#201
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 3:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:12:02 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/18/2017 2:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much stationary "be seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen" safety inflation mentality. True, but you're thinking like engineering, not marketing. I do have too strong of a tendency to do that. See http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-12-18 That has a place of honor on our refrigerator door. -- - Frank Krygowski Many many years ago I read an article and also books on bicycling that stated thatthe two most dangerous p;aces to ride a bicycle was #1 a parking lot and #2 an intersection. That may be true. Parking lots are chaotic, but that has little to do with standlights. Intersections are more dangerous than non-intersection stretches of road, but the danger doesn't come from being stationary. For legal cyclists, the sources of crashes are 1) Right hooks 2) Left crosses, and 3) Pull-outs. In all those cases, the cyclists are moving. Illegal cyclists can add other intersection hazards, but again, those occur while the cyclist is moving. You might try describing the specific traffic situation where a motorist would be likely to hit a stationary cyclist because he has no headlight. So, you guys are saying that having a bright standlight right where a lot of bicycling accidents happen (at an intersection) is a bad thing? Nobody is saying it's a bad thing to have a standlight. However, I'm saying it's not a critical thing. And it's certainly not true (as Joerg implied) that there's a big risk in having a standlight that's dimmer than a headlight, or one whose duration is only a couple minutes. In Ohio, the law specifically states that dynamo lights that go out when stationary are legal. I was not involved with getting that law passed, but IIRC the Ohio Bicycle Federation was. They did so in part because they judged there was no significant hazard. I don't know about you but I like to know that a driver coming towards me at night whilst I'm stopped at an intersection can at least see my bicycle light. Your personal preference is fine. But if the risk of crash due to lack of standlight was really great, that source of crashes would have been listed in the studies that examined car-bike crash sources. Those studies have no such entries. YMMV Why not paint your bike flat black and wear flat black clothing or camouflage clothing if being visible to other road users is of so little consequence even when you're stopped and they are moving? sigh First, the color of a bike is completely negligible. Second, I reject the idea that a cyclist is at fault if he chooses to wear ordinary clothing, no matter its color. IIRC, all but two U.S. states require no taillight, and allow mere rear reflectors. I think if the resulting danger were great, there wouldn't be 48 states disagreeing. I do advocate taillights, but I think anything except the tiniest coin-cell taillights are adequate. And back when I did night lighting workshops with my bike club (where we observed lights on bikes to test them) everyone else agreed. And BTW, I think reflectors on pedals or cranks are extremely conspicuous. I'd be more in favor of mandating them than mandating taillights. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 2:50 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
snip LOL, the world does not revolve around what YOU have noticed personally. In the Odense study, cyclists with daytime bicycle lights had 32% fewer accidents than the control group. The effect was particularly noticeable during the summer season when the reduction is up to 40%. So it's when the sun is brighter that there is even more of an advantage to DRLs. You can see the same thing in your own town. It's especially noticeable when cyclists are in a bicycle lane, closer to the curb than in a traffic lane. They tend to blend in with the other stuff on the right side of the road, such as parked cars. BUNK! LOL, that's a well-researched response. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 5:35 PM, sms wrote:
In the Odense study, cyclists with daytime bicycle lights had 32% fewer accidents than the control group. The effect was particularly noticeable during the summer season when the reduction is up to 40%. So it's when the sun is brighter that there is even more of an advantage to DRLs. Let's talk about the origin and the details of that study. First, it was initiated by Reelight, the company selling the lights. For most scientifically competent people, that would at least indicate that the details need critical examination. Second, the group who got the lights was self-selected. Self-selection is always regarded with high suspicion, because those choosing the measure under study are almost guaranteed to be different than those who do not make that choice. In this case, the company offered free lights to those who would participate. It's very likely that those choosing to get the lights were the most fearful and careful cyclists - those who would have the lowest crash rate in any case. IOW, the difference in crash rates between self-selected and control groups would probably be as great if the offer was for magic key fobs. You can see the same thing in your own town. It's especially noticeable when cyclists are in a bicycle lane, closer to the curb than in a traffic lane. They tend to blend in with the other stuff on the right side of the road, such as parked cars. Don't ride in the gutter, Stephen. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 3:54 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/18/2017 11:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: snip While the vests are unlikely to solve the problem, they do help and are cheap enough. Will they 100% solve the problem? Of course not. Will they help? Definitely. We've had fatalities in Silicon Valley of pedestrians walking at night on roads with drivers that have not been charged because they legitimately claimed that they just did not see the pedestrians. There's this false narrative out there of "if there's not been a double-blind study done, then we should ignore common sense, because no one has conclusively proven XYZ." There's also the false narrative saying if something may help to any degree, it's foolish to not use it. However, the main proponent of that "logic" still has not explained why he and his family don't use the six-foot-tall bicycle flags of the 1970s. https://americansafetyvest.com/wp-co...4/BikeFlag.jpg There's no study that proves that making yourself more conspicuous at night (or in the daytime for that matter) makes it less likely that someone will inadvertently run you over, though in this case you might want to accept the empirical evidence, extrapolate data from related relevant studies, and use some common sense. Or not--if you have an agenda that you're pushing. In fact there has been at least one study on DRLs for bicycles, https://www.bikelight.ca/pages/safety-first-study. I've commented on that "study" in another post. It's right up there with "Gleem toothpaste makes you 35% sexier." If someone is expecting a graph of lumens or lux versus bicycle crashes, then they will be waiting a long time. The bottom line is what this article states: "You Have No Excuse Not to Bike with a Light, Day or Night." https://www.outsideonline.com/2064501/you-have-no-excuse-not-bike-light-day-or-night. Take a look at the photo in that article. It appeared in an advertisement in some bike magazines. What do you see? I saw a car and a bike. https://www.outsideonline.com/sites/...?itok=1zHaOkga The photo was on the back cover of the magazine, lying face up for several days before I even noticed what they were advertising. I thought "Wait, what's this ad about?" Then I saw it was for the taillight. Then I realized that the cyclist in the photo actually has a taillight. Just as in real life, the cyclist - even in black clothing against a dark background - is far more visible than the light. I would advise him to get at least into the right tire track, though. He's inviting close passes and adding to his risk of goat head or debris punctures. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: And BTW, I think reflectors on pedals or cranks are extremely conspicuous. I'd be more in favor of mandating them than mandating taillights. Reflectors are already required in California: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum= 21201 21201(d) (1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle. (2) A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. (3) A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet. (4) A white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles that are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:11:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 3/18/2017 2:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much stationary "be seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen" safety inflation mentality. True, but you're thinking like engineering, not marketing. I do have too strong of a tendency to do that. See http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-12-18 That has a place of honor on our refrigerator door. I can see that this discussion is going to be all uphill. I'll be merciful and uncharacteristically brief. I worked for a company run by engineers that dug a hole for itself and then jump in by doing very little market research and ignoring their own marketing people. Designing a working product is only part of the puzzle. Packaging, merchandising, and selling it in a manner that customers will want to buy it is far more difficult because it's NOT an exact science like engineering. This is one reason that engineers fail to appreciate marketeers. It works the other way, where engineers are pathological incapable of letting go of their design and will continue to "improve" the design long after the customer has left and gone elsewhere. Incidentally, having one foot in each swamp, I had the dubious honor of being called a traitor by both sides. I really didn't appreciate the problem until that happened. Also, I tend to identify with Dilbert's PHB (pointy hair boss), partly because I've lost enough hair to look like him, but also because I can see myself in similar situations. Being in the middle between engineering, marketing, sales, and production is not my idea of fun job. I did it for a while running my father's company and hated it. Drivel: https://trackmaven.com/blog/national-days-calendar/ Hmmm... Today (Mar 18) is "National Supreme Sacrifice Day". I wonder if they mean human sacrifice? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: And BTW, I think reflectors on pedals or cranks are extremely conspicuous. I'd be more in favor of mandating them than mandating taillights. Reflectors are already required in California: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum= 21201 21201(d) (1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle. (2) A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. (3) A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet. (4) A white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles that are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors. I think most states are similar. But note the phrase "while the bicycle is in motion." -- - Frank Krygowski |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 12:34:21 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/18/2017 10:23 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:52:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: And BTW, I think reflectors on pedals or cranks are extremely conspicuous. I'd be more in favor of mandating them than mandating taillights. Reflectors are already required in California: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum= 21201 21201(d) (1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle. (2) A red reflector or a solid or flashing red light with a built-in reflector on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. (3) A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet. (4) A white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles that are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors. I think most states are similar. But note the phrase "while the bicycle is in motion." -- - Frank Krygowski I don't know about you people butt... When I'm stopped at an intersection at night I like to have a light shining forward as well as a rear red light so that vehicles approaching me and turning can see there is something in front of them. Ditto for when just staarting from a stop and not yet up to soeed. that seems to be a time when there are a lot of cars that will turn infront of a bicyclist because the driver didn't see the bicyclist. A bicyclist can also be hidden from an approaching and or approaching and turning driver, by the headlights of a car or truck behind the bicyclist. You guys can go ahead and play Russian Roulette with cars at intersections at night because you have no working light giving forthlight from your bicycle there. I'll keep my light ON at those intersections so that other road users can see a bicycle is there. Cheers |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 2:06:24 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
I don't know about you people butt... When I'm stopped at an intersection at night I like to have a light shining forward as well as a rear red light so that vehicles approaching me and turning can see there is something in front of them. Ditto for when just staarting from a stop and not yet up to soeed. that seems to be a time when there are a lot of cars that will turn infront of a bicyclist because the driver didn't see the bicyclist. A bicyclist can also be hidden from an approaching and or approaching and turning driver, by the headlights of a car or truck behind the bicyclist. You guys can go ahead and play Russian Roulette with cars at intersections at night because you have no working light giving forthlight from your bicycle there. I'll keep my light ON at those intersections so that other road users can see a bicycle is there. Cheers Yes, that's extremely important. One intersection I go through several times a week https://goo.gl/maps/uUrDJjyYMeM2 has most of the opposing traffic turning left. Without a good light, invariably they will turn directly in front of a bicycle going straight across, but if the cyclist has a light they will invariably yield the right of way. The cross street is six lanes, plus two left turn lanes, plus two bicycle lanes, plus a median. So a poor light is unlikely to get the vehicles' on the other side's attention. It's especially necessary to have a good light if you plan your approach as the light is turning green so you don't have to stop pr slow down. Those that rail against proper bicycle lighting have the mindset that it's not necessary because the cyclists can instead take evasive action, and constantly be yielding to vehicles that can't see them even when the cyclist has the right-of-way. If we are going to advocate for "transportational cycling" then we should be exerting our rights to the road, but if vehicles aren't aware of our presence that's hard to do, and it's getting harder with so much distracted driving. I'm glad that the Odense study proved the value of daytime flashing lights. It's a good step forward in convincing those that oppose cyclists making themselves visible that in fact conspicuousness is a good idea. Of course those that oppose conspicuousness will try to find ways to attack the study, just as they try to attack helmet studies. Too bad the bank isn't open today. I have a stack of checks from the manufacturers of good bicycle lights that I have to deposit. |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
More About Lights
On 3/18/2017 2:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:12:02 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/18/2017 2:29 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: Thing is, nobody's demonstrated any need for so much stationary "be seen" light, beyond the usual "well, it _could_ happen" safety inflation mentality. True, but you're thinking like engineering, not marketing. I do have too strong of a tendency to do that. See http://dilbert.com/strip/2014-12-18 That has a place of honor on our refrigerator door. -- - Frank Krygowski Many many years ago I read an article and also books on bicycling that stated thatthe two most dangerous p;aces to ride a bicycle was #1 a parking lot and #2 an intersection. So, you guys are saying that having a bright standlight right where a lot of bicycling accidents happen (at an intersection) is a bad thing? I don't know about you but I like to know that a driver coming towards me at night whilst I'm stopped at an intersection can at least see my bicycle light. YMMV Why not paint your bike flat black and wear flat black clothing or camouflage clothing if being visible to other road users is of so little consequence even when you're stopped and they are moving? Cheers *ahem* I wear mostly black on both of my black bicycles. So far so good... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dynamo Lights viz Battery Lights in snow qand slush? | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 6 | March 4th 15 10:36 PM |
No lights, dark clothing, no reflectives, no street lights. | Mrcheerful | UK | 153 | November 4th 14 09:19 AM |
Maybe it's safer to run red lights than to wait for green lights. | SMS | General | 16 | September 24th 08 09:51 PM |
Light Theft (solutions — small pocket lights, or heavy duty well secured lights?) | David Johnson | UK | 24 | August 29th 07 02:32 PM |
Break lights turn lights and handle bar lights | Truepurple | Techniques | 30 | November 17th 03 04:02 AM |