Making America into Amsterdam

On 7/26/2018 4:37 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/23/2018 7:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:38:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super bright car headlights.

I get very irritated by motorists who refuse to dim their lights.
Unfortunately, sometimes when I'm riding at night an oncoming motorist
will actually turn on his brights. I don't think it's harassment. I
think it's "What the heck is that??" coupled with low IQ.

I now do much more night driving on rural roads than I used to. ISTM the
worst headlight offenders are pickup truck drivers. Their lights are
high, they seem to refuse to dim them more than most, and they very
often have auxiliary driving lights that they also leave on. "MFFY."

--
- Frank Krygowski

What I was referring to are those cars with very bright blue lights that are driving IN TOWN on well lit roads. I've been so blinded by some of those lights that i couldn't see parked cars ahead of me on my side of the road. Thus I had to either slow way down or even stop. Seems that lumen wars aren't restricted to makers of bicycle lights.

Cheers


There is no need for those vehicle lights on well lit roads but once the
vehicle has them as standard equipment there's no way to select the
brightness. Audi has a technology for headlights that would solve this
problem, but it's not legal in the U.S.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a4093/revolutionary-audi-headlight-tech-banned-in-us/.

Vehicle drivers will often activate their high beams when they glimpse
an unlit or poorly lit pedestrian or cyclist on the road. They're often
not sure what it is when they first see movement. A cyclist, a
pedestrian, an animal, etc.. The way to avoid this, as a cyclist anyway,
is to use adequate lighting, not just the legal minimum. Pedestrians
walking on unlit roads would benefit from at least a little lighting,
and I do often see this now, but it's not the norm.

The of "low IQ" when a motorist turns on his or her high beams to
determine what is on the road, is laughable. The reality is that the
cyclist should have sufficient lights that the motorist doesn't have to
turn on his or her high beams to figure out that it's a cyclist.
Stubbornly refusing to use adequate lighting says much more about the IQ
of the cyclists than of the motorist!

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to
facts, rather than emulating our commander in chief.

sms wrote:
On 7/26/2018 4:37 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/23/2018 7:15 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 23, 2018 at 5:38:23 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 7/23/2018 2:25 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I'm often blinded at night by very bright bicycle strobe
lights. I also often get blinded by those blue tinted super
bright car headlights.

I get very irritated by motorists who refuse to dim their
lights. Unfortunately, sometimes when I'm riding at night an
oncoming motorist will actually turn on his brights. I don't
think it's harassment. I think it's "What the heck is that??"
coupled with low IQ.

I now do much more night driving on rural roads than I used to.
ISTM the worst headlight offenders are pickup truck drivers.
Their lights are high, they seem to refuse to dim them more than
most, and they very often have auxiliary driving lights that they
also leave on. "MFFY."

-- - Frank Krygowski

What I was referring to are those cars with very bright blue lights
that are driving IN TOWN on well lit roads. I've been so blinded by
some of those lights that i couldn't see parked cars ahead of me on
my side of the road. Thus I had to either slow way down or even
stop. Seems that lumen wars aren't restricted to makers of bicycle
lights.

Cheers


There is no need for those vehicle lights on well lit roads but once
the vehicle has them as standard equipment there's no way to select
the brightness. Audi has a technology for headlights that would solve
this problem, but it's not legal in the U.S.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a4093/revolutionary-audi-headlight-tech-banned-in-us/.



Vehicle drivers will often activate their high beams when they glimpse
an unlit or poorly lit pedestrian or cyclist on the road. They're
often not sure what it is when they first see movement. A cyclist, a
pedestrian, an animal, etc.. The way to avoid this, as a cyclist
anyway, is to use adequate lighting, not just the legal minimum.
Pedestrians walking on unlit roads would benefit from at least a
little lighting, and I do often see this now, but it's not the norm.

The of "low IQ" when a motorist turns on his or her high beams to
determine what is on the road, is laughable. The reality is that the
cyclist should have sufficient lights that the motorist doesn't have
to turn on his or her high beams to figure out that it's a cyclist.
Stubbornly refusing to use adequate lighting says much more about the
IQ of the cyclists than of the motorist!

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

AMuzi wrote:
:On 7/25/2018 11:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
: On Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 10:19:26 PM UTC-4, Joy Beeson wrote:
:
: I vaguely recall reading a novel written in the Victorian era. The
: protagonist's sister married and the two sisters bid each other a
: tearful good-by forever -- the married sister's new home was ten whole
: miles away, so there was no way they could visit each other after the
: wedding.
:
: I've thought about that sort of thing. I complain because I'm forced to drive
: an hour each way in various directions to visit family members or friends, or to
: take care of other business or projects. But when this village was founded,
: an hour trip wouldn't have gotten me as far as my half hour bike commute did.
:
: OTOH, an hour trip back then would have been more environmentally benign.
:
: - Frank Krygowski
:

:Much as Half Day Road is is suburban Chicago, barely out of town


://www.wbez.org/shows/curious-city/half-day-road-and-the-origins-of-a-semantic-slipup/cd88fe1b-befd-42c0-8cbe-5e54636c787e

(tl;dr: it's named after the town of half day, which no longer exists.
Half day, the town, was named after an indian chief, whose name
translated to half day.)


--
sig 103

On 2018-07-25 16:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:38:57 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-24 19:53, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:41:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-23 18:27, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:

[...]


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If you have everything big delivered that's possible. However, then you
must count the miles and environmental impact of all the delivery vehicles.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.


Obviously you have never hauled four cords of firewood from a location
that is 1400ft lower than where you live. That's eight tons.


Quite the opposite. I spent much of my second career transporting
stuff through jungles, up and down hills and through swamps. I'm quite
aware of the effort of moving tons of machinery and equipment up and
down hills.


On a bicycle. Through the jungle. Right.

Well, not on a bicycle but certainly through the jungle. I might add
that in some places, usually swamps, we carried the cargo on our
heads, arms, back, any way we could get it there.

The sysmic crews, who admitedly didn't work for me, were strictly
human powered. Every thing that they did was powered by hand. Cut a
path through the jungle - by hand. Drill the shot holes - by hand.
Carry everything through the jungle - by hand. Build a camp - by hand.


When cost is not an issue or the government pays the tab that's
feasible. When cost is an issue and its for a house it is an issue. It
doesn't work.

Yeah, some dreamers can go back to the no-car world. Then when little
Joey gets acute appendicitis he can't be transported fast enough and
dies from it. Like in the "good old" days.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:27:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-25 16:41, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 13:38:57 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-24 19:53, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:41:08 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-23 18:27, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2018 15:13:21 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2018-07-22 21:44, John B. Slocomb wrote:

[...]


In Bangkok, because of the traffic I ride really in the morning, about
the time that a bloke might be setting off for the office and I do,
occasionally see people that seem heading for work, but I see far more
that just seem out for a ride.

Now, I am aware that there are individuals who have and do ride to
work but I would also have to say that an anomaly doesn't necessarily
prove a point. The fact that a certain number of people up in the N.W.
corner of the U.S. enjoy riding in the rain (they must the only times
I have ever been in the Sea-Tac area it rained) isn't necessarily
proof positive that an equal number of folks are riding to work in
Nome, Alaska, or Dry Prong, Louisiana.

Now, I am aware that people do ride a bicycle to the shop to get a can
of beans but these same people have one or two cars in the garage.


We do have two cars in the garage. Each sees around 1000mi/year. I
assume you can guess why those numbers are so low, mine used to be much
higher.


Before feeling too virtuous have a look at the Bayley's pages. they
ride between 10,000 and 14,000 (Pamela) or 17,000 (John) miles
annually and apparently have never owned a car.


If you have everything big delivered that's possible. However, then you
must count the miles and environmental impact of all the delivery vehicles.


If the bicycles are for work, what are the cars for?


Have you ever tried to haul half a ton of wood pellets, firewood,
construction lumber and whatnot on a bicycle, uphill? With uphill I mean
some serious hills.

Why ever not? Small loads and many trips, just as you would if you
were walking. The argument, "OH! It is too big for my bike", is just
that an argument for using the car.


Obviously you have never hauled four cords of firewood from a location
that is 1400ft lower than where you live. That's eight tons.


Quite the opposite. I spent much of my second career transporting
stuff through jungles, up and down hills and through swamps. I'm quite
aware of the effort of moving tons of machinery and equipment up and
down hills.


On a bicycle. Through the jungle. Right.

Well, not on a bicycle but certainly through the jungle. I might add
that in some places, usually swamps, we carried the cargo on our
heads, arms, back, any way we could get it there.

The sysmic crews, who admitedly didn't work for me, were strictly
human powered. Every thing that they did was powered by hand. Cut a
path through the jungle - by hand. Drill the shot holes - by hand.
Carry everything through the jungle - by hand. Build a camp - by hand.


When cost is not an issue or the government pays the tab that's
feasible. When cost is an issue and its for a house it is an issue. It
doesn't work.


I might point out that my father built two houses (2 bedroom and 3
bedroom) while working as a postal clerk by doing all of the work
himself. Granted it does take a long time but it is both possible and
economically feasible.

I've got to qualify that by adding "with the building codes of the
period" as modern building codes have, in my opinion, gone far past
the reasonable and appear to have become simply job protection for
those in the trade.


Yeah, some dreamers can go back to the no-car world. Then when little
Joey gets acute appendicitis he can't be transported fast enough and
dies from it. Like in the "good old" days.

[...]

If little Joey has adequate medical attention his appendicitis will
never become acute.

On 7/26/2018 7:04 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

LOL, well I'm pretty sure that everyone here can tell the difference
between a logical factual response and one-line, content-free, personal
attacks. It speaks volumes about each poster.

Here is one web site where you can begin to educate yourself:
https://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/when-to-use-headlights.php

"In some instances, using the high beam setting on your headlights will
make it easier to see the road. If there are few or no streetlights on
the road, high beams will help you see farther down your path,
preventing you from hitting any animals or pedestrians crossing in front
of you."

This is why motorists use high beams. It isn't to be obnoxious, at least
not in most cases. It's to avoid hitting things that are difficult to
see at night.

In my area, there are a lot of streets that don't have much, or any,
lighting. There are many animals out at night, especially a lot of
coyotes, but also cats (a decreasing number unfortunately, thanks to the
coyotes), raccoons, etc.. There are also a lot of pedestrians walking at
night, and they often don't like to walk on the sidewalks. Unlit
cyclists, and poorly lit cyclists are also common. A vehicle;s low beams
are often insufficient to see any of them. Animals can't install
lighting, but cyclists and pedestrians can take appropriate precautions
if they choose to do so. Eventually all vehicles will include LIDAR or
other sensors to eliminate the need for so much lighting, but that is
not the case at this time.

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:47:18 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/26/2018 7:04 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

LOL, well I'm pretty sure that everyone here can tell the difference
between a logical factual response and one-line, content-free, personal
attacks. It speaks volumes about each poster.

Here is one web site where you can begin to educate yourself:
https://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/when-to-use-headlights.php

"In some instances, using the high beam setting on your headlights will
make it easier to see the road. If there are few or no streetlights on
the road, high beams will help you see farther down your path,
preventing you from hitting any animals or pedestrians crossing in front
of you."

This is why motorists use high beams. It isn't to be obnoxious, at least
not in most cases. It's to avoid hitting things that are difficult to
see at night

SMS, I believe everyone here knows how to use headlights. Those instructions
need to go to the dolts who my wife complained about on our drive home this
evening. It was about 30 miles entirely over rural highways. My wife complained
more than I did - "I wish those guys would dim their lights!" or "I hate those
bright lights! Why isn't that illegal?"

Most people driving at night are sensible and responsible. But there's a
significant number who just do not bother to turn their high beams off. There's
also a significant number who either say "MFFY, I'm leaving my brights on"
or who might think "Wait, you mean there are two settings for my headlights??"

Those latter ones are the ones I'm calling low IQ. And compared to totally
self-centered and abusive, low IQ is charitable.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:47:18 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/26/2018 7:04 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

LOL, well I'm pretty sure that everyone here can tell the difference
between a logical factual response and one-line, content-free, personal
attacks. It speaks volumes about each poster.

Here is one web site where you can begin to educate yourself:
https://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/when-to-use-headlights.php

"In some instances, using the high beam setting on your headlights will
make it easier to see the road. If there are few or no streetlights on
the road, high beams will help you see farther down your path,
preventing you from hitting any animals or pedestrians crossing in front
of you."

This is why motorists use high beams. It isn't to be obnoxious, at least
not in most cases. It's to avoid hitting things that are difficult to
see at night

SMS, I believe everyone here knows how to use headlights. Those instructions
need to go to the dolts who my wife complained about on our drive home this
evening. It was about 30 miles entirely over rural highways. My wife complained
more than I did - "I wish those guys would dim their lights!" or "I hate those
bright lights! Why isn't that illegal?"

Most people driving at night are sensible and responsible. But there's a
significant number who just do not bother to turn their high beams off. There's
also a significant number who either say "MFFY, I'm leaving my brights on"
or who might think "Wait, you mean there are two settings for my headlights??"

Those latter ones are the ones I'm calling low IQ. And compared to totally
self-centered and abusive, low IQ is charitable.

- Frank Krygowski

I really wonder. I've driven with all sorts of folks from the so
called "red necks" to some pretty sophisticated people, school
teachers et al, and I can't remember single example of someone
running on high beams just to be a Horse's Ass.

I have seen vehicles with the head lights out of adjustment, running
on high, but in that (those) cases it still isn't an effort to be
obnoxious, rather an effort to see where one is going.

But maybe I've lived a sheltered life and they are out there. After
more then half of the first 20 years of my working career was spent
outside the U.S. and all of the next 20 or so, so maybe there places
that are choc ka-block full with people that the average person would
pay good money to avoid.... and I just haven't been there yet.

..... but I keep watching the antics of your latest President ...

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:47:18 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/26/2018 7:04 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

LOL, well I'm pretty sure that everyone here can tell the difference
between a logical factual response and one-line, content-free, personal
attacks. It speaks volumes about each poster.

Here is one web site where you can begin to educate yourself:
https://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/when-to-use-headlights.php

"In some instances, using the high beam setting on your headlights will
make it easier to see the road. If there are few or no streetlights on
the road, high beams will help you see farther down your path,
preventing you from hitting any animals or pedestrians crossing in front
of you."

This is why motorists use high beams. It isn't to be obnoxious, at least
not in most cases. It's to avoid hitting things that are difficult to
see at night

SMS, I believe everyone here knows how to use headlights. Those instructions
need to go to the dolts who my wife complained about on our drive home this
evening. It was about 30 miles entirely over rural highways. My wife complained
more than I did - "I wish those guys would dim their lights!" or "I hate those
bright lights! Why isn't that illegal?"

Most people driving at night are sensible and responsible. But there's a
significant number who just do not bother to turn their high beams off. There's
also a significant number who either say "MFFY, I'm leaving my brights on"
or who might think "Wait, you mean there are two settings for my headlights??"

Those latter ones are the ones I'm calling low IQ. And compared to totally
self-centered and abusive, low IQ is charitable.

- Frank Krygowski

I really wonder. I've driven with all sorts of folks from the so
called "red necks" to some pretty sophisticated people, school
teachers et al, and I can't remember single example of someone
running on high beams just to be a Horse's Ass.

I have seen vehicles with the head lights out of adjustment, running
on high, but in that (those) cases it still isn't an effort to be
obnoxious, rather an effort to see where one is going.

But maybe I've lived a sheltered life and they are out there. After
more then half of the first 20 years of my working career was spent
outside the U.S. and all of the next 20 or so, so maybe there places
that are choc ka-block full with people that the average person would
pay good money to avoid.... and I just haven't been there yet.

.... but I keep watching the antics of your latest President ...



No one was talking about high beams. They were talking about the LED or
whatever headlights that give off a bright bluish tinted light. Bright
enough to seem like they’re high beams.

--
duane

On Friday, July 27, 2018 at 6:32:06 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:09:57 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 9:47:18 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 7/26/2018 7:04 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:

snip

More utter nonsense from you!

Wow, maybe you should think about formulating logical responses to facts,
rather than emulating our commander in chief.

Both sms and Aunt Joan are ignorant and beyond hope, so why bother?

LOL, well I'm pretty sure that everyone here can tell the difference
between a logical factual response and one-line, content-free, personal
attacks. It speaks volumes about each poster.

Here is one web site where you can begin to educate yourself:
https://www.dmv.org/how-to-guides/when-to-use-headlights.php

"In some instances, using the high beam setting on your headlights will
make it easier to see the road. If there are few or no streetlights on
the road, high beams will help you see farther down your path,
preventing you from hitting any animals or pedestrians crossing in front
of you."

This is why motorists use high beams. It isn't to be obnoxious, at least
not in most cases. It's to avoid hitting things that are difficult to
see at night

SMS, I believe everyone here knows how to use headlights. Those instructions
need to go to the dolts who my wife complained about on our drive home this
evening. It was about 30 miles entirely over rural highways. My wife complained
more than I did - "I wish those guys would dim their lights!" or "I hate those
bright lights! Why isn't that illegal?"

Most people driving at night are sensible and responsible. But there's a
significant number who just do not bother to turn their high beams off.. There's
also a significant number who either say "MFFY, I'm leaving my brights on"
or who might think "Wait, you mean there are two settings for my headlights??"

Those latter ones are the ones I'm calling low IQ. And compared to totally
self-centered and abusive, low IQ is charitable.

- Frank Krygowski

I really wonder. I've driven with all sorts of folks from the so
called "red necks" to some pretty sophisticated people, school
teachers et al, and I can't remember single example of someone
running on high beams just to be a Horse's Ass.

I have seen vehicles with the head lights out of adjustment, running
on high, but in that (those) cases it still isn't an effort to be
obnoxious, rather an effort to see where one is going.

But maybe I've lived a sheltered life and they are out there. After
more then half of the first 20 years of my working career was spent
outside the U.S. and all of the next 20 or so, so maybe there places
that are choc ka-block full with people that the average person would
pay good money to avoid.... and I just haven't been there yet.

.... but I keep watching the antics of your latest President ...



No one was talking about high beams. They were talking about the LED or
whatever headlights that give off a bright bluish tinted light. Bright
enough to seem like they’re high beams.

--
duane

+100% You nailed it Duane.

Chers