally a public bus. Cycling rates are way
down now because all the large cities have extensive subway systems and
because the increase in wealth means more people have cars (generally
not used for commuting, but used for things like trips to Costco).
Climate change has also affected cycling rates in some locations. In
urban areas of the U.S. where cycling rates have increased by
substantial amounts it's because of the large increase in cycling
infrastructure.

A big push in my area is "Safe Routes to School." We have terrible
traffic jams around schools and a Catch-22 of parents driving crazily,
which makes parents reluctant to allow their children to walk or bike to
school. When one 8th grader e-mailed me about a problem near his middle
school (cars driving on the shoulder where cyclists want to ride) I
called the sheriff and asked for some enforcement in that area and they
came out and wrote a slew of tickets but we can't hire enough deputies
to patrol all the schools at peak times you need to put in traffic
calming that physically prevents the bad behavior.


But if the kids actually walked to school there wouldn't be all the
traffic congestion around the schools.

And, obesity among children would likely be much lower.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/obesity/index.htm
"In the United States, the percentage of children and adolescents
affected by obesity has more than tripled since the 1970s."
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html
"Childhood obesity is a serious problem in the United States, putting
children and adolescents at risk for poor health."
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity...s-in-children/
"Childhood obesity has been called “one of the most serious public
health challenges of the 21st century,” and with good reason."

--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #162  
Old April 7th 21, 03:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Eyc headlight problem

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:03:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2021 10:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:03:52 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

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.


I would comment that those are appallingly poorly built roads. It
appears that they simply laid concrete over an existing, probably,
dirt road. I would guess that the residents bitched about a dirt road
and so the highway department slapped some concrete down and said
"There! A paved road".


Apparently that happened here.

Our County Engineering office always has a booth at the annual county
fair. One year I asked about that - about the process by which farm
roads that were once gravel on dirt got paved.

The young engineers staffing the booth looked at each other, then
explained that long ago (maybe the 1950s or 1960s?) the guy who was
county engineer got re-elected by suddenly paving a huge number of
roads. But the "paving" was just dropping asphalt on top of existing
gravel, with no preparation at all.

I know our county is notorious for potholes. It's not unusual to follow
an ex farm road across our county line and see a huge difference in
pavement smoothness and quality.


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 :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #163  
Old April 7th 21, 03:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,134
Default Safety inflation

On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!

Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?


No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.


Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.


You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #164  
Old April 7th 21, 04:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Safety inflation

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:54:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2021 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 11:13:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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."


I find it a bit strange that here, in a country where a bicycle is not
only a sports device but also a basic transportation device, - visit
any market in the morning - to the best of my knowledge there are no
specifically bicycle lanes/paths/whatever. Two that are sort of
bicycle lanes are (1) the maintenance road around a large park in the
center of Bangkok which is used by runners, Tai Chi, bicycles and I
don't know what else has a painted line marked bikes on one side, and
(2) the maintenance road around the "New Airport" which is painted
blue and marked bicycles. Of course being "maintenance" roads they are
primarily for trucks :-)

And yet, cyclists ride on public highways and, from reading the news,
bike deaths are not really common.


I think the difference is largely what a given society is used to. IOW,
what's normal fashion.

The U.S. (like Australia, I've been told) is a place where adult
bicycling basically didn't exist for many decades. Then the first 1970s
bike boom hit, suddenly there were millions of newbies trying something
for the first time.

I think the newbies were nervous about riding a bike where they had
never seen a bike being ridden. And I think the "safety!" mavens were
nervous for them, and nervous about actually having to slow down or
change lanes when passing the never-before-seen adult bicyclists. And
indeed, there were more deaths, topping out around 1000, IIRC. (Not that
its a large number in a country with 700,000 heart deaths annually.)

So the cries began for bike lanes, i.e. stripes painted on the roads.
When bike deaths didn't drop to zero, we started hearing about special
foam hats to save lives. (Those were recently demoted to "just to
prevent skull fractures" to mask their failure). Then came garish
clothing. And fancy lights, never turned off.

Now we're hearing that the bike lanes have to be "protected," for
example by hiding them behind parked cars where the cyclists can't be
seen. And we're just getting the first calls for super-fancy,
super-expensive intersections to fix the "Surprise!" problem when a
bicyclist suddenly leaves the "protection" to cross an intersection.

Oh, it gets safer every day! The fashionable cyclist now wears day-glo,
a big foam hat, rides with blinding lights and never lets his tires
touch asphalt that car tires also touch.

As usual, I'm not very much into fashion.


I'm not sure where Statista gets their numbers
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...us-since-2006/
but the death rate for cyclists seem to be in the 0.001% range for
most years.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #165  
Old April 7th 21, 04:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Safety inflation

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:47:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?


No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.


Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.


You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.


But Frank, safety sells :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #166  
Old April 7th 21, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,606
Default Safety inflation

On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period..

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?


No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.

Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.
And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.

You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. 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. And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous, and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe. I don't have a backup camera because one didn't come with my car, nor do I have a Garmin or any navigation -- or even BlueTooth for my phone. But people like and use those things, and that's fine.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #167  
Old April 7th 21, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,132
Default Safety inflation

On 7/4/21 4:48 am, jbeattie wrote:

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear
because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym
scene. My brother went to spin classes with his wife, and he was a
fearless three state old-guy DH champion and went to worlds. I've
ridden many miles with him on the road. In fact, I rode with their
spin instructor who placed in LoToJa. Strong guy -- one of the
hardest centuries I've done in recent history. People have lots of
social reasons for living the gym life . . . although some may be
afraid of riding on the road. That has to be true statistically
because some people were afraid of riding on the road even before
flashers and helmets were even a thing.

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not
wanting to deal with traffic. It sucks dealing with traffic,
dangerous or not. When it comes to picking routes, I take the one
with the least traffic. Who wants to breathe exhaust and deal with
the homicidal PU maniacs in the 'burbs. No amount of lane-taking
makes that pleasant. "Position one!" [cough, cough, gag . . . as
diesel PU number four passes within an inch, leaving a cloud of
smoke]. People may prefer Plan B, i.e., not riding on the road.
https://cloudfront.traillink.com/pho..._148788_sc.jpg
Or Plan C.
https://i1.wp.com/buckyrides.com/wp-...00%2C900&ssl=1
That also includes Plan D, which is usually low traffic.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/280/2...85fc52d273.jpg
That's a great ride.

Which reminds me, I was riding on that road in the last picture
(Marmot Rd.) with a friend of mine with whom I've been riding for 30
years. He now refuses to ride on Skyline because it is dangerous and
refuses to ride the foot of SW Terwilliger -- preferring the
adjacent path through the woods. https://tinyurl.com/85c27nx6
Totally reasonable fear. I now take the side path because climbing
in the middle of a road with a blind turn and posted 45mph limit
(actually 50) and twice the traffic of 20 years ago is objectively
scary. Why bother. And to be honest, I usually skip the side path
and go up a whole different road -- past the trestle house.
https://tinyurl.com/vt3z3x3w Anyway, its not just a bunch of scared
Nancies who want a facility or some option other than riding in
traffic.


Nope. Safety inflation is that single pivot rim brake calipers are not
as powerful as dual pivot rim brake calipers, so to be safe you need
dual pivot rim brake calipers - at least on the front. On the back the
dual pivots are far too powerful. Next minute the rim brakes are crap
and the only way to be safe is with the latest disc brake. Soon after,
cable operated discs are no good and only hydraulic disc brakes will do.
The next big thing supposed to save umpteen lives is anti lock brakes
for bicycle disc brakes. If you don't upgrade to those, you'll fly over
the bars and collide head first into a solid object and die - regardless
of whether you've got the latest helmet with MIPS technology that is so
much safer than last years EPS.


Same seems to go for lights. Sure it was a pain to have big battery
laden monstrosities that produced a candlepower for a short while, or a
dynamo that blows globes when you ride down a hill at night. Lights are
made with LEDs now that consume hardly any power to produce much more
light with far better reliability than the old filament globes. But
last year the be seen tail light that runs for 50 hours on a couple of
AA batteries got replaced by the uber bright epileptic fit inducing
rechargeable flasher that is the must have for safety - though there's
no proof that a lack of brightness was the cause of anyone getting hit
from behind last year. Headlights are similar. In many urban
landscapes it is possible to ride most places without a light and still
be able to see the road well enough at night (excluding being seen by
drivers) just from street lights, but we have to have the latest 5000
chilumen headlight now - to be safe. Last year's 4000 chilumen light is
just not safe enough.

Of course you can only be truly safe in a hi vis reflective jacket, MIPS
equipped helmet, helmet lights and cameras even in the daytime, and
strobe lights under the saddle and on the handlebars, plus a 120dB bell,
studded tyres and ABS disc brakes, etc. You get the picture.

--
JS
  #168  
Old April 7th 21, 05:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,334
Default Safety inflation

On 4/6/2021 8:40 PM, James wrote:

snip

Nope.Â* Safety inflation is that single pivot rim brake calipers are not
as powerful as dual pivot rim brake calipers, so to be safe you need
dual pivot rim brake calipers - at least on the front.Â* On the back the
dual pivots are far too powerful.Â* Next minute the rim brakes are crap
and the only way to be safe is with the latest disc brake.Â* Soon after,
cable operated discs are no good and only hydraulic disc brakes will do.
The next big thing supposed to save umpteen lives is anti lock brakes
for bicycle disc brakes.Â* If you don't upgrade to those, you'll fly over
the bars and collide head first into a solid object and die - regardless
of whether you've got the latest helmet with MIPS technology that is so
much safer than last years EPS.


Well the changes to brake technology were not just for safety, they were
to increase reliability, reduce weight, make adjustments easier, and
reduce cost. If you've ever ridden a bicycle with rod brakes that
contacted the inner part of the rim you'd know what a pain they were and
how much of an improvement brakes that contacted the sides of the rim
were. The problem with those was that you really wanted your rim to be
very true. Disk brakes don't require a wheel that's perfectly true. You
left off drum brakes which were once popular on the rear wheels of
tandems because of their large heat sinks.
  #169  
Old April 7th 21, 08:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Lou Holtman[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default Safety inflation

Op woensdag 7 april 2021 om 05:38:40 UTC+2 schreef jbeattie:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, 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.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.

Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.
And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.

You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash..
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. 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. And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous, and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe. I don't have a backup camera because one didn't come with my car, nor do I have a Garmin or any navigation -- or even BlueTooth for my phone. But people like and use those things, and that's fine.

-- Jay Beattie.


I like my backup camera. Is it safer? I don't know but it prevents unnecessary damage and you can see more than looking over your shoulder and the use of only mirrors. Navagation is in practice definiately safer compared to looking at a paper map or cue card when driving alone. Phone use should be banned in a car. All the assist aids can make people lazy but they make it safer for some people. I turned of most of them in my care.

Lou
  #170  
Old April 7th 21, 01:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,016
Default Eyc headlight problem

On 4/6/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 10:03:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/5/2021 10:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 08:03:52 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

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.

I would comment that those are appallingly poorly built roads. It
appears that they simply laid concrete over an existing, probably,
dirt road. I would guess that the residents bitched about a dirt road
and so the highway department slapped some concrete down and said
"There! A paved road".


Apparently that happened here.

Our County Engineering office always has a booth at the annual county
fair. One year I asked about that - about the process by which farm
roads that were once gravel on dirt got paved.

The young engineers staffing the booth looked at each other, then
explained that long ago (maybe the 1950s or 1960s?) the guy who was
county engineer got re-elected by suddenly paving a huge number of
roads. But the "paving" was just dropping asphalt on top of existing
gravel, with no preparation at all.

I know our county is notorious for potholes. It's not unusual to follow
an ex farm road across our county line and see a huge difference in
pavement smoothness and quality.


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 :-)


Many of which are still in use. Roman engineering is not
fully appreciated; roads, yes but especially their concrete:

https://www.history.com/news/the-sec...roman-concrete

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


 




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 03:44 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.