#81
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:07:53 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Michael wrote: On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 4:33:24 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/27/2016 4:27 PM, Michael wrote: Planet Bike Superflash here. I don't know if it does any good or not, but if there's even a minute chance it catches the attention of the 17 year old driving and texting on a country two-lane, I'll take that. sigh And a certified-for-14-mph helmet _might_ help if a car hits at 35 mph head on; and a bright jersey _might_ catch the attention of a motorist 50 feet earlier; and a six-foot vertical flag _might_ give early warning after cresting a hill; and a three-foot horizontal flat _might_ yield a little more passing clearance; and a a loud air horn _might_ give enough warning if someone does pull out in front of you; and a St. Christopher's Medal _might_ make him clear your path as you're riding. Sheesh! Doesn't anyone just ride a bike any more? -- - Frank Krygowski Yes, if a rider has all that and more, I say good on you and have a great ride. And if he doesn't have all that, what do you say? -- - Frank Krygowski I say, "Hi Frank!" |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I don't need to because: 1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way earlier than those without. 2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far away when approaching in their cars. Good enough for me. Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious. Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the condescension? |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote: On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I don't need to because: 1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way earlier than those without. 2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far away when approaching in their cars. Good enough for me. Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious. Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the condescension? It's not me that's being condescending. I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as tangential studies that are applicable. Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect, then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible steering columns, and so on. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 6/28/2016 2:13 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-28 11:07, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/28/2016 1:23 PM, Joerg wrote: I claim that riding without good DRL increases the chance of being seen late. Or worst case too late. And how is it that you get so many incidents where you were seen just in time to avoid a crash? How is it that most of us don't get those? As I said many times now there are hardly any since installing bright DRL. Therefore, I will continue their use. Why did you get so many _before_ you installed your daytime lights? Why do I never get those incidents, even though I don't use daytime lights? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 6/28/2016 4:58 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote: On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote: On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I don't need to because: 1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way earlier than those without. 2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far away when approaching in their cars. Good enough for me. Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious. Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the condescension? It's not me that's being condescending. I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as tangential studies that are applicable. Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect, then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible steering columns, and so on. By that "logic," people should be trying every conceivable consumer "safety" product to see if it might work. They should do that irrespective of any demonstrated need. The "logic" makes sense in only one situation I can think of: If you happen to be a person (guerilla) marketing the products. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 2016-06-28 15:50, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 2:13 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2016-06-28 11:07, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/28/2016 1:23 PM, Joerg wrote: I claim that riding without good DRL increases the chance of being seen late. Or worst case too late. And how is it that you get so many incidents where you were seen just in time to avoid a crash? How is it that most of us don't get those? As I said many times now there are hardly any since installing bright DRL. Therefore, I will continue their use. Why did you get so many _before_ you installed your daytime lights? Simple. Mostly because people thought I was slower. Some told me so when I stopped just short of smashing into the driver side door. Well, one time when I did bang into it because there wasn't enough space. ... Why do I never get those incidents, even though I don't use daytime lights? No idea but other people out here experience the same. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 1:58:20 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 6/28/2016 11:34 AM, Duane wrote: On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote: On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I don't need to because: 1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way earlier than those without. 2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far away when approaching in their cars. Good enough for me. Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious. Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the condescension? It's not me that's being condescending. I cited the one bicycle-specific study regarding DRLs, as well as tangential studies that are applicable. Often safety equipment is put on vehicles before there is a huge amount of data that has been collected, because there's no way to collect the data until the safety equipment is on the vehicles. First it's determined what would logically be expected to have a positive effect, then it's tried out and some data is available, and if the data is positive then the safety equipment is mandated. We've seen this with seat belts, safety glass, airbags, padded dashboards, collapsible steering columns, and so on. And about the Odense study, I would have no problem with everyone using a Reelight as a DRL -- but I doubt that would make the mega-lumen people happy. https://www.reelight.com/en/products...ady-light-set/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI6VcktWa1I BTW, all the devices you mention for cars are injury mitigation devices. They are not collision avoidance devices. Flashers are supposed to avoid collisions, and the corollary for cars would be flashing car lights, sirens, horns, etc., etc. Imagine a world filled with flashing car lights -- assuming they were legal, which they are not. There is a downside to all the supposedly necessary collision avoidance devices. -- Jay Beattie. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 6/28/2016 5:26 PM, Joerg wrote:
snip Simple. Mostly because people thought I was slower. Some told me so when I stopped just short of smashing into the driver side door. Well, one time when I did bang into it because there wasn't enough space. When I first started using good lights, early in the last decade, that's exactly what I noticed. Without good lights, the vehicles think you're a 5MPH or so cyclist, misjudge your speed, and do stupid things in front of you. With good lights, especially DRLs, they are uncertain of your speed and hence are hesitant to cut you off. If Frank would just stop rationalizing for a short time, and actually try out some good lights, he would be convinced. Alas, the chance of that happening are slim and none, and Slim just walked out the door. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 6/28/2016 5:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
snip And about the Odense study, I would have no problem with everyone using a Reelight as a DRL -- but I doubt that would make the mega-lumen people happy. https://www.reelight.com/en/products...ady-light-set/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI6VcktWa1I BTW, all the devices you mention for cars are injury mitigation devices. They are not collision avoidance devices. Flashers are supposed to avoid collisions, and the corollary for cars would be flashing car lights, sirens, horns, etc., etc. Imagine a world filled with flashing car lights -- assuming they were legal, which they are not. Okay, what about ABS? And lane departure warning? And Collision Avoidance Systems. I was talking about how the effect of safety devices, whether for injury mitigation, or collision avoidance, can't really be known until there is a good level of deployment. Until then you just have to forecast the likely benefit. No, they are neither. Without those lights you can still avoid collisions. You just have to do a lot more yielding and braking and evasion. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
visibility
On 29/06/16 04:34, Duane wrote:
On 28/06/2016 1:55 PM, sms wrote: On 6/28/2016 8:03 AM, Joerg wrote: snip I don't need to because: 1. As a car driver I notice cyclists with bright flashing lights way earlier than those without. 2. Numerous friends and neighbors have told me that they saw me from far away when approaching in their cars. Good enough for me. Some people believe that there must be multiple double-blind studies before they can believe anything, no matter how obvious. Nothing in your claims about DRLs on bikes have been very obvious. Why not just use what you want and recommend what you want and lay off the condescension? 'cause growing a brain is too difficult, right? -- JS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclist visibility | John B.[_3_] | Techniques | 43 | April 28th 16 03:02 AM |
visibility | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | September 3rd 15 11:34 PM |
Using lights during the day for more visibility | smn | General | 10 | December 21st 07 04:36 PM |
visibility | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 33 | July 1st 06 06:38 AM |
visibility | wle | Techniques | 2 | December 9th 03 06:59 PM |