Almost bought the farm AGAIN

"Leo Lichtman" :

"Helmut Springer" 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Helmut, what you say might be true if those reflective strips were applied
at the expense of some other light, reflector or feature. But I can't see
how ADDING something to the mix could be anything but beneficial.

That's indeed a problem. While we might discuss the question whether
the detrimental effect of puting a stigma on bicyclists is strong enough
to do harm, I don't know how to proceed when somebody refuses to
understand the argument at all.


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

"Roger Zoul" :

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

Oh. Then please put up or shut up. Or is your conjecture somehow better
than mine? :-}

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" :
::
::: This is just conjecture, so I'll leave you to it.
::
:: Oh. Then please put up or shut up. Or is your conjecture somehow
:: better than mine? :-}

Yes, of course it is.

Luke wrote:

But was the driver really sitting in - and operating the car from!!! -
the passenger side? I've never seen this before.


Rural mail carriers do this all the time. Just FYI.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:00:34 +0100 in rec.bicycles.misc, Wolfgang
Strobl wrote:

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.

yawn. another idiot into the killfile. PLONK to this dumbkopf.

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:30:00 +0100 in rec.bicycles.misc, Wolfgang
Strobl wrote:

That's indeed a problem. While we might discuss the question whether
the detrimental effect of puting a stigma on bicyclists is strong enough
to do harm, I don't know how to proceed when somebody refuses to
understand the argument at all.

that's because there is no "argument", you idiot. you are simply
wrong, and can't provide any proof for your idiotic assertions.

Roger Zoul wrote:
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.

Simply not a question in the discussed scenario: either the driver
is far away just seeing a vehicle's taillight and that vehicle
shifting 1-2m to the left is no issue. Or the driver is nearby and
sees the bicycle clearly in his headlights.


A cyclist would need to shift rapidly in one direction or another
by a car wouldn't need to.

BTW: doesn't mean that the car would not, BTST. Anything that jumps
into the street will make most drivers evade to the left though they
can easily run over a cat or dog (and are supposed to do so if that
avoids danger to a human).


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?

From afar: no relevant difference in regards to bicycles.
From nearby: simply not a question as the driver will always know at
short distance.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

(Dennis P. Harris):

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:30:00 +0100 in rec.bicycles.misc, Wolfgang
Strobl wrote:

That's indeed a problem. While we might discuss the question whether
the detrimental effect of puting a stigma on bicyclists is strong enough
to do harm, I don't know how to proceed when somebody refuses to
understand the argument at all.

that's because there is no "argument", you idiot. you are simply
wrong, and can't provide any proof for your idiotic assertions.

I don't feed trolls. Sorry about that.


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

Helmut Springer wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: 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.
::
:: Simply not a question in the discussed scenario: either the driver
:: is far away just seeing a vehicle's taillight and that vehicle
:: shifting 1-2m to the left is no issue. Or the driver is nearby and
:: sees the bicycle clearly in his headlights.

I guess then that the OP didn't almost buy the farm as the driver nearby, on
the wrong side of the road, clearly saw him in her headlights.

::
::
::: A cyclist would need to shift rapidly in one direction or another
::: by a car wouldn't need to.
::
:: BTW: doesn't mean that the car would not, BTST. Anything that jumps
:: into the street will make most drivers evade to the left though they
:: can easily run over a cat or dog (and are supposed to do so if that
:: avoids danger to a human).

A car can afford to move much less in a lane. On many narrow two lane
roads, there isn't enough room for a car to shift much whereas a bicycle
can. Hence, the direction of travel for someone on a bike and be seen as
erratic compared to that of a car.

Roger Zoul wrote:
Helmut Springer wrote:
::
:: Simply not a question in the discussed scenario: either the driver
:: is far away just seeing a vehicle's taillight and that vehicle
:: shifting 1-2m to the left is no issue. Or the driver is nearby and
:: sees the bicycle clearly in his headlights.

I guess then that the OP didn't almost buy the farm as the driver nearby, on
the wrong side of the road, clearly saw him in her headlights.

Strictly speaking, I think that's true. The OP didn't describe how
close the car actually came (at least, in the original post). In fact,
it sounded like it was pretty far away. Personally, I think he was
just sensitized because of his _actual_ close call earlier in the week.

IOW, I think lots of posters are making a mountain out of a molehill.
You and your bike need to be reliably seen at night. IOW, you needs to
be as noticeable as you are in the daylight. You don't need to look
like a supernova.

And no matter how many lumens you put out, you're going to have to
remain aware on the road, day or night.

- Frank Krygowski