Cycling deaths in Toronto traced back to city infrastructure

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:07:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime
flashing lights.

And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike
much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about
one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective
is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient.
Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety.

Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not
once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference,
despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc.

While I was riding yesterday, I encountered a guy with a flashing rear light -- and it may have caught my attention first. Who knows. I had no trouble seeing the dozens of other riders with no flashers. In broad daylight, you see the rider and the flasher simultaneously, and then your eye is drawn to the flasher. The only new information added by the flasher IS the flasher. I suppose that if I were looking for flashers, a flasher would be very helpful.

I can see a flasher making a difference with heavy tree cover, dappled bright light and a driver or rider wearing sun glasses. I say that because PDX has been trapped in a heat wave with lots of bright light. It's turning into California -- and I don't have AC! Anyway, dropping in and out of the tree cover with sunglasses on, there are times when I can't even see the road..
My eyes cannot adjust fast enough. There are also places where a giant front flasher would make me feel better -- in particular, a fast descent in to a dense residential area on my way home from many west side rides.

My approach is to take the lane right behind a car. Plan B would be to slow down, but that is unthinkable.

One can debate this forever, and it really comes down to where one draws the line. Personally, I take my flea-watt front flasher and old Planet Bike rear flasher on dreary days (and on my dreary day bike). I don't bother on sunny days. I wear reasonably conspicuous clothing and adjust my lane position to improve sight lines for motorists if necessary. I might consider a rear flasher under heavy canopy -- like my lucky rabbit's foot. A front flasher under heavy canopy in more dense urban areas with cross-traffic. Out in the middle of nowhere, I don't see a need for a front flasher.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 06/07/2015 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:07:12 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/6/2015 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
Even when in my car I find that I see
cyclists with daytime lights much earlier than those without. A few days
ago I talked with a retired sheriff's deputy about it and he said the
same. Those guys know, and they are among the ones who are called out
and see the mess first hand when things went wrong.

Several of my riding friends are cops. They ride without daytime
flashing lights.

And if you're claiming that in bright daylight, someone can see a bike
much earlier if it has a flashing light, a) you must be talking about
one hell of a bright light; and b) what does it matter? Your objective
is to be seen in plenty of time. A few hundred yards is sufficient.
Being spotted from a mile away does nothing for your safety.

Again, I've driven sag for our annual century for many, many years. Not
once has a bicyclist's flashing light made a practical difference,
despite bad lighting (e.g. riders starting at dawn), heavy tree cover, etc.

While I was riding yesterday, I encountered a guy with a flashing rear light -- and it may have caught my attention first. Who knows. I had no trouble seeing the dozens of other riders with no flashers. In broad daylight, you see the rider and the flasher simultaneously, and then your eye is drawn to the flasher. The only new information added by the flasher IS the flasher. I suppose that if I were looking for flashers, a flasher would be very helpful.

I can see a flasher making a difference with heavy tree cover, dappled bright light and a driver or rider wearing sun glasses. I say that because PDX has been trapped in a heat wave with lots of bright light. It's turning into California -- and I don't have AC! Anyway, dropping in and out of the tree cover with sunglasses on, there are times when I can't even see the road.
My eyes cannot adjust fast enough. There are also places where a giant front flasher would make me feel better -- in particular, a fast descent in to a dense residential area on my way home from many west side rides.

My approach is to take the lane right behind a car. Plan B would be to slow down, but that is unthinkable.

One can debate this forever, and it really comes down to where one draws the line. Personally, I take my flea-watt front flasher and old Planet Bike rear flasher on dreary days (and on my dreary day bike). I don't bother on sunny days. I wear reasonably conspicuous clothing and adjust my lane position to improve sight lines for motorists if necessary. I might consider a rear flasher under heavy canopy -- like my lucky rabbit's foot. A front flasher under heavy canopy in more dense urban areas with cross-traffic. Out in the middle of nowhere, I don't see a need for a front flasher.



I do pretty much what you do. If it's a bright sunny day I'm not using
any lights. If it's drizzly or dreary then I'll probably have them on.

But the other day I was with my group and I was in the lead. We were
stopped at an intersection. The road was curved and I was waiting for
the traffic to clear on the left with the cars coming around the turn.
A car passed and I started to go when I saw a cyclist at the last
minute. I guess if he had a light on I'd have seen him sooner. I think
that since the cars all have DRLs I didn't pick up on the cyclist. Of
course he was wearing grey clothes and some bright colors may have
helped just as much. Who knows? From my POV if the lights don't blind
me and it makes the cyclist feel safer I don't care. Maybe they have an
aversion to purple shorts so their motif is black kit and bright lights.

On 2015-07-06 8:18 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 06.07.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Joerg:
On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:

Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be
illegal?

In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and
here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road
use:

a. Safety belts. At least lap belts.
b. Hydraulic brakes.

This sounds like the chaos-system we have in Germany for trains.
For cars, the simple rule is: each car must comply to the rules valid at
the time of approving the vehicle for operation on the road.
A friend of mine drives a 1962 VW Beetle, naturally without any seat
belts, and he is allowed to continue driving it until it cannot be
repaired.


It's usually the same here except when there were too many serious
accidents. Then they have to upgrade, at least if the vehicle is to be
used in regular traffic and not just on slow show rides.

To me it is also common sense. When I had a 16hp Citroen 2CV in Germany
it also did not have seat belts. That was the first item I added.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?


In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and
here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road
use:

a. Safety belts. At least lap belts.
b. Hydraulic brakes.

My Dad has a Model A pickup with no seatbelts and mechanical brakes.
I believe it is registered as an antique vehicle (in California).
He drives it on occasion.

--
Joe Riel

On 2015-07-06 9:38 AM, Joe Riel wrote:
Joerg writes:

On 2015-07-05 11:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/5/2015 11:12 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just because grandpa never had an accident yet never
owned a car with seat belts, would that also cause you not to use seat
belts if it wasn't the law?

My very good friend has a 1930s Ford Model A. It has no seatbelts. It
also has no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, etc.

Should we never, ever ride in such a car? Should antique cars be illegal?


In California that car would be illegal. A friend has one as well and
here they must be equipped with two upgrades if planned for real road
use:

a. Safety belts. At least lap belts.
b. Hydraulic brakes.

My Dad has a Model A pickup with no seatbelts and mechanical brakes.
I believe it is registered as an antique vehicle (in California).
He drives it on occasion.


Isn't that restricted to show rides only? The kind where it's all
organized, slow and nothing can really happen? What I meant is a car
that can be and really is used for regular rides, not just show.

Several folks with beautifully restored Model A's told me the same after
I noticed the non-standard lap belts in there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/6/2015 12:25 PM, Duane wrote:

But the other day I was with my group and I was in the lead. We were
stopped at an intersection. The road was curved and I was waiting for
the traffic to clear on the left with the cars coming around the turn. A
car passed and I started to go when I saw a cyclist at the last minute.
I guess if he had a light on I'd have seen him sooner. I think that
since the cars all have DRLs I didn't pick up on the cyclist. Of course
he was wearing grey clothes and some bright colors may have helped just
as much. Who knows?

And in any case, you apparently saw him in time to avoid running into
him. That's really all that's required.

From my POV if the lights don't blind me and it
makes the cyclist feel safer I don't care. Maybe they have an aversion
to purple shorts so their motif is black kit and bright lights.

Avid cyclists have had rear blinkies for many years, but only recently
IME (say, five years) have they felt a need to have them on in daylight.
Still, if it makes them feel safer, I suppose it's not a problem.

The problem is crossing the line into "Mine's gotta be bright enough to
glare in the eyes of other cyclists" and "Anyone who doesn't use this is
foolish." We're now at that point.

BTW, one good friend of mine lives in a major city about an hour away.
He's an electrical engineer and rides very frequently, but he's not into
cycling nearly as much as I am. (He's the guy with the stuck seatpost,
previously mentioned here.) Anyway, he was visiting a few days ago and
complained quite emphatically about other bike path cyclists blinding
him. IOW, I'm not the only one complaining.

Oh, and I led a nighttime ride last night. Last time I had to ask a
couple folks to point their headlights down, instead of up into my rear
view mirror. This time, everyone knew from the start to pay attention
to focus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2015-07-06 9:25 AM, Duane wrote:
On 06/07/2015 12:13 PM, jbeattie wrote:

[...]


One can debate this forever, and it really comes down to where one
draws the line. Personally, I take my flea-watt front flasher and old
Planet Bike rear flasher on dreary days (and on my dreary day bike).
I don't bother on sunny days. I wear reasonably conspicuous clothing
and adjust my lane position to improve sight lines for motorists if
necessary. I might consider a rear flasher under heavy canopy -- like
my lucky rabbit's foot. A front flasher under heavy canopy in more
dense urban areas with cross-traffic. Out in the middle of nowhere, I
don't see a need for a front flasher.



I do pretty much what you do. If it's a bright sunny day I'm not using
any lights. If it's drizzly or dreary then I'll probably have them on.

But the other day I was with my group and I was in the lead. We were
stopped at an intersection. The road was curved and I was waiting for
the traffic to clear on the left with the cars coming around the turn. A
car passed and I started to go when I saw a cyclist at the last minute.


I had one of those on a bike path. I am sure he clocked in at well over
20mph. Tall brown grass, dark clothes, dark bike frame, dark overcast sky.


I guess if he had a light on I'd have seen him sooner. I think that
since the cars all have DRLs I didn't pick up on the cyclist. Of course
he was wearing grey clothes and some bright colors may have helped just
as much. Who knows? From my POV if the lights don't blind me and it
makes the cyclist feel safer I don't care. Maybe they have an aversion
to purple shorts so their motif is black kit and bright lights.


The last sentence sums it up. Why is it generally expected that cyclists
must wear loud clothes? I find them ugly, excessively expensive and the
artificial fibers in there aren't tolerated well by my skin (gives a
rash). I see bicycles more as transportation devices and thus want to be
able to hop onto them with normal clothes, like in my car, without the
need to change just for the ride. It also doesn't look too cool standing
around at a birthday party in cockatiel colors and cleats shoes.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 7/6/2015 9:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:

While I was riding yesterday, I encountered a guy with a flashing rear light -- and it may have caught my attention first. Who knows. I had no trouble seeing the dozens of other riders with no flashers. In broad daylight, you see the rider and the flasher simultaneously, and then your eye is drawn to the flasher. The only new information added by the flasher IS the flasher. I suppose that if I were looking for flashers, a flasher would be very helpful.

The flashing front and rear lights are more for drivers than for other
cyclists, though on busy multi-use paths they are also helpful. I.e. I
ride the path along the Embarcadero in SF some days, and some days I use
the adjacent green painted bicycle lane. On the multi-use path there ara
a lot of the bike-share bikes, all with front and rear flashers.

On Caltrain I get a chance to look at a great many bikes and it's rare
to see one without front and rear flashers. Riding to the station at
night it's like a flashing light convention as everyone converges on the
station, hoping for a coveted bike spot on the express trains.

No one would argue that a front flasher makes you more visible to
opposing traffic or side-entering traffic. I see it every single
day--drivers thinking about a right on red in front of me not doing it
because I am so conspicuous, drivers not making a left in front of me
because it registers on their brain that something is coming toward
them. Drivers not making a right hook, as I speed down the bike lane as
they are waiting to make a right turn.

The bottom line is that in heavy city traffic, at least in the U.S., it
would be exceedingly foolish to not use daytime flashing lights.

----------------------------------------------------------------
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------

On 7/5/2015 10:05 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Grandpa was on a SuperSix along with a bunch of others out for a training ride. I have no problem with people using DRLs -- unless they are super-bright and annoying -- but the assertion that I need a 1000 lumen headlight for riding in the country on a sunny day is bizarre. A little front and rear flasher on a dreary day, maybe, but a blasting headlamp in bright sunlight? I can conceive of places where a flasher would be helpful in dappled sunlight under heavy tree canopy, but so far, I haven't had problems -- and when I encounter cross traffic in those situations, I take the lane and pay attention. With your bleached, rolling hills and lack of tree canopy, I can't imagine why you would need a light. You would stand out like a sore thumb in a fluorescent jersey.

Early DRLs were often high-beams at half brightness (lamps put in
series). These were really annoying. You still see some older GM cars
like Saturns with these awful things.

The big problem with DRLs is that often drivers don't realize that they
have only their DRLs on at night, with no rear lights.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine
----------------------------------------------------------------
My mistake, Paine, not Jefferson

On 2015-07-06 11:09 AM, sms wrote:
On 7/6/2015 9:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:

While I was riding yesterday, I encountered a guy with a flashing rear
light -- and it may have caught my attention first. Who knows. I had
no trouble seeing the dozens of other riders with no flashers. In
broad daylight, you see the rider and the flasher simultaneously, and
then your eye is drawn to the flasher. The only new information added
by the flasher IS the flasher. I suppose that if I were looking for
flashers, a flasher would be very helpful.

The flashing front and rear lights are more for drivers than for other
cyclists, though on busy multi-use paths they are also helpful. I.e. I
ride the path along the Embarcadero in SF some days, and some days I use
the adjacent green painted bicycle lane. On the multi-use path there ara
a lot of the bike-share bikes, all with front and rear flashers.

On Caltrain I get a chance to look at a great many bikes and it's rare
to see one without front and rear flashers. Riding to the station at
night it's like a flashing light convention as everyone converges on the
station, hoping for a coveted bike spot on the express trains.


Just curious: What happens if you arrive and all those coveted bike
spots are taken?


No one would argue that a front flasher makes you more visible to
opposing traffic or side-entering traffic. I see it every single
day--drivers thinking about a right on red in front of me not doing it
because I am so conspicuous, drivers not making a left in front of me
because it registers on their brain that something is coming toward
them. Drivers not making a right hook, as I speed down the bike lane as
they are waiting to make a right turn.


That is exactly what I am experiencing. Mostly drivers wanting to pull
out of side roads or parking lots. Because they see me much earlier they
still have a chance to reverse and roll back a few feet. Upon which I
always thank them even though I don't have to. Courtesy goes a long way.


The bottom line is that in heavy city traffic, at least in the U.S., it
would be exceedingly foolish to not use daytime flashing lights.


Fully agree. Although a bright enough steady light also works. The one
on my road bike flashes (if I set it to) and the much bigger MTB light
doesn't.

At night I set the road bike like to non-flash mode because it's a bit
irritating. It is always good to test that by walking or driving up to
your own lit bike. That is how I found out that I need a diffuser lens
for the MTB and didn't ride one mile on roads without it. Without that
it was blinding.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/