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

The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights forBicycles.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 20th 17, 06:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,952
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights forBicycles.

On 3/20/2017 1:08 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 11:08 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

We need a double-blind study of accident rates where they use 65,536
different combinations of front and rear lumens, flashing and steady,
battery and dynamo powered, performed in 128 different countries, over
ten years, in a variety of lighting conditions.

Until that study has been completed we can't be absolutely certain
whether or not an increase in conspicuity is beneficial to cyclists, so
it makes no sense for cyclists to make themselves more visible.

Let's get the UN to commission this study.


I'd have thought you'd take on the project as a volunteer.

But you really should include those six foot (two meter) bicycle flags
on vertical poles as part of the study. I still don't understand why
the champion of "If it may possibly help" visibility doesn't use them.

Or even better, sell them via his websites. Your competition is killing
you!
http://www.swagbrokers.com/Fiberglas...Pole-181810804


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #22  
Old March 20th 17, 06:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,952
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights forBicycles.

On 3/20/2017 1:59 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 8:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0700, sms
wrote:

When
cycling rates rose, they should have risen as fast as the population
went up.


Nope. If nothing changed except the population, the cycling rate
should remain constant because it's based on a percentage of that
population. Of course, everything else also changes, so it's unlikely
to be a constant rate.


Exactly. Demographics change. Roads change. Traffic changes. Bicycling
infrastructure changes. Mass-transit infrastructure changes. The economy
changes.

In Silicon Valley, the emergence of so many corporate bus systems has
reduced the number of cyclists combining a Caltrain commute with cycling
"the first and last mile" (or the first and last 5 miles). Get on an
Apple, Google, Yahoo, or Genentech bus near your home and there's no
need to deal with public transit, or the lack of public transit,
anymore. But there's been a tendency of the AHZs to blame any decline in
cycling on helmet laws, or helmet promotion, which of course has no
validity at all, it's just Trump-like "alternative facts."


The fact that helmet laws dissuade riding has been best demonstrated by
Australian data, which showed a STEP drop in bike riding of over 30%
exactly when the helmet laws were enacted. It was not a gradual drop,
as would be expected from gradually changing demographics, traffic
conditions, etc. The sudden drop precisely aligned with the sudden
imposition of the helmet laws.

Furthermore, bike share systems have become extremely popular in recent
years. Some cities and nations have repealed mandatory helmets laws
because of their obvious deterrent effect on bike use. (Mexico City,
Tel Aviv, Anniston AL, Boznia-Hertzegovina, etc.) Very, very few cities
have attempted to implement bike share systems while enforcing helmet
laws, and those few efforts have been failures. (See Melbourne, Brisbane
and Seattle.)

And again, logic would indicate helmet mandates and promotion would have
to have some dissuading effect; the only question is the size of that
effect. Obviously, _some_ people will not ride if told they must wear a
helmet. _Some_ people will not ride if told bicycling is so dangerous
that protective headgear is necessary. How would those ever be
compensated by people who say "Oh, it's that dangerous? And I'm not
allowed to ride without that ugly hat? Great! Now I'm convinced to take
up bicycling!"

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #23  
Old March 20th 17, 06:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,529
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.

On Monday, March 20, 2017 at 2:27:30 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
And again, logic would indicate helmet mandates and promotion would have
to have some dissuading effect; the only question is the size of that
effect. Obviously, _some_ people will not ride if told they must wear a
helmet. _Some_ people will not ride if told bicycling is so dangerous
that protective headgear is necessary. How would those ever be
compensated by people who say "Oh, it's that dangerous? And I'm not
allowed to ride without that ugly hat? Great! Now I'm convinced to take
up bicycling!"

--
- Frank Krygowski


Amazing how almost every tpoic here eventually morphs into a helmet slugfest of for and against. ;)

As far as not riding because a law says you have to do something. Well a lot of people don't want to ride a bicycle with brakes either. A lot of people do not want to have to STOP at a stop sign or red light. In short, those who don't want to ride will ALWAYS find some excuse or the other.

BTW, on the weekend I rode through a small city that had some interesting signage. One sign onto a busy main road stated "NO LEFT TURNS - BICYCLES EXCEPTED" and another sign on a one way street said "ONE WAY STREET - BICYCLES EXCEPTED. Thus you have two cases where things that a drive wouldn't expect to see are permitted for bicycle riders and in my opinion that's not very safe for the bicycle rider.

Cheers
  #24  
Old March 20th 17, 08:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,952
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights forBicycles.

On 3/20/2017 9:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 5:51:25 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/19/2017 6:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.

Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
a consultant.

Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies.


The remarks (generally about commission) arose because several of your
websites which touted dozens of products, and had at the bottom
statements something like "if you're going to buy one of these, please
start from this website so I get my commission."

And some of your web pages included a sort of brief resume in which you
bragged about doing "guerilla marketing" in bicycle forums.

Those statements seem to have been taken down now. But when they were
first discovered, there were links and quotes posted here.


Check this out: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/arti...enting-bicycle

Don't ride in Auckland, even with a blinky.


Interesting study, with weird results. Seemed the group that was just
"occasionally conspicuous" had the lowest crash rate.

"The crash risk was similar across different patterns of using
conspicuity aids except that the ‘ occasionally conspicuous day & night’
group had a lower risk relative to others."

[The groups were these: " 'class one was termed ‘usually conspicuous day
& night’; class two was termed ‘often conspicuous during the day and do
not cycle in the dark’; class three was termed ‘occasionally conspicuous
day & night’; and class four was termed ‘rarely conspicuous during the
day but conspicuous in the dark’."]


And the authors also refer to some other studies with similarly
unexpected results. (Sorry, the footnote numbers won't appear here as
proper superscripts):

" ...this analysis used a composite measure of conspicuity and found no
significant association with the risk of crashes involving a motor
vehicle. Likewise in a previous cohort study involving bicycle commuters
in Portland, using lights in the dark or reflective materials _did not
predict the risk of traumatic events_ (defined as a cycling event
leading to injury). 16 A strong protective effect of fluorescent colours
observed in our earlier (cross-sectional) analysis 15 may be due to
failure to exclude cyclist only crashes.

"Our study is one of very few examining the effect of cyclist
conspicuity on incident crashes, but the design did not allow us to
account for behaviours of involved parties and road and traffic
conditions before the crash. Some case–control studies attempted to
address this issue by measuring cyclists’ acute behaviour including use
of conspicuity aids before a crash. A Canadian study observed that the
risk of collisions with a motor vehicle was _increased_ by wearing
fluorescent clothing but decreased by wearing white or coloured
clothing. 17 Likewise, a UK study reported an _increased_ risk of
collision or evasion crashes by using any item of fluorescent or
reflective material. 18 Additionally, a recent experiment in the UK
reported _little effect_ of fluorescent clothing on drivers’ overtaking
proximities. 32

"Overall, evidence for the effectiveness of conspicuity aids in reducing
bicycle crash risk remains equivocal. Some have argued that cyclists’
misconceptions about their conspicuity and subsequent risk compensation
could play a role in minimising potential benefits. In an Australian
study, cyclists overestimated their night-time visibility and occasional
cyclists were more likely than frequent cyclists to do so. 33,34 There
were also misjudgements on the conspicuity benefits of fluorescent vs.
retroreflective materials at night. If cyclists using conspicuity aids
are confident of being seen, they may be engaged in compensatory
behaviour changes, e.g. cycling in more dangerous circumstances. 18"

[I've underlined some phrases for emphasis.]

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #25  
Old March 20th 17, 08:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,652
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.

On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 3:27:13 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 2:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Now I have to go cash my check from Reelight.


Such things are usually done by "loaning" you test samples of the
products, and then "forgetting" to recover them. In theory, you're
expected to declare the value of such samples as income for tax
purposes. Payments of cash or checks are rare unless you are hired as
a consultant.


Yes, but a couple of people in this group insist that the only reason I
favor good lights is because I am getting paid by light companies. The
fact that it isn't true doesn't matter to them. They will come up with
any excuse they can think of to try to ignore the data.


No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded...............

Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights..

So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.
  #26  
Old March 20th 17, 09:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,877
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights forBicycles.

On 3/20/2017 1:40 PM, wrote:

No worries, I do not think you are a paid shill - just deluded..............


Gee, thanks.


Jeff showed himself to be extremely knowledgeable of statistics and noted the chief problem with the study. They did NOT show actual numbers because Reelights could not afford to shell out hundreds of thousands of free lights.

So this study was probably confined to perhaps a thousand and the change in accidents was in fact statistically irrelevant. So taken in pure percentages and presented as if it had meaning it makes for a good sales pitch and gives some undergraduate a paper to write.


Anytime someone doesn't like the results of a study they try to pick it
apart.

  #28  
Old March 20th 17, 11:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Doug Landau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.


Do you choose your toothpaste based on how much sexier it makes you?


Yes. Without question. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhD2GcXII3Q at 0:40
  #29  
Old March 21st 17, 02:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,924
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:08:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/19/2017 11:08 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

We need a double-blind study of accident rates where they use 65,536
different combinations of front and rear lumens, flashing and steady,
battery and dynamo powered, performed in 128 different countries, over
ten years, in a variety of lighting conditions.

Until that study has been completed we can't be absolutely certain
whether or not an increase in conspicuity is beneficial to cyclists, so
it makes no sense for cyclists to make themselves more visible.

Let's get the UN to commission this study.


I really like your style of rebuttal. First ignore what the other side
says since if included would demonstrate that you don't know what you
are talking about, and next make up some totally ridiculous proposal
and present it as what your opponent argued.

Beautiful work. I applaud you.

Unfortunately it does not conceal the fact that what you stated, "a
comparison of bike lights versus no bike lights", was not what the
Odense study tested, nor was it the results of the study.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #30  
Old March 21st 17, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,924
Default The University of Aalborg Study on Daytime Flashing Lights for Bicycles.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:01:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/20/2017 1:08 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/19/2017 11:08 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

We need a double-blind study of accident rates where they use 65,536
different combinations of front and rear lumens, flashing and steady,
battery and dynamo powered, performed in 128 different countries, over
ten years, in a variety of lighting conditions.

Until that study has been completed we can't be absolutely certain
whether or not an increase in conspicuity is beneficial to cyclists, so
it makes no sense for cyclists to make themselves more visible.

Let's get the UN to commission this study.


I'd have thought you'd take on the project as a volunteer.

But you really should include those six foot (two meter) bicycle flags
on vertical poles as part of the study. I still don't understand why
the champion of "If it may possibly help" visibility doesn't use them.

Or even better, sell them via his websites. Your competition is killing
you!
http://www.swagbrokers.com/Fiberglas...Pole-181810804


The various countries I have visited all seem to have rules and
regulations that argue that a orange and white "checkerboard" flag
flown from vehicles operating on airfields is a good thing. I well
remember that when, as a young Airman stationed in Japan, one could
even ride one's personal motorbike on the airfield if flying such a
flag.

If a checkered flag will "fend off" a big Boeing bomber it should
prove equally effective in deterring a California SUV.

I believe that if the State of California should mandate that every
bicycle operated on the highways of the state must be equipped, and
display, a (lets be reasonable here) a 2 foot square (i.e. 4 square
feet) checkered flag it would immediately result in a substantial
decrease in annual bicycle "accidents" and fatalities.

If ridden at night the flag would obviously have to be illuminated in
some manner but that is just details.

--
Cheers,

John B.

 




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
New B&M Lights with Wide Beam and Daytime Mode Available sms Techniques 74 November 23rd 13 06:46 PM
Flashing front light in daytime. Nick[_4_] UK 22 June 18th 08 12:28 PM
Car daytime running lights David Hansen UK 15 March 25th 08 11:55 AM
Daytime running lights Martin Dann[_2_] UK 7 February 12th 08 11:15 PM
New University of Illinois Helmet Study ... Edward Dolan Recumbent Biking 1 May 8th 06 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.