IQ-X vs Edelux II

On DRL’s for cyclists:

The research showing benefit for MOTORcyclists was completed 40 years ago and published in highway safety journals.


Harry Travis
PDX. OR,
USA

On 4/15/2019 7:56 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:47:53 -0700, sms
wrote:

Ironically, while DRLs are very effective for cyclists

Is there citable evidence for this assertion?

Yes. Search the archives using http://deja.com.

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 10:37:34 AM UTC+1, incredulous wrote:
On DRL’s for cyclists:

The research showing benefit for MOTORcyclists was completed 40 years ago and published in highway safety journals.


Harry Travis
PDX. OR,
USA

Man, you're among the Luddites. The less skill they have with statistics, the louder they screech that every study of an advance in safety is flawed and, anyhow, isn't necessary because 700 dead US cyclists every year is a small price to pay for the bees in their bonnets. That's bad enough, but worse is that they argue, either explicitly or by implication, that any cyclist who chooses to use advances in safety, for instance on the argument that the extra life saved may be his own, gives aid and comfort to the enemies of cycling by admitting that cycling is dangerous. Watch Krygowski screech "Danger! Danger!", without precisely specifying who or what he objects to because he knows he gets burned every time he tries his incompetent statistics on in public. As an example, the "cycling is safe crowd" consistently *overstated* the dangers in cycling by mishandling the national statistics, until I showed them that cycling is in fact much safer than they thought; not that they thanked me, as they won't thank you for resuscitating earlier generally accepted research.

You need to tell them a hundred times, and it still won't get through their thick skulls, and another hundred times, and be prepared to do that every year that passes. The net effect isn't that they make fewer grossly untrue statements but that over time fewer people believe them and in the end the total number of people on that side of the fence become fewer and fewer and, ironically, as they ramp up the hysteria the harm they do becomes less and less.

Andre Jute
In the right hands, statistics is an art form

On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:25:34 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 15/04/2019 10:52, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.04.2019 um 00:21 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:10:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable are your incessant
claims that lights must be used in all conditions, day or night;

Daylight running lamps has seemed eminently reasonable to Volvo for
two generations now.

Let's say that Volvo was forced by the Swedish government to provide
Daylight running lights (or do you have evidence that Volvo promoted
daylight running lights before the Swedish government made it mandatory?).

It might have been easier for engineering to sell a feature world-wide
that is mandatory in your home market as long as the additional costs
per unit are low.

No! That *can't* be the answer. Think of the [Andres] *children*

Thanks, Tosspot.

Still, reading Rolf's remark again, I wonder if Rolf actually knows whether daylight running lamps were forced on Volvo by the Swedish government or whether it was their own initiative, subsequently taken up by governments.

AJ
Sequence and consequence

Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:25:34 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 15/04/2019 10:52, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.04.2019 um 00:21 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:10:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable are your
incessant claims that lights must be used in all conditions, day
or night;

Forget it. Just send him an OB soccer fan jersey so he can keep shouting
"Odense! Odense!" and "Danger! Danger!" also looking like a drunk tourist.
https://hummel.dk/produkter/ob-home-jersey-ss-18-19-202517-white-nautical-blue
(European size 3XL might just be large enough for a fat liar=politician.)

Daylight running lamps has seemed eminently reasonable to Volvo for
two generations now.

To get bonus points in safety ratings, manufacturers have done and will do
what appears to make most business sense. When buyers are found to like
driving displaying Thor's magic hammer as their DRL, the DRL will be styled
accordingly. All perfectly reasonable.

Let's say that Volvo was forced by the Swedish government to provide
Daylight running lights (or do you have evidence that Volvo promoted
daylight running lights before the Swedish government made it
mandatory?).

daytime..., just sayin'

It might have been easier for engineering to sell a feature
world-wide that is mandatory in your home market as long as the
additional costs per unit are low.

No! That *can't* be the answer. Think of the [Andres] *children*

Thanks, Tosspot.

Still, reading Rolf's remark again, I wonder if Rolf actually knows
whether daylight running lamps were forced on Volvo by the Swedish
government or whether it was their own initiative, subsequently taken up
by governments.

Lazy "Crickets" Rolf is not telling. So I "consulted" with two experts
after noticing DRL is not getting mentioned in all those lists of Volvo
safety milestones.

"People take a lot of voluntary steps to stay safe, says Saab safety expert
Christer Nilsson, 'They don’t wait until a safety measure becomes law. For
instance, when a 1960s Swedish study revealed that driving with headlights
on during the day reduced the risk of head-on collisions, people started
voluntarily driving with their headlights on during the day. In 1977 it
became law, but people had already been doing it for years.'"
https://www.drivingthenation.com/whats-sweden-got-to-do-with-it/

"In Sweden, the use of DRL has been compulsory for all motorized vehicles on
all roads during the entire year since 1977. Although there are no legal
requirements on how to switch on DRL, most modern cars are sold with an
automatic ‘on’ switch."
https://www.swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/rapport/r-2003-28.pdf
And it was indeed Kare Rumar who filled out that questionnai
"DRL was used as one of the measures to reduce crash probability already
during our switch over from left to right hand traffic 1967. In the
following years DRL was used by the army, the railways and some companies in
order to enhance road safety. Therefore the public was used to DRL and the
campaigning was not as strong as would have been necessary without that history.

Case closed unless someone (Emmanuel B.?) ambushes some long-retired Volvo
engineer at the Volvo museum, and invests a can of domestically overtaxed
beverage to find out the rest of the story.

MOTORcyclists, what with their greater industrial and social organization have been seriously interested parties, willing to promote research on effectiveness.


And, they are concerned with masking effects of increasing prevalence of DRLs on automobiles. I will be unsurprised to be hit by an Audi driver distracted by his greater interest in the DLR pattern of a newer Audi than the one they are driving.

Cynicism aside, I can’t compete for conspicuity with any motor vehicle after masking effects of their DRLs.

https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Procee.../05-0178-W.pdf

On 4/17/2019 3:45 PM, incredulous wrote:
MOTORcyclists, what with their greater industrial and social organization have been seriously interested parties, willing to promote research on effectiveness.


And, they are concerned with masking effects of increasing prevalence of DRLs on automobiles. I will be unsurprised to be hit by an Audi driver distracted by his greater interest in the DLR pattern of a newer Audi than the one they are driving.

Cynicism aside, I can’t compete for conspicuity with any motor vehicle after masking effects of their DRLs.

https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Procee.../05-0178-W.pdf

Quite a few people seem to think that if something is good for a
motorcyclist must be equally good for a bicyclist. A few of those people
think such things should be mandatory for bicyclists.

But bicycles and motorcycles have little in common other than wheel count.

Regarding DRLs: What type of crash are people hoping to avoid?

Motorcyclists use DRLs in hopes of preventing left cross crashes, where
a motorist turns left directly into the path of a motorcycle he didn't
see. These are huge danger problems for motorcyclists, causing over half
of all car-motorcycle crashes. And at motorcycle speeds, it's easy for
these crashes to be deadly.

By contrast, that left cross scenario is only about 6% of car-bike
crashes.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publication...e/96104/23.pdf
And while these can be deadly, typically lower bicycling speeds
increase the chance for the cyclist mitigating the crash by making a
hard right turn, impacting the side of the car rather than the grill or
hood.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 6:02:36 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

By contrast, that left cross scenario is only about 6% of car-bike
crashes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Guess I am extraordinary then. 50% of my personal car-bike crashes have been the left turn in front of me kind. Other 50% was a car pulling straight out in front of me from a side street.

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 6:02:36 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:

By contrast, that left cross scenario is only about 6% of car-bike
crashes.
--
- Frank Krygowski

Guess I am extraordinary then. 50% of my personal car-bike crashes have been the left turn in front of me kind. Other 50% was a car pulling straight out in front of me from a side street.

I've only gone down twice due to vehicles on the road. One was a left hook driver who claims he didn't realize how fast I was going. that still wasn't me hitting him or him hitting me. It was an endo due to hitting the front brake too hard on a fixed gear. the other was an actual collision but it was caused by a wrong direction riding bicyclist on a one way road who rode out onto the main street I was on but without looking or slowing. I was able to limp home after running into him but the frame and front fork of my bicycle would have cost more to repair than what the bicycle frame was worth. Had I been driving an electric car or scooter and hit him he most likely would have been seriously injured. I detest wrong direction and stop sign or red light running bicyclists who just blow through them at speed relying on others to either stop or get out of their way!

Cheers

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:49:58 PM UTC+1, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:25:34 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
On 15/04/2019 10:52, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 14.04.2019 um 00:21 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 6:10:18 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable are your
incessant claims that lights must be used in all conditions, day
or night;

Forget it. Just send him an OB soccer fan jersey so he can keep shouting
"Odense! Odense!" and "Danger! Danger!" also looking like a drunk tourist..
https://hummel.dk/produkter/ob-home-jersey-ss-18-19-202517-white-nautical-blue
(European size 3XL might just be large enough for a fat liar=politician..)

Do we know that Scharfie is a soccer fan? I would've though his children were all grown up when the soccer craze hit the US, which was the introduction to soccer of most people over there.

Whether Odense has a soccer team is something else I should know as my direct ancestor, Odin, the god of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain until they switched to Christianity, had his hall or seat there -- Odense is the modern version of Odin's See, in English Odin's Seat -- but as a retired rugby player I can't be bothered with soccer, or rugby for that matter, which I played only because it was compulsory at my house at my first university

Daylight running lamps has seemed eminently reasonable to Volvo for
two generations now.

To get bonus points in safety ratings, manufacturers have done and will do
what appears to make most business sense. When buyers are found to like
driving displaying Thor's magic hammer as their DRL, the DRL will be styled
accordingly. All perfectly reasonable.

Of course, you're right. But in the end that sort of marketing will give you a reputation as a panderer and do your shareholders income and stockholding harm. I had my advertising agency's walls covered with wallpaper which read, inter alia, "The housewife is not a moron. She's your wife."

Let's say that Volvo was forced by the Swedish government to provide
Daylight running lights (or do you have evidence that Volvo promoted
daylight running lights before the Swedish government made it
mandatory?).

daytime..., just sayin'

It might have been easier for engineering to sell a feature
world-wide that is mandatory in your home market as long as the
additional costs per unit are low.

No! That *can't* be the answer. Think of the [Andres] *children*

Thanks, Tosspot.

That Volvo, after it served on the school run, was a good fast cross-Europe touring car for a whole family, overnight from Cambridge to Juan-les-Pins -- after I positively located the rear axle and fitted a 5.7 litre Chevrolet V8 engine, and upgraded to "police pursuit" brakes; I'd ordered it new with the standard power steering deleted, so the steering was already suitable for what I intended. Since that big solid-looking estate weighed only 2800 pounds, with 300bhp and endless torque it was a fast car. I kept that car for 14 years, even though we only put about 3000m on it every year, until I went green in 1992 and sold all the cars as surplus to requirements.

Still, reading Rolf's remark again, I wonder if Rolf actually knows
whether daylight running lamps were forced on Volvo by the Swedish
government or whether it was their own initiative, subsequently taken up
by governments.

Lazy "Crickets" Rolf is not telling. So I "consulted" with two experts
after noticing DRL is not getting mentioned in all those lists of Volvo
safety milestones.

Thanks, Sep.

"People take a lot of voluntary steps to stay safe, says Saab safety expert
Christer Nilsson, 'They don’t wait until a safety measure becomes law. For
instance, when a 1960s Swedish study revealed that driving with headlights
on during the day reduced the risk of head-on collisions, people started
voluntarily driving with their headlights on during the day. In 1977 it
became law, but people had already been doing it for years.'"
https://www.drivingthenation.com/whats-sweden-got-to-do-with-it/

"In Sweden, the use of DRL has been compulsory for all motorized vehicles on
all roads during the entire year since 1977. Although there are no legal
requirements on how to switch on DRL, most modern cars are sold with an
automatic ‘on’ switch."
https://www.swov.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/rapport/r-2003-28.pdf
And it was indeed Kare Rumar who filled out that questionnai
"DRL was used as one of the measures to reduce crash probability already
during our switch over from left to right hand traffic 1967. In the
following years DRL was used by the army, the railways and some companies in
order to enhance road safety. Therefore the public was used to DRL and the
campaigning was not as strong as would have been necessary without that history.

Case closed unless

Well, now we know. I was right to remember it going back to the 1960's, and also right not to assume that the Swedish government was first on the ball -- DRL appears in the light (heh-heh) of your discoveries to have been a genuine populist upswelling which, unless you're an elitist snob like some here, is a smart reason to investigate the phenomenon with an open mind.

someone (Emmanuel B.?) ambushes some long-retired Volvo
engineer at the Volvo museum, and invests a can of domestically overtaxed
beverage to find out the rest of the story.

Crack on, Emmanuel!

Andre Jute
First, do no harm -- Hippocratic Oath