IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:01 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

Sold! I'm going to get one.

Right. The CPH light set - an upgrade of the original - is Euro 47,
about $52.46, but the good news is that if you subscribe to Reelight's
news letter you can get a 10% discount.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 6:19:24 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:12:01 +0100, Tosspot
wrote:

On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

Sold! I'm going to get one.

Right. The CPH light set - an upgrade of the original - is Euro 47,
about $52.46, but the good news is that if you subscribe to Reelight's
news letter you can get a 10% discount.

.... and if you do guerilla marketing, posting at least five "DRLs are wonderful"
posts within a month, you get a 20% discount!

Just kidding.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:58:13 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 4/22/2019 12:00 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Tell me, oh Sage. What am I dismissing?

You are attempting to dismiss causation by focusing on correlation. It's
a common argument technique in both the lighting debates and helmet debates.

"Solo crashes descreased when DRLs were used so that proves that DRLs
did not contribute to the reduction in other crashes."

Ah, but I didn't say that did I. Nor did I even allude to that.

I simply stated a fact that a reading of the entire Denese Study
showed that the use of the tiny, always on, Reelights reduced the
number of solo accidents.

You than leaped into the fray assuming that I had somehow denied other
findings of the Report which I had not.

In short, you simply do not know what you are talking about. A
shortcoming that you have repeatedly displayed in your posts on many
subjects.

Of course, you can continue to assert that reporting one fact somehow
negates any or all other facts, but anyone, with even a rudimentary
know of the problem will know that, yet again, you are demonstrating a
complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

But than, as Abraham Lincoln was heard to say, "It is better to remain
silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle. They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.

--
JS

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:54:30 +1000, James
wrote:

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle. They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.


The study lists solo accidents with and without personal harm and
multi vehicle accidents. And they divide accidents into day, twilight
and night and by seasons.

They don't provide any details of solo or multi vehicle accidents
other than the general category.

If you tried to avoid hitting the truck and wobbled off the road and
down a bank and a Croc bites you I suspect that it would be called a
solo accident, but as I said, they didn't elaborate.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/22/2019 8:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:54:30 +1000, James
wrote:

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle. They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.


The study lists solo accidents with and without personal harm and
multi vehicle accidents. And they divide accidents into day, twilight
and night and by seasons.

They don't provide any details of solo or multi vehicle accidents
other than the general category.

If you tried to avoid hitting the truck and wobbled off the road and
down a bank and a Croc bites you I suspect that it would be called a
solo accident, but as I said, they didn't elaborate.

Certainly, the popular press often gets details wrong. I've come across
fatality reports where the victim was described as a bicyclist because
he or she was pushing a bike as they walked.

But while James's speculation is possible, I very much doubt that it is
common enough to distort the accident records very much. IIRC, the great
majority of solo bike crashes are caused by road surface problems -
potholes, slippery gravel, slippery wet metal, longitudinal slots, etc.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/22/2019 10:53 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/21/2019 9:10 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

A super-bright DRL would virtually eliminate all bicycle accidents,
just as it has done for cars and motorcycles. You never hear of cars
hitting each other anymore. Why would we not want the same for bikes?

The 2008 NHTSA study is probably the most applicable to bicycles. It
showed a 25% reduction in crashes involving motorcycles when DRLs were
used.

I think most people would expect the study "most applicable to bicycles"
would have actually collected data on bicycles. But not, I guess, if
you're deeply into proselytizing about your favorite talisman.

I ride a motorcycle as well as a bicycle (although I do many more miles
on the pedal bike). I've had several close calls on the motorcycle with
cars pulling out in front of me. Since I learned to not ride in the
gutter (about 1977) I've never had a close call like that while riding
the bicycle.

Motorcycles and bicycles are very, very different. I suspect almost
anyone who rides both knows that. What applies to one does NOT
necessarily apply to the other.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 23/4/19 12:26 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/22/2019 8:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:54:30 +1000, James
wrote:

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle.Â* They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.


The study lists solo accidents with and without personal harm and
multi vehicle accidents. And they divide accidents into day, twilight
and night and by seasons.

They don't provide any details of solo or multi vehicle accidents
other than the general category.

If you tried to avoid hitting the truck and wobbled off the road and
down a bank and a Croc bites you I suspect that it would be called a
solo accident, but as I said, they didn't elaborate.

Certainly, the popular press often gets details wrong. I've come across
fatality reports where the victim was described as a bicyclist because
he or she was pushing a bike as they walked.

But while James's speculation is possible, I very much doubt that it is
common enough to distort the accident records very much. IIRC, the great
majority of solo bike crashes are caused by road surface problems -
potholes, slippery gravel, slippery wet metal, longitudinal slots, etc.



Details of that "great majority"...

http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/dat...372c?view=true

"Single-bicycle crashes Of the 62 single-bicycle crashes, 23 (37%)
were classified as loss-of-control events, 12 (19%) resulted from
interaction with tram tracks, 8 (13%) resulted from striking a pothole
or object, 6 (10%) resulted from mechanical issues with the
bicycle and 13 (21%) were classified as other events. Loss-of-control
events commonly occurred due to sudden braking to avoid another
vehicle or cyclist, losing control on a dry descent or losing
control in wet/slippery conditions (table3). Interaction with
tram tracks commonly occurred when a cyclist was turning right across
tram tracks or when a cyclist was avoiding parking or parked
cars on the kerbside. Mechanical issues that contributed to crashes
included wheel failures, snapped chains and gearing issues
(table3). There were two single-cyclist only crashes that occurred
during race events and three that resulted from interac-tions with
animals (one kangaroo, one wallaby and an Australian magpie)."


There are more details in the tables of data, such as "Sudden braking to
avoid another vehicle/cyclist" which is described as a "loss of control
event" for single bicycle crashes that holds the majority of 14.5%.

Of course if you lump all the road surface problems together, they then
hold the majority.

--
JS

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 9:32:15 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 23/4/19 12:26 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/22/2019 8:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:54:30 +1000, James
wrote:

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle.Â* They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.


The study lists solo accidents with and without personal harm and
multi vehicle accidents. And they divide accidents into day, twilight
and night and by seasons.

They don't provide any details of solo or multi vehicle accidents
other than the general category.

If you tried to avoid hitting the truck and wobbled off the road and
down a bank and a Croc bites you I suspect that it would be called a
solo accident, but as I said, they didn't elaborate.

Certainly, the popular press often gets details wrong. I've come across
fatality reports where the victim was described as a bicyclist because
he or she was pushing a bike as they walked.

But while James's speculation is possible, I very much doubt that it is
common enough to distort the accident records very much. IIRC, the great
majority of solo bike crashes are caused by road surface problems -
potholes, slippery gravel, slippery wet metal, longitudinal slots, etc.



Details of that "great majority"...

http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/dat...372c?view=true

"Single-bicycle crashes Of the 62 single-bicycle crashes, 23 (37%)
were classified as loss-of-control events, 12 (19%) resulted from
interaction with tram tracks, 8 (13%) resulted from striking a pothole
or object, 6 (10%) resulted from mechanical issues with the
bicycle and 13 (21%) were classified as other events. Loss-of-control
events commonly occurred due to sudden braking to avoid another
vehicle or cyclist, losing control on a dry descent or losing
control in wet/slippery conditions (table3). Interaction with
tram tracks commonly occurred when a cyclist was turning right across
tram tracks or when a cyclist was avoiding parking or parked
cars on the kerbside. Mechanical issues that contributed to crashes
included wheel failures, snapped chains and gearing issues
(table3). There were two single-cyclist only crashes that occurred
during race events and three that resulted from interac-tions with
animals (one kangaroo, one wallaby and an Australian magpie)."

I'm still having a tough time figuring out how a hub-height 1W light makes that much difference during the day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2x689Q8w8 I would never see this woman minus the light. Actually, I think the white tires are more noticeable, although you don't want to use white tires after Labor Day.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/23/2019 12:32 AM, James wrote:
On 23/4/19 12:26 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/22/2019 8:15 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 09:54:30 +1000, James
wrote:

On 22/4/19 10:36 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny
DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting
these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will
reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road,
miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from
others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of
those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has
it.

I have heard that a number of what are reported as solo accidents occur
when a cyclist tries to avoid a collision with a motor vehicle.Â* They
succeed in avoiding a collision and crash in the process, so it is
recorded as a solo accident even though a motor vehicle was involved in
the lead up to the crash.

Maybe flea powered lights reduce the number of these types of crashes?

Note that I haven't read the study. Just responding to your post.


The study lists solo accidents with and without personal harm and
multi vehicle accidents. And they divide accidents into day, twilight
and night and by seasons.

They don't provide any details of solo or multi vehicle accidents
other than the general category.

If you tried to avoid hitting the truck and wobbled off the road and
down a bank and a Croc bites you I suspect that it would be called a
solo accident, but as I said, they didn't elaborate.

Certainly, the popular press often gets details wrong. I've come
across fatality reports where the victim was described as a bicyclist
because he or she was pushing a bike as they walked.

But while James's speculation is possible, I very much doubt that it
is common enough to distort the accident records very much. IIRC, the
great majority of solo bike crashes are caused by road surface
problems - potholes, slippery gravel, slippery wet metal, longitudinal
slots, etc.



Details of that "great majority"...

http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/dat...372c?view=true


"Single-bicycle crashes OfÂ* theÂ* 62Â* single-bicycleÂ* crashes,Â* 23Â* (37%)
Â*wereÂ* classifiedÂ* asÂ* loss-of-control events, 12 (19%) resulted from
interaction with tram tracks, 8 (13%) resulted from striking a pothole
or object, 6Â* (10%)Â* resultedÂ* fromÂ* mechanicalÂ* issuesÂ* withÂ* the
bicycleÂ* andÂ* 13 (21%) were classified as other events. Loss-of-control
events commonlyÂ* occurredÂ* dueÂ* toÂ* suddenÂ* brakingÂ* toÂ* avoidÂ* another
vehicleÂ* orÂ* cyclist,Â* losingÂ* controlÂ* onÂ* aÂ* dryÂ* descentÂ* orÂ* losing
controlÂ* inÂ* wet/slipperyÂ* conditionsÂ* (table3).Â* InteractionÂ* with tram
tracks commonly occurred when a cyclist was turning right across tram
tracksÂ* orÂ* whenÂ* aÂ* cyclistÂ* wasÂ* avoidingÂ* parkingÂ* orÂ* parked cars on
the kerbside. Mechanical issues that contributed toÂ* crashes included
wheelÂ* failures,Â* snappedÂ* chainsÂ* andÂ* gearingÂ* issues (table3). There
were two single-cyclist only crashes that occurred during race events
and three that resulted from interac-tions with animals (one kangaroo,
one wallaby and an Australian magpie)."


There are more details in the tables of data, such as "Sudden braking to
avoid another vehicle/cyclist" which is described as a "loss of control
event" for single bicycle crashes that holds the majority of 14.5%.

In _Effective Cycling_, John Forester claimed 17% of bike accidents were
car-bike collisions, and another 17% were bike-bike accidents. He
doesn't give details on his data sources. But if true, I'd not be
surprised to find that single bike crashes resulting from avoidance
maneuvers were also split 50/50. IOW, in the paper you linked, the nine
Loss of Control Events due to "Sudden braking to avoid another
vehicle/cyclist" might have included four or five cyclists avoiding
cyclists.

BTW, that paper uses a very small sample (n=62) of volunteer recruits.
One can easily see how its findings might not be representative of the
entire population.

We really don't have wonderful data on the cause of bike crashes. For
those of us who are powerfully interested, it seems too bad; but I think
it indicates that society as a whole judges them not to be a hugely
significant problem.

And I think society as a whole is correct. The terrible tragedy of
people falling off bikes normally gets brought up or studied only when
someone wants to sell something, be it a helmet, a glorified flashlight
or a construction project involving keeping bikes herded close to the
gutter.


--
- Frank Krygowski