visibility

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:07:53 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Michael wrote:
On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 4:33:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2016 4:27 PM, Michael wrote:


Planet Bike Superflash here. I don't know if it does any good or not, but if there's even a minute chance it catches the attention of the 17 year old driving and texting on a country two-lane, I'll take that.

sigh And a certified-for-14-mph helmet _might_ help if a car hits at
35 mph head on; and a bright jersey _might_ catch the attention of a
motorist 50 feet earlier; and a six-foot vertical flag _might_ give
early warning after cresting a hill; and a three-foot horizontal flat
_might_ yield a little more passing clearance; and a a loud air horn
_might_ give enough warning if someone does pull out in front of you;
and a St. Christopher's Medal _might_ make him clear your path as you're
riding.

Sheesh! Doesn't anyone just ride a bike any more?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Yes, if a rider has all that and more, I say good on you and have a great ride.

And if he doesn't have all that, what do you say?


--
- Frank Krygowski

I say, "Hi Frank!"

On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

I don't need to because:

1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way
earlier than those without.

2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far
away when approaching in their cars.

Good enough for me.

Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies
before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious.


Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why
not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the
condescension?

On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

I don't need to because:

1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way
earlier than those without.

2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far
away when approaching in their cars.

Good enough for me.

Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies
before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious.


Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why
not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the
condescension?

It's not me that's being condescending.

I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as
tangential studies that are applicable.

Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount
of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the
data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's
determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect,
then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is
positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with
seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible
steering columns, and so on.

On 6/28/2016 2:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-28 11:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 1:23 PM, Joerg wrote:


I claim that riding without good DRL increases the chance of being seen
late. Or worst case too late.

And how is it that you get so many incidents where you were seen just in
time to avoid a crash? How is it that most of us don't get those?


As I said many times now there are hardly any since installing bright
DRL. Therefore, I will continue their use.

Why did you get so many _before_ you installed your daytime lights? Why
do I never get those incidents, even though I don't use daytime lights?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/28/2016 4:58 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

I don't need to because:

1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way
earlier than those without.

2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from
far
away when approaching in their cars.

Good enough for me.

Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies
before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious.


Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why
not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the
condescension?

It's not me that's being condescending.

I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as
tangential studies that are applicable.

Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount
of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the
data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's
determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect,
then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is
positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with
seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible
steering columns, and so on.

By that "logic," people should be trying every conceivable consumer
"safety" product to see if it might work. They should do that
irrespective of any demonstrated need.

The "logic" makes sense in only one situation I can think of: If you
happen to be a person (guerilla) marketing the products.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2016-06-28 15:50, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 2:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-28 11:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 1:23 PM, Joerg wrote:


I claim that riding without good DRL increases the chance of being seen
late. Or worst case too late.

And how is it that you get so many incidents where you were seen just in
time to avoid a crash? How is it that most of us don't get those?


As I said many times now there are hardly any since installing bright
DRL. Therefore, I will continue their use.

Why did you get so many _before_ you installed your daytime lights?


Simple. Mostly because people thought I was slower. Some told me so when
I stopped just short of smashing into the driver side door. Well, one
time when I did bang into it because there wasn't enough space.


... Why
do I never get those incidents, even though I don't use daytime lights?


No idea but other people out here experience the same.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:58:20 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

I don't need to because:

1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way
earlier than those without.

2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far
away when approaching in their cars.

Good enough for me.

Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies
before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious.


Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why
not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the
condescension?

It's not me that's being condescending.

I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as
tangential studies that are applicable.

Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount
of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the
data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's
determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect,
then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is
positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with
seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible
steering columns, and so on.

And about the Odense study, I would have no problem with everyone using a Reelight as a DRL -- but I doubt that would make the mega-lumen people happy. https://www.reelight.com/en/products...ady-light-set/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI6VcktWa1I

BTW, all the devices you mention for cars are injury mitigation devices. They are not collision avoidance devices. Flashers are supposed to avoid collisions, and the corollary for cars would be flashing car lights, sirens, horns, etc., etc. Imagine a world filled with flashing car lights -- assuming they were legal, which they are not.

There is a downside to all the supposedly necessary collision avoidance devices.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/28/2016 5:26 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

Simple. Mostly because people thought I was slower. Some told me so when
I stopped just short of smashing into the driver side door. Well, one
time when I did bang into it because there wasn't enough space.

When I first started using good lights, early in the last decade, that's
exactly what I noticed. Without good lights, the vehicles think you're a
5MPH or so cyclist, misjudge your speed, and do stupid things in front
of you. With good lights, especially DRLs, they are uncertain of your
speed and hence are hesitant to cut you off.

If Frank would just stop rationalizing for a short time, and actually
try out some good lights, he would be convinced. Alas, the chance of
that happening are slim and none, and Slim just walked out the door.

On 6/28/2016 5:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

And about the Odense study, I would have no problem with everyone using a Reelight as a DRL -- but I doubt that would make the mega-lumen people happy. https://www.reelight.com/en/products...ady-light-set/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI6VcktWa1I

BTW, all the devices you mention for cars are injury mitigation devices. They are not collision avoidance devices. Flashers are supposed to avoid collisions, and the corollary for cars would be flashing car lights, sirens, horns, etc., etc. Imagine a world filled with flashing car lights -- assuming they were legal, which they are not.

Okay, what about ABS? And lane departure warning? And Collision
Avoidance Systems. I was talking about how the effect of safety devices,
whether for injury mitigation, or collision avoidance, can't really be
known until there is a good level of deployment. Until then you just
have to forecast the likely benefit.

No, they are neither. Without those lights you can still avoid
collisions. You just have to do a lot more yielding and braking and evasion.

On 29/06/16 04:34, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

I don't need to because:

1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way
earlier than those without.

2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far
away when approaching in their cars.

Good enough for me.

Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies
before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious.


Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why
not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the
condescension?



'cause growing a brain is too difficult, right?

--
JS