Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:10:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.

Same argument as "Grandpa never wore a safety belt, his cars didn't even
have any, and he survived".


But what about three generations of drivers who didn't have a seat
belt and survived?


Yup, that's how the arguments go. And everyone forgot the high death
rates after traffic collisions or the pictures of dead people on
freeways. I saw the first one as a kid. A Ford had rolled and ejected
the driver. The car remained very much intact but the driver was dead.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 19 Oct 2014
07:41:25 -0700 the perfect time to write:

Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.10.2014 19:07, schrieb Joerg:
There is still a lack of consensus as to whether a steady on light is
better than or worse than a flashing light.

As long as I have to contend with battery-powered weak LED lights I will
keep them on flash, always. If I could find a big enough rear light that
can reasonably be spliced into a battery pack I'd use a steady light,
maybe. Big as in physically large and a total of 1-2W worth of LED power
in there.
With a decent front light, the rear reflectors of the bicycle ahead
light up well at a 50-100m distance. Then maybe when I'm 10m behind I
see 'Oh that bike isn't unlit, it has one of those silly flashers'.

Flashers are not silly, they are very useful. When in a car they cause
me and others to see a bike from half a mile away even in daylight.
That's the whole purpose.

Just what benefit do you or the cyclist derive from that half mile, as
opposed to 150 yards?


A lot. For example, I can leisurely plan ahead and instead of stepping
on the brakes just release the accelerator a bit if I see an oncoming
truck. That alone can avoid dangerous effects with the vehicles behind
me (texting, yapping on cell phone, not paying attention).


At urban speeds, only 30 or 40 yards is relevant, unless you are
driving extremely recklessly.


The world does not only consits of urban areas. Even inside urbia and
suburbia there's plenty of high-speed arteries where 45mph or 55mph is
the posted speed limit. 30-40 yards is totally inadequate there.


As long as you have a decent rear reflector, most standard rear lights
are a waste of weight and money.

Mostly not. Many headlights on cars have never been adjusted in years,
we do not have roadworthiness checks like your TUEV.

Then maybe that's something worth campaigning for.


Fat chance.


Beam alignment is part of our MOT test, along with checks of most
other safety critical systems on a motor vehicle.


Not in California or most other states.


During the day or
in foggy environments a reflector has zero safety effect because many
drivers do not have their front lights turned on.

If the visibility is poor, the drivers need to be taking more care,
and if they don't the privilege of operating a motor vehicle needs to
be revoked.


Yeah, right. And what about the funeral?


Maybe another thing worth campaigning for.
I have two very large reflectors on my road bike but also a blinking
rear light which is on day and night during rides. On the mountain bike
you cannot mount a reflector so that has only flashing rear lights, also
turned on the whole ride. Two lights, for redundancy.

In daylight, a brightly coloured top is far more visible both close to
and at a distance than a flashing red light.


My experience is completely different and I go by that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/20/2014 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:

My experience is completely different and I go by that.

Did California ever have vehicle inspections? They had them in Florida,
where I grew up, first every six months, then every twelve months, and
then they abandoned them. It was nice that more vehicles had functioning
lights, horns, brakes, and exhaust, but they found that statistically it
made no difference in terms of safety.

In California the problem is that so many drivers don't know how to work
their lights. They don't turn on their lights in the rain or in early
morning or at dusk. They don't know how to activate their turn signals.
They leave only their DRLs on at night rather than turning on their
actual headlights (and tail lights). I wish that the police would not
worry so much about enforcing seat belt laws and California stops, and
do some enforcement on stuff that really matters.

FWIW, a front flasher is far more conspicuous than a brightly colored
shirt. Besides the fact that to encourage more bicycle usage for
commuting and daily use it should not be necessary to wear special clothes.

On 10/20/2014 7:40 AM, Joerg wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 12:10:35 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 10:12 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

I have no problem with you using a front flasher during daytime. I have
only dynohub powered frontlights without a flashmode. It is remarkable that
I am still alive. I think Frank is also still alive.
Well for where you live it's not such a big deal so the fact that you are
alive is not surprising.

Frank may be alive as well, thought he's lost all his critical thinking
skills which is sad.
Whether Frank lost all his critical thinking skills or not doesn't count.
What counts is that he doesn't use daylight front flashers and he is still
alive.

Same argument as "Grandpa never wore a safety belt, his cars didn't even
have any, and he survived".


But what about three generations of drivers who didn't have a seat
belt and survived?


Yup, that's how the arguments go. And everyone forgot the high death
rates after traffic collisions or the pictures of dead people on
freeways. I saw the first one as a kid. A Ford had rolled and ejected
the driver. The car remained very much intact but the driver was dead.

The people that use those kinds of arguments never learned how to think
critically.

The weak arguments used against safety belts back in the 1950's look
remarkably similar to the weak arguments used against bicycle helmets
today. Nitpick every study on the subject and insist that more research
is needed. And just like now with helmets, it was medical professionals
pushing for seat belts. They _knew_ the advantages of seat belts but
marketing departments did not want to depict vehicles as being dangerous
by adding safety equipment. Oh, and never forget to plant the idea that
safety equipment could actually add to danger. You still have people
saying, "well if my car goes into a lake I might not be able to get by
seat belt off."

On 10/20/2014 10:30 AM, sms wrote:

snip

The weak arguments used against safety belts back in the 1950's look
remarkably similar to the weak arguments used against bicycle helmets
today. Nitpick every study on the subject and insist that more research
is needed. And just like now with helmets, it was medical professionals
pushing for seat belts. They _knew_ the advantages of seat belts but
marketing departments did not want to depict vehicles as being dangerous
by adding safety equipment. Oh, and never forget to plant the idea that
safety equipment could actually add to danger. You still have people
saying, "well if my car goes into a lake I might not be able to get by
seat belt off."

I love page 5 of
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2703.pdf right hand
column under "incompetent research." it's like they were writing about
Cyclehelmets.org; " the data used are incorrect, the statistical
methodology is invalid, and the claims are nonsense."

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:04:31 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/19/2014 5:23 PM, jbeattie wrote:

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 5:17:12 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:

On 10/19/2014 3:05 PM, James wrote:



snip!



In short, a front flasher makes it more enjoyable for the cyclist by



reducing the number of times that they must yield to a vehicle that does



not have the right of way.



Alas, there is a burgeoning blinky backlash Batman!: http://bikeportland.org/2014/07/08/g...-lights-108410



-- Jay Beattie.





Flash rates need to be less than 2 Hz or greater than 55Hz to avoid this

issue. Bring back the Ampec Belt Beacon. But the reality is that no one

is going to be looking at a front flasher for more than a few seconds

anyway.

I encountered a cyclists this morning with two super-bright flashers (one bar, one helmet) who was blasting light all over the place. It was reflecting off everything, from nearby buildings to planes flying overhead. He was sitting in traffic, blasting his flashers in to the rear view mirrors of every car ahead of him in traffic -- light after light. It was annoying just riding behind him. This is all by way of saying that the time someone is looking at a front flasher (either directly or reflected) can be prolonged.

-- Jay Beattie.

sms wrote:
On 10/20/2014 10:30 AM, sms wrote:

snip

The weak arguments used against safety belts back in the 1950's look
remarkably similar to the weak arguments used against bicycle helmets
today. Nitpick every study on the subject and insist that more research
is needed. And just like now with helmets, it was medical professionals
pushing for seat belts. They _knew_ the advantages of seat belts but
marketing departments did not want to depict vehicles as being dangerous
by adding safety equipment. Oh, and never forget to plant the idea that
safety equipment could actually add to danger. You still have people
saying, "well if my car goes into a lake I might not be able to get by
seat belt off."

I love page 5 of
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2703.pdf right hand
column under "incompetent research." it's like they were writing about
Cyclehelmets.org; " the data used are incorrect, the statistical
methodology is invalid, and the claims are nonsense."


People in Europe do the same by dissing bike paths as "inherently
unsafe" and they don't even realize what a disservice that is to their
own interest group. It's sad.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

sms wrote:
On 10/20/2014 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:

My experience is completely different and I go by that.

Did California ever have vehicle inspections? ...


AFAIK never.


... They had them in Florida,
where I grew up, first every six months, then every twelve months, and
then they abandoned them. It was nice that more vehicles had functioning
lights, horns, brakes, and exhaust, but they found that statistically it
made no difference in terms of safety.

In California the problem is that so many drivers don't know how to work
their lights. They don't turn on their lights in the rain or in early
morning or at dusk. They don't know how to activate their turn signals.
They leave only their DRLs on at night rather than turning on their
actual headlights (and tail lights). I wish that the police would not
worry so much about enforcing seat belt laws and California stops, and
do some enforcement on stuff that really matters.


We have less and less police. Because the budgets for them are swallowed
up by super-fat pensions.


FWIW, a front flasher is far more conspicuous than a brightly colored
shirt. Besides the fact that to encourage more bicycle usage for
commuting and daily use it should not be necessary to wear special clothes.


Many of my trips simply would not happen if I couldn't just hop out of
my office seat and onto a bike.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, October 20, 2014 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:

People in Europe do the same by dissing bike paths as "inherently
unsafe" and they don't even realize what a disservice that is to their
own interest group. It's sad.

Hmm. If a European finds a path to be inherently unsafe, he shouldn't mention it?

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/20/2014 12:02 PM, Joerg wrote:

We have less and less police. Because the budgets for them are swallowed
up by super-fat pensions.

If I were a police officer I sure would not want to not have a pension
and the promise of a desk job if I was injured on duty. San Jose is
hemorrhaging police officers now but other cities are hiring them,
complete with better pay and funded pensions.

The problem in San Jose is that the tax base is abnormally low because
the politicians are owned by developers that got so much land rezoned
from commercial to residential wrecking the tax base. By the time a stop
was put to this it was too late. The city is so large and diverse that
there's no way to get any tax increases to pay for services; residents
of the wealthier, lower-crime areas, aren't going to vote for property
tax or sales tax increases to pay for more police in the less affluent,
more crime-ridden areas. Eventually the SJPD will be disbanded and the
function will be contracted out to the sheriff (as many cities in the
county already do).