Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 2:47 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/15/2019 9:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups
sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck
driver behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to
abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more
wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png


The truck part includes SUVs.


actual numbers, typical of any recent year, with either a
Ford or a Chevrolet pickup at #1 and the other one at #2:

https://www.businessinsider.com/best...p-233539-67-18

O.T.: What boggles my mind about all these SUVs and macho-mobiles is that they go over speed humps -- humps, not bumps -- at 2mph. Massive suspension, and they can't handle a hump. I about slammed into the back of an Outback this morning that basically stopped at at a succession of speed humps. The road was too narrow to go around, so I blew him off on the downhill. https://tinyurl.com/y3zwnblp Spin that around -- its 16%. I took the lane to the left. https://tinyurl.com/y5ky92p7 I gave the stop sign a liberal interpretation as a suggestion rather than a command -- which will be legal Jan 1. https://bikeportland.org/2019/06/25/...-yields-301829 I'm a forward thinking individual. I didn't want to get stuck behind the guy over the succession of humps down the road. https://tinyurl.com/yyegh7gu

-- Jay Beattie.

"Heavy duty" suspension means that without a load in the back the
truck rides much as if it had no suspension at all. Thus speed humps
are far more disturbing to the occupants in the pickup than to the
sleek, expensice, sedan... or even a bicycle where the more
intelligent sort of folks use the legs to provide a bit of
"suspension" when hitting speed humps.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 15:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:51:33 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/14/2019 9:18 AM, wrote:

snip

Frank has trouble empathizing with someone else's situation and needs. That the reason he getting on the nerves of some of us including me.

Has he ever said, "Oh, I didn't realize that others had an issue with
xyz, I've never experienced it. I stand corrected?"

I suppose not. Since he knows everything about everything, how everyone
else should live their lives, and every issue to do with bicycling in
the entire world, there's never been a need to make such a statement.

That has been his entire work product on this site. He isn't mechanically inclined so he thinks that a 1948 steel bicycle is the same as a 2008. And he will argue all day long that there's no difference. He is obviously a really tiny person - 5'4 or smaller and it has never crossed his mind that most Americans are midgets like himself.

"He is obviously a really tiny person - 5'4 or smaller and it has
never crossed his mind that most Americans are midgets like himself."

And, once again Pudding Head Tom demonstrates that he is dumber than a
pet rock. see
https://www.healthline.com/health/av...en#u.s.-height
The average height of the U.S. male is 5'9 inches.
(for the pet rock, 9 inches is more than twice as much as 4 inches)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:38:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 2:47 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/15/2019 9:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups
sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck
driver behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to
abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more
wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png


The truck part includes SUVs.


actual numbers, typical of any recent year, with either a
Ford or a Chevrolet pickup at #1 and the other one at #2:

https://www.businessinsider.com/best...p-233539-67-18

O.T.: What boggles my mind about all these SUVs and macho-mobiles is that they go over speed humps -- humps, not bumps -- at 2mph. Massive suspension, and they can't handle a hump. I about slammed into the back of an Outback this morning that basically stopped at at a succession of speed humps. The road was too narrow to go around, so I blew him off on the downhill. https://tinyurl.com/y3zwnblp Spin that around -- its 16%. I took the lane to the left. https://tinyurl.com/y5ky92p7 I gave the stop sign a liberal interpretation as a suggestion rather than a command -- which will be legal Jan 1. https://bikeportland.org/2019/06/25/...-yields-301829 I'm a forward thinking individual. I didn't want to get stuck behind the guy over the succession of humps down the road. https://tinyurl.com/yyegh7gu

-- Jay Beattie.

"Heavy duty" suspension means that without a load in the back the
truck rides much as if it had no suspension at all. Thus speed humps
are far more disturbing to the occupants in the pickup than to the
sleek, expensice, sedan... or even a bicycle where the more
intelligent sort of folks use the legs to provide a bit of
"suspension" when hitting speed humps.

True, but I have an Outback and don't creep over speed humps. BTW, I think modern pickup trucks have pretty sophisticated, adjustable suspension -- but I'll leave that to the gear-heads to confirm or deny.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/15/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:38:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 2:47 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/15/2019 9:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups
sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck
driver behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to
abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more
wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png


The truck part includes SUVs.


actual numbers, typical of any recent year, with either a
Ford or a Chevrolet pickup at #1 and the other one at #2:

https://www.businessinsider.com/best...p-233539-67-18

O.T.: What boggles my mind about all these SUVs and macho-mobiles is that they go over speed humps -- humps, not bumps -- at 2mph. Massive suspension, and they can't handle a hump. I about slammed into the back of an Outback this morning that basically stopped at at a succession of speed humps. The road was too narrow to go around, so I blew him off on the downhill. https://tinyurl.com/y3zwnblp Spin that around -- its 16%. I took the lane to the left. https://tinyurl.com/y5ky92p7 I gave the stop sign a liberal interpretation as a suggestion rather than a command -- which will be legal Jan 1. https://bikeportland.org/2019/06/25/...-yields-301829 I'm a forward thinking individual. I didn't want to get stuck behind the guy over the succession of humps down the road. https://tinyurl.com/yyegh7gu

-- Jay Beattie.

"Heavy duty" suspension means that without a load in the back the
truck rides much as if it had no suspension at all. Thus speed humps
are far more disturbing to the occupants in the pickup than to the
sleek, expensice, sedan... or even a bicycle where the more
intelligent sort of folks use the legs to provide a bit of
"suspension" when hitting speed humps.

True, but I have an Outback and don't creep over speed humps. BTW, I think modern pickup trucks have pretty sophisticated, adjustable suspension -- but I'll leave that to the gear-heads to confirm or deny.

-- Jay Beattie.


Me too. WTF? I've also noticed that behavior.
I'm sort of a gearhead, but I don't know beans about
pickups, their handling (or lack thereof), suspension mods etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 04:44:56 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:05:47 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:08:36 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/1 As Andrew stated, even something smallish in the face is a
safety hazard, especially when it's unexpected.

You can ride right through a few leaves hanging down when you're aware
that they're there, without reacting. But something unexpected in the
face, even small, could trigger a reaction that puts the rider in
danger, i.e. causing them to swerve into traffic.


If what you say is even remotely true why aren't you recommending face
shields, after all they are quite common on motorcycle helmets and
would totally eliminate yet another danger to the bicycle rider.

But then your increasing the heat danger from the lack of cooling
breeze.
Although, my chain saw helmet has a mesh screen rather than the usual
clear polycarbonate.

A "chain saw helmet"? I understand the face shield, but the helmet?
Maybe cut down a tree and it falls on your head?

It that "safety imflation" in the forestry industry as they'd be totally
useless if a tree or large branch dropped onto your head.

More like a little something if "cones" or small branches dropped off
whilst you were cutting it down. It does happen. I've been with a group
of bush walkers who loved the challenge of pushing over dead trees; the
trick was to get it swaying and aplifiy the rythm, during which time dead
branches would drop everywhere.

On 10/15/2019 9:08 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 8:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:38:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:14:59 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 2:47 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/15/2019 9:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:

Â* snip

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups
sold than sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck
driver behavior spans the full range from inexplicable to
abhorrent, just like every other vehicle with 2 or more
wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png



The truck part includes SUVs.


actual numbers, typical of any recent year, with either a
Ford or a Chevrolet pickup at #1 and the other one at #2:

https://www.businessinsider.com/best...p-233539-67-18


O.T.:Â* What boggles my mind about all these SUVs and macho-mobiles
is that they go over speed humps -- humps, not bumps -- at 2mph.
Massive suspension, and they can't handle a hump. I about slammed
into the back of an Outback this morning that basically stopped at
at a succession of speed humps.Â* The road was too narrow to go
around, so I blew him off on the downhill.
https://tinyurl.com/y3zwnblpÂ* Spin that around -- its 16%. I took
the lane to the left. https://tinyurl.com/y5ky92p7Â* I gave the stop
sign a liberal interpretation as a suggestion rather than a command
-- which will be legal Jan 1.
https://bikeportland.org/2019/06/25/...-yields-301829
I'm a forward thinking individual.Â* I didn't want to get stuck
behind the guy over the succession of humps down the road.
https://tinyurl.com/yyegh7gu

-- Jay Beattie.

"Heavy duty" suspension means that without a load in the back the
truck rides much as if it had no suspension at all. Thus speed humps
are far more disturbing to the occupants in the pickup than to the
sleek, expensice, sedan... or even a bicycle where the more
intelligent sort of folks use the legs to provide a bit of
"suspension" when hitting speed humps.

True, but I have an Outback and don't creep over speed humps. BTW, I
think modern pickup trucks have pretty sophisticated, adjustable
suspension -- but I'll leave that to the gear-heads to confirm or deny.

-- Jay Beattie.


Me too. WTF? I've also noticed that behavior.
I'm sort of a gearhead, but I don't know beans about pickups, their
handling (or lack thereof), suspension mods etc.

Same here. But it seems they could and should be equipped with highly
progressive springs - that is, soft when lightly loaded, stiffer when
deflected by a load. The manufacturers make high profit on pickups. The
could afford the design research and implementation.

Heck, look at the sophistication built into some mountain bike suspensions.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 3:57 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 October 2019 12:07:37 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 23:19:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/14/2019 10:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Although low hanging branches are very rare in most urban settings and certainly not a justification for retina burning mega lights on city streets and in bicycle facilities. What is needed is a true low-beam/high-beam for bikes used in urban settings -- and maybe even a pulsing secondary light or something to distinguish the bike from cars or fixed light sources on buildings. I would/do use the high beam on the trail sections of my commute or particularly dark sections where tree attacks might be expected.

-- Jay Beattie.

So mount two lamps on the front of the bike somewhere with a small
switch on the handle bars.

Back in the halogen bulb days, I had two headlights mounted on my
commuting bike, for purposes of comparison and other experiments. These
were driven by an ancient Soubitez roller dynamo that's still in use on
another bike.

I had two switches on the handlebar. One could select either headlamp or
both. (They were wired in series.) The other switch controlled the
taillight, so I could see the effect on the headlight(s) of turning it
on and off.

Once headlights like the Cyo were developed, I stopped that
experimenting. I judged the problem solved.

But I suppose if I lived in a town whose mayor couldn't keep the streets
clear of very low branches, I might repeat that experiment.

Well, why not. The new LED lights are so small and light that one
could have several mounted on the handle bars. High beam, low beam,
beam in the middle beam, flash his eyes beam, watch out for the branch
beam. The mind boggles.

There's chatter about new technology for auto headlight beams. Instead
of the currently common scheme of one light source (whether tungsten,
LED or whatever) there would be an array of light sources each focused
on a small area forward of the car. This would be coupled with a vision
system that would instantaneously dim only that portion of the forward
beam that would dazzle an oncoming driver. You'd have high beams
everywhere except where they'd blind motorists.

I haven't read anything about that system mentioning bicyclists or
pedestrians, so I don't know if it would blind them. This would be an
even worse problem in those areas where bike paths and sidewalks have
bicyclists traveling contraflow and close to oncoming cars.

The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist (driving a pickup
truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark residential street. He kept his high
beams and his auxiliary lights on while driving toward me.

I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem. I'm sure his
jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming bicycle. But his software
lacked the "elementary courtesy" module that should have dimmed his lights.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I detest those newer blue automobile lights as they are so bright they blind bicyclists riding towards them even on a two lane road. I've had it happen so often here in town that I bought a pair of yellow lenses night-driving glasses to wear at night when bicycling.

Both my wife and I tried those. (She's bothered more than I am.) The
yellow lenses didn't seem to help us. Perhaps we bought the wrong type
or brand?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 12:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The other night, I did have a problem with a motorist
(driving a pickup truck, naturally) on a quiet, dark
residential street. He kept his high beams and his auxiliary
lights on while driving toward me.

I'm sure his bilateral optical system detected our tandem.
I'm sure his jelly-like CPU recognized it as an oncoming
bicycle. But his software lacked the "elementary courtesy"
module that should have dimmed his lights.



"naturally"Â* ??

I don't doubt your report but since there are more pickups sold than
sedans, it wouldn't surprise me that truck driver behavior spans the
full range from inexplicable to abhorrent, just like every other vehicle
with 2 or more wheels.

https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/...parison_v2.png

I'm sure that driver behavior spans the spectrum; but I'm also sure that
certain behavior correlate more strongly with certain vehicle choices.
Examples are too easy to bother listing.

I suspect that a certain subset of pickup drivers revel in having bright
lights. I posted here about one pickup driver who deliberately turned on
his overhead LED light bar when I flicked my brights to request he dim
his brights. Pickups also seem to be over-represented in the count of
vehicles with add-on auxiliary fog or driving lights.

Some of it may be an attempt to compensate for bad headlights. But the
problem seems to be recognized by others. There's this:
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/22/u...isibility.html

and this: https://www.carfax.com/blog/iihs-tests-truck-headlights


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 1:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/15/2019 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/15/2019 6:10 AM, sms wrote:

I've never subscribed to the whole "Danger Danger"
philosophy that we see one person incessantly repeating.
Bicycling is not that dangerous!

Again, we're deeply into the surreal. Mayor Scharf is now
agreeing with my main arguments - that bicycling is not very
dangerous - while somehow pretending he's arguing against me.

He is the person who has argued longest and hardest for
bicycle helmet use, saying that riding without one is foolish.

He has argued long and hard for blinding headlights and even
marine strobe taillights, night and day, saying that riding
without them is foolish.

He has argued long and hard for bike segregation, for
keeping bikes off roadways.

He has shilled for flags sticking out laterally from
bicycles, to keep cars away.

He has touted the electric horn he cobbled together for his
bike as an additional safety necessity.

He has mocked my comparisons of bicycling data vs. data for
other activities, comparisons that prove that cycling is not
dangerous. (See
http://bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm for
example, an article I wrote decades ago.)

Those are the sorts of statements that I've characterized as
"Danger! Danger!" warnings. He now pretends I was saying
precisely the opposite.

Scharf is doing what so many politicians do: lying blatantly
and repeatedly. I wouldn't be surprised if his skin tone was
turning orange.



Add to list: you're both on the "Orange Man Bad" team.

True, it's a big team. Although not big enough, I'm afraid.


But hey Hizzoner is Mayor and you're not!

True. He has some power in his city. Why would he complain about low
branches, rather than having the problem fixed?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/15/2019 9:11 PM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0700, John B. wrote:


A "chain saw helmet"? I understand the face shield, but the helmet?
Maybe cut down a tree and it falls on your head?

It that "safety imflation" in the forestry industry as they'd be totally
useless if a tree or large branch dropped onto your head.

More like a little something if "cones" or small branches dropped off
whilst you were cutting it down.

Regarding "safety inflation": We have a good example of that with our
local forest preserve. It's about 260 Acres (over 100 hectares) and
poorly funded. Most routine maintenance has always been done by
dedicated volunteers. Most of that maintenance has been using chainsaws
to clear branches and trees that fall across the ten miles of
single-track trails.

Until a couple years ago, that is. That's when new Forest Board members
and a new Solicitor decided that was terribly dangerous. Now any use of
a chainsaw requires prior permission, which will be granted only if the
operator has taken a $100 course and been certified in chainsaw
operation, and is equipped with leather chaps, gloves, face mask,
helmet, steel toed shoes and I forget what else. Even though there's
zero record of any chainsaw injuries since 1938.

Predictably, it's now routine to have trees down for weeks across lots
and lots of trails.


--
- Frank Krygowski