Almost bought the farm AGAIN

Richard B wrote in
. 3.50:

http://www.theledlight.com/strobes.html

Got mine courtesy of the friendly, local industrial radiographer.

If it's good enough to keep you away from a jillion-curie radiography
source, it might keep a soccer mom with a cell phone and SUV away.

Also works like a champ for annoying the dog, but does have a high-pitch
recharge whine during operation.

When I need it I hang it from a bottle rack so it's not in direct sight of
at least me.

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: And again, if they know it's a bicycle then they know that its
::: trajectory could change radically in a very short time.
::
:: That is the case for any vehicle. Bicycle riders who are not able
:: to ride in a controlled way (loss of control by accident happens to
:: them as to anyone else and is not considered base for standard
:: behaviour) should not ride, just as anyone else in traffic. I don't
:: see any speciality for bicycles.

I guess you never heard of a pot hole or a branch in the road that could be
a big deal for a person on a bike but not for someone in a car. A cyclist
would need to shift rapidly in one direction or another by a car wouldn't
need to.

When a driver gets nearer to the
:: object he spotted he needs to keep sufficient distance, but when
:: that decision is due his lights will show him all details or his
:: sight is so limited that he should extremely careful anyway.

So, are you saying still that knowing what the object is doesn't help the
driver?

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: GaryG wrote:
::: I disagree...the left-right flash is immediately identifiable as a
::: "moving bicycle", who's presence in the roadway requires extra
::: caution.
::
:: What extra caution? In my experience bicycle riders are as
:: predictable as car drivers, and I ride many hours in the dark...

So you can't see why cyclists aren't as predictable, huh? Perhaps you
should observe more rather than just ride.

"Roger Zoul" :

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: GaryG wrote:
::: You might want to consider some reflective strips on your crank
::: arms - these produce a noticeable left-right alternating "flash"
::: that drivers will instantly recognize as a bicycle.
::
:: I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving object
:: of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized as a bicycle.

Why? If someone knows a moving object is a bicycle, then they might be more
cautious, as some riders (kids, etc) tend to move in unpredictable ways.

Or they might not. If it's a bicycle, it's certainly slow and located as
far to the right as possible and then some, i.e. the cyclists is riding
in the gutter. And if he wasn't, the bicyclist was moving in an
unpredictable way, anyway. In either case, it's the bicyclists fault.

I have tried it both ways over the years. Believe me - it's a lot less
stress when you're visible and recognized in the dark like any other
vehicle, a slow moving motorcycle or perhaps a car with one defective
taillight. Those get passed professionally and without the fuss reserved
for cyclists.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

"Roger Zoul" :

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::: I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving object
::::: of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized as a
::::: bicycle.
:::
::: Why? If someone knows a moving object is a bicycle, then they
::: might be more cautious, as some riders (kids, etc) tend to move in
::: unpredictable ways.
::
:: They might. They might pass with very little distance as a bicycle
:: doesn't impose a threat to them. They might or might not do other
:: things...

A bicycle does impose a threat to them if they hit it.

Not so. Those bicyclists are expected to evade in the very last moment,
so of course they don't hit them. All that cristmas tree lightning
conveys that very message!


That's called
killing someone, possibly going to jail, a major hassle at the very least,
etc.

It doesn't happen. It's just a threat, provoced by a certain signal, a
stigma, so to speak.

::
:: Drivers are supposed to not collide with other road users (or
:: anything), and seeing them and assessing their trajectory is the
:: main base and thus the main goal.

And again, if they know it's a bicycle then they know that its trajectory
could change radically in a very short time. Hence, use EXTRA caution.

And again, in practice, it doesn't work that way. Btw, your assumption
is false, anyway. A car can change its trajectory immediatley, without
delay. A bicycle cant.


It would be one thing if the difference in letting someone know there is a
moving object near and letting them know there is a moving object near that
is a bicycle were a big deal or a lot of extra trouble to do. It's not.

It is a big deal, because it makes a lot of difference, especially under
circumstances where a motorist rightly or wrongly believes that a
bicyclist doesn't belong on "his" road. Building up enough anger to
"teach that bicyclist over there a lesson" takes some time. Alas, a
xmas tree illumination gives a motorist that time. This is no good.

Even if we ignore this effect for the moment, irritating drivers does us
no good. Everything which causes a driver to depart from his usual
routine, from his standard overtaking procedure for slow moving vehicles
creates a possible hazard, in my experience. This is to be expected.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

"Roger Zoul" :

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: And again, if they know it's a bicycle then they know that its
::: trajectory could change radically in a very short time.
::
:: That is the case for any vehicle. Bicycle riders who are not able
:: to ride in a controlled way (loss of control by accident happens to
:: them as to anyone else and is not considered base for standard
:: behaviour) should not ride, just as anyone else in traffic. I don't
:: see any speciality for bicycles.

I guess you never heard of a pot hole or a branch in the road that could be
a big deal for a person on a bike but not for someone in a car.

You shouldn't ride so far to the right, Roger. That's dangerous.


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

"GaryG" :

"Helmut Springer" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
You might want to consider some reflective strips on your crank
arms - these produce a noticeable left-right alternating "flash"
that drivers will instantly recognize as a bicycle.

I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving object
of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized as a bicycle.

I disagree...the left-right flash is immediately identifiable as a "moving
bicycle",

Perhaps. But why on earthshould someone want to be identifiable as a
"moving bicycle"?

On the other hand, it's a lot more difficult to see the movement of an
intermittendet light. Have a look at

http://www.settheory.com/Glass_paper...ervations.html

who's presence in the roadway requires extra caution.

What reason do you have for that statement? A bicyclists on the roadway
doesn't requiere any more caution than any other slow moving vehicle.



This helps
to ensure that the operator of a motor vehicle won't mistake it for
something else (e.g., a stationary reflector or light next to the roadway).

That's a good criterion. So let's apply it, by having a taillight which
follows the standard set by motorized vehicles, i.e. a bright and steady
red taillight. That way, one will not confused with something else, for
example a blinking light in a showcase or a reflector on a garage door.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

"Roger Zoul" :

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: GaryG wrote:
::: I disagree...the left-right flash is immediately identifiable as a
::: "moving bicycle", who's presence in the roadway requires extra
::: caution.
::
:: What extra caution? In my experience bicycle riders are as
:: predictable as car drivers, and I ride many hours in the dark...

So you can't see why cyclists aren't as predictable, huh? Perhaps you
should observe more rather than just ride.

I don't quite understand this argument. Do you imply that Helmut
doesn't notice bicyclists who ride erratically, like, well, you? :-}

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" :
::
::: Helmut Springer wrote:
::::: GaryG wrote:
:::::: You might want to consider some reflective strips on your crank
:::::: arms - these produce a noticeable left-right alternating "flash"
:::::: that drivers will instantly recognize as a bicycle.
:::::
::::: I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving object
::::: of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized as a
::::: bicycle.
:::
::: Why? If someone knows a moving object is a bicycle, then they
::: might be more cautious, as some riders (kids, etc) tend to move in
::: unpredictable ways.
::
:: Or they might not. If it's a bicycle, it's certainly slow and
:: located as far to the right as possible and then some, i.e. the
:: cyclists is riding in the gutter. And if he wasn't, the bicyclist
:: was moving in an unpredictable way, anyway. In either case, it's
:: the bicyclists fault.
::
:: I have tried it both ways over the years. Believe me - it's a lot
:: less stress when you're visible and recognized in the dark like any
:: other vehicle, a slow moving motorcycle or perhaps a car with one
:: defective taillight. Those get passed professionally and without the
:: fuss reserved for cyclists.

This is just conjecture, so I'll leave you to it.

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" :
::
::: Helmut Springer wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::::: I would not. Besides the main goal is being seen as moving
:::::::: object of recognizable speed and course, not being recognized
:::::::: as a bicycle.
::::::
:::::: Why? If someone knows a moving object is a bicycle, then they
:::::: might be more cautious, as some riders (kids, etc) tend to move
:::::: in unpredictable ways.
:::::
::::: They might. They might pass with very little distance as a
::::: bicycle doesn't impose a threat to them. They might or might not
::::: do other things...
:::
::: A bicycle does impose a threat to them if they hit it.
::
:: Not so. Those bicyclists are expected to evade in the very last
:: moment, so of course they don't hit them. All that cristmas tree
:: lightning conveys that very message!
::
::
::: That's called
::: killing someone, possibly going to jail, a major hassle at the very
::: least, etc.
::
:: It doesn't happen. It's just a threat, provoced by a certain signal,
:: a stigma, so to speak.
::
:::::
::::: Drivers are supposed to not collide with other road users (or
::::: anything), and seeing them and assessing their trajectory is the
::::: main base and thus the main goal.
:::
::: And again, if they know it's a bicycle then they know that its
::: trajectory could change radically in a very short time. Hence, use
::: EXTRA caution.
::
:: And again, in practice, it doesn't work that way. Btw, your
:: assumption is false, anyway. A car can change its trajectory
:: immediatley, without delay. A bicycle cant.

Alrighty, then.

::
:::
::: It would be one thing if the difference in letting someone know
::: there is a moving object near and letting them know there is a
::: moving object near that is a bicycle were a big deal or a lot of
::: extra trouble to do. It's not.
::
:: It is a big deal, because it makes a lot of difference, especially
:: under circumstances where a motorist rightly or wrongly believes
:: that a bicyclist doesn't belong on "his" road. Building up enough
:: anger to "teach that bicyclist over there a lesson" takes some time.
:: Alas, a xmas tree illumination gives a motorist that time. This is
:: no good.

Alrighty, then.

::
:: Even if we ignore this effect for the moment, irritating drivers
:: does us no good. Everything which causes a driver to depart from his
:: usual routine, from his standard overtaking procedure for slow
:: moving vehicles creates a possible hazard, in my experience. This
:: is to be expected.

Alrighty, then.

I'm sure you've been mowed down several times over and are posting from a
hot burning pit in hell, so you ought to know!