Bicycle DRLs--Why Some People Hate Case-Controlled Studies

Case controlled studies, where only one variable is changed are ideal.
In the Odense study 2000 cyclists were given DRLs, 2000 were not. The
results were overwhelming and conclusively proved the effectiveness of
DRLs for bicycles. Maybe “risk-compensation� played a role, but if it
did, it did so in a way that understated the benefits of the DRLs. Did
some cyclists without the DRLs think, “gee, I don't have those lights,
I'll ride more carefully?� Did some cyclists with the DRLs think, “I'm
invincible with these DRLs, I'll ride less carefully?�

Some safety equipment is designed to prevent crashes, rather than
protect the user in a crash. The key question to ask is “how can I avoid
crashing into something and how can I avoid others crashing into me?�
For vehicles, it's anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance systems, proper
lighting (day and night), lane departure warnings, brake lights
(including high-mounted brake light), turn signals, TPMS, and non-wimpy
horns. For transportational cyclists, and their bicycles, it's bright
and reflective clothing, proper lighting (day and night), flags,
reflectors, good brakes, bells, and horns. For both vehicles and
cyclists/bicycles, not everyone will choose to take advantage of
everything available, for whatever reason (cost, weight, dorkiness,
etc), but to deny the effectiveness of the equipment by fabricating lame
excuses is not logical.

There's also comes a point when people have to understand that there are
not going to be additional case-controlled studies to re-prove something
that has already been proven. But it's a common tactic by some to try to
find the tiniest flaw in a study (which is often not a flaw at all), and
proclaim that the study is bogus and that until a new study is performed
which addresses their concern, that there is no evidence that disproves
their position. Of course if a new study comes out and it doesn't agree
with their view of how the world should be, they'll find a flaw with
that study as well. We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Case controlled studies, where only one variable is changed are ideal.
In the Odense study 2000 cyclists were given DRLs, 2000 were not. The
results were overwhelming and conclusively proved the effectiveness of
DRLs for bicycles. Maybe "risk-compensation" played a role, but if it
did, it did so in a way that understated the benefits of the DRLs. Did
some cyclists without the DRLs think, "gee, I don't have those lights,
I'll ride more carefully?" Did some cyclists with the DRLs think, "I'm
invincible with these DRLs, I'll ride less carefully?"

Some safety equipment is designed to prevent crashes, rather than
protect the user in a crash. The key question to ask is "how can I avoid
crashing into something and how can I avoid others crashing into me?"
For vehicles, it's anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance systems, proper
lighting (day and night), lane departure warnings, brake lights
(including high-mounted brake light), turn signals, TPMS, and non-wimpy
horns. For transportational cyclists, and their bicycles, it's bright
and reflective clothing, proper lighting (day and night), flags,
reflectors, good brakes, bells, and horns. For both vehicles and
cyclists/bicycles, not everyone will choose to take advantage of
everything available, for whatever reason (cost, weight, dorkiness,
etc), but to deny the effectiveness of the equipment by fabricating lame
excuses is not logical.

There's also comes a point when people have to understand that there are
not going to be additional case-controlled studies to re-prove something
that has already been proven. But it's a common tactic by some to try to
find the tiniest flaw in a study (which is often not a flaw at all), and
proclaim that the study is bogus and that until a new study is performed
which addresses their concern, that there is no evidence that disproves
their position. Of course if a new study comes out and it doesn't agree
with their view of how the world should be, they'll find a flaw with
that study as well. We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

This is the light used in the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzef_xPWuTg
Extrapolate that to a sunny day in California.

-- Jay Beattie.

Mommy, what's a DRL ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=BICY...q=acronym:+DRL

http://acronymsandslang.com/acronym_...57bacaed2f.jpg

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 5:29:31 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Case controlled studies, where only one variable is changed are ideal.
In the Odense study 2000 cyclists were given DRLs, 2000 were not. The
results were overwhelming and conclusively proved the effectiveness of
DRLs for bicycles. Maybe "risk-compensation" played a role, but if it
did, it did so in a way that understated the benefits of the DRLs. Did
some cyclists without the DRLs think, "gee, I don't have those lights,
I'll ride more carefully?" Did some cyclists with the DRLs think, "I'm
invincible with these DRLs, I'll ride less carefully?"

Some safety equipment is designed to prevent crashes, rather than
protect the user in a crash. The key question to ask is "how can I avoid
crashing into something and how can I avoid others crashing into me?"
For vehicles, it's anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance systems, proper
lighting (day and night), lane departure warnings, brake lights
(including high-mounted brake light), turn signals, TPMS, and non-wimpy
horns. For transportational cyclists, and their bicycles, it's bright
and reflective clothing, proper lighting (day and night), flags,
reflectors, good brakes, bells, and horns. For both vehicles and
cyclists/bicycles, not everyone will choose to take advantage of
everything available, for whatever reason (cost, weight, dorkiness,
etc), but to deny the effectiveness of the equipment by fabricating lame
excuses is not logical.

There's also comes a point when people have to understand that there are
not going to be additional case-controlled studies to re-prove something
that has already been proven. But it's a common tactic by some to try to
find the tiniest flaw in a study (which is often not a flaw at all), and
proclaim that the study is bogus and that until a new study is performed
which addresses their concern, that there is no evidence that disproves
their position. Of course if a new study comes out and it doesn't agree
with their view of how the world should be, they'll find a flaw with
that study as well. We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

This is the light used in the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzef_xPWuTg
Extrapolate that to a sunny day in California.

-- Jay Beattie.

Actually, when these Reelight induction lamps first appeared, they were brighter than may you could buy, including several from Busch & Muller, the fave of the cycling trendies. Still true when the study was done. We tend to forget rather too quickly how crappy lamps were in the very recent past, before the most recent spurt in the development of LEDs.

Andre Jute
A loooong memory

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 3:47:20 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:

We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

Aw, sheet, Scharfie. I was with you right until this point, basically because I know more about statistical studies than anyone else here, and I'm an honest intellectual who'll give even a treacherous asshole like you his due when it is due. But global warming? Man, that's not science, that's a religion, and not a very good one for even a not-so-nice Jewish boy like you since that idiot Pope has embraced it.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus aka "Little Boots"

I ride with a group in California where about half of them bought blinkies.

Some of them were bright and some not so bright. Also you could detect a substantial dimming of them over a short period of time such as two or three days of riding.

I could see WHERE they made a difference and where they didn't because our routes are through hills and forests. Since BLACK is the "in" color for bicycle clothing these people would completely disappear in the light and shadow of a forest valley. In these areas the blinkie would probably make a difference.

But you have more visibility if you are wearing bright colors. And you are safer to start with if you are riding in a safe manner and are personally aware of approaching traffic.

There are no magic fixes that make you bulletproof and acting as if there are sounds to me more like a product advertisement.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:29:31 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Case controlled studies, where only one variable is changed are ideal.
In the Odense study 2000 cyclists were given DRLs, 2000 were not. The
results were overwhelming and conclusively proved the effectiveness of
DRLs for bicycles. Maybe "risk-compensation" played a role, but if it
did, it did so in a way that understated the benefits of the DRLs. Did
some cyclists without the DRLs think, "gee, I don't have those lights,
I'll ride more carefully?" Did some cyclists with the DRLs think, "I'm
invincible with these DRLs, I'll ride less carefully?"

Some safety equipment is designed to prevent crashes, rather than
protect the user in a crash. The key question to ask is "how can I avoid
crashing into something and how can I avoid others crashing into me?"
For vehicles, it's anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance systems, proper
lighting (day and night), lane departure warnings, brake lights
(including high-mounted brake light), turn signals, TPMS, and non-wimpy
horns. For transportational cyclists, and their bicycles, it's bright
and reflective clothing, proper lighting (day and night), flags,
reflectors, good brakes, bells, and horns. For both vehicles and
cyclists/bicycles, not everyone will choose to take advantage of
everything available, for whatever reason (cost, weight, dorkiness,
etc), but to deny the effectiveness of the equipment by fabricating lame
excuses is not logical.

There's also comes a point when people have to understand that there are
not going to be additional case-controlled studies to re-prove something
that has already been proven. But it's a common tactic by some to try to
find the tiniest flaw in a study (which is often not a flaw at all), and
proclaim that the study is bogus and that until a new study is performed
which addresses their concern, that there is no evidence that disproves
their position. Of course if a new study comes out and it doesn't agree
with their view of how the world should be, they'll find a flaw with
that study as well. We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

This is the light used in the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzef_xPWuTg
Extrapolate that to a sunny day in California.

-- Jay Beattie.

I completely agree with you Jay and all of the group I ride with that were using these sorts of battery powered lights have allowed the batteries to go flat without worrying about it.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 11:35:03 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 5:29:31 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Case controlled studies, where only one variable is changed are ideal..
In the Odense study 2000 cyclists were given DRLs, 2000 were not. The
results were overwhelming and conclusively proved the effectiveness of
DRLs for bicycles. Maybe "risk-compensation" played a role, but if it
did, it did so in a way that understated the benefits of the DRLs. Did
some cyclists without the DRLs think, "gee, I don't have those lights,
I'll ride more carefully?" Did some cyclists with the DRLs think, "I'm
invincible with these DRLs, I'll ride less carefully?"

Some safety equipment is designed to prevent crashes, rather than
protect the user in a crash. The key question to ask is "how can I avoid
crashing into something and how can I avoid others crashing into me?"
For vehicles, it's anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance systems, proper
lighting (day and night), lane departure warnings, brake lights
(including high-mounted brake light), turn signals, TPMS, and non-wimpy
horns. For transportational cyclists, and their bicycles, it's bright
and reflective clothing, proper lighting (day and night), flags,
reflectors, good brakes, bells, and horns. For both vehicles and
cyclists/bicycles, not everyone will choose to take advantage of
everything available, for whatever reason (cost, weight, dorkiness,
etc), but to deny the effectiveness of the equipment by fabricating lame
excuses is not logical.

There's also comes a point when people have to understand that there are
not going to be additional case-controlled studies to re-prove something
that has already been proven. But it's a common tactic by some to try to
find the tiniest flaw in a study (which is often not a flaw at all), and
proclaim that the study is bogus and that until a new study is performed
which addresses their concern, that there is no evidence that disproves
their position. Of course if a new study comes out and it doesn't agree
with their view of how the world should be, they'll find a flaw with
that study as well. We see that today with climate change studies. The
deniers will never accept any study that disproves their position
because they have a vested interest in denying reality.

This is the light used in the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzef_xPWuTg
Extrapolate that to a sunny day in California.

-- Jay Beattie.

Actually, when these Reelight induction lamps first appeared, they were brighter than may you could buy, including several from Busch & Muller, the fave of the cycling trendies. Still true when the study was done. We tend to forget rather too quickly how crappy lamps were in the very recent past, before the most recent spurt in the development of LEDs.

Andre Jute
A loooong memory

Where lights are absolutely necessary is night time riding. When I had a winter appointment early in the morning I put a blinkie on the back and a headlight with blink mode. The headlight had insufficient light on full to show the road properly but on blink, cars and trucks gave me a WIDE margin.

How many years of repeating the same thing over and over does it take to convince people that there are times and places for things?

I ride on some of the most dangerous roads possible - El Camino Real on the San Francisco peninsula and never have a problem because I wear bright colors and ride politely - only taking other's space when necessary. In return I get polite reactions from drivers. Except for Asian woman drivers that is. Or anyone driving a BMW. Even when the Beemer has bicycle racks on it.

On 7/13/2015 9:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

This is the light used in the study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzef_xPWuTg
Extrapolate that to a sunny day in California.

Yes, that's what so encouraging. If a light like that had such
spectacular success, just think about the effects with a better light.