IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so... Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault. Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic light turned green. I was going straight across the road with the right of way to go straight across the road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me across my path and I ran into the car. There was no doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right and wrong.

On 24/4/19 12:09 am, jbeattie wrote:


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.


But she didn't fall off!

--
JS

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Steve Weeks
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 22:30:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 9:16 PM, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.

... which can be difficult to achieve.

These writers are not my favorites, but I suspect that on the following
point they're correct:
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/04/...victims-first/

Well, what did happen? It appears, from the article, that nobody
actually knows and while it probably isn't fair to simply suggest "the
bike done" it but what do you do? Charge the truck driver? Then go to
court and prove it? How?
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 21:37:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Or my favorite, the chap that gets hit in the famous right turn"
crash. Is it because the motor vehicle didn't see him or is it because
he didn't look back to see what was coming up behind him?
--

Cheers,

John B.

Not sure of your reason for writing this, so... Usually, always, the vehicle making the right turn in front of, across the other vehicle, would be at fault. Kind of like if you are hit from behind, its always the vehicle behind that hits you that is at fault. Just like if you have the right of way on a street, road, and a car pulls out in front of you from a side street, they are at fault if you hit them. In some kinds of accidents, the party at fault is already predetermined.

I was in a bike car accident nine years ago. Traffic light turned green. I was going straight across the road with the right of way to go straight across the road. Car on the other side turned left in front of me across my path and I ran into the car. There was no doubt, question about who was at fault. There is right and wrong.

The usual description of the right turn crash is that, as you say,
someone on a bike is going straight on and someone to the left of the
bike turns right... but isn't the bike looking right, left, back and
front while he is out there in the midst of all that traffic?

After all, the Air Force trains their pilots to be constantly looking
in all directions and he is up there where there isn't all that much
traffic while the bike is down on the ground with all the cars and
trucks.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/24/2019 12:22 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Perhaps rather than advocate the building of bike lanes one might come
to think that just getting the Police to open their eyes might do as
much good... and be a lot cheaper :-)

Each additional police officer costs a lot of money in salary, benefits,
and support infrastructure, in my area it's about $300K per year per
additional police officer. You'd need a huge number of additional police
to have the same effect as a protected bike lane. So it would definitely
not be cheaper.

On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:

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.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say
that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence
and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank
says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an
atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather
than relying on faith.

On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:42:26 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/23/2019 4:17 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 11:25:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/23/2019 10:09 AM, jbeattie wrote:

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.

We have a few club members who have jumped on the daytime taillight
wagon (but AFAIK, none with daytime headlights). Anyway, I mentioned to
a few of them "Pay attention when we get strung out on a club ride and
you're catching up to a cyclist up ahead. What do you see first, the
rider or his taillight? I _always_ see the rider way sooner."

In response, I got nobody disagreeing with that. Instead I got "Well, I
still really believe in my taillight."

IOW, no evidence; just faith.

I suggest that anything that increases the chances that the bicycle
might be seen is an advantage in reducing the possibility of a
collision.

That can't be right because the members of a bicycle club in Ohio say
that it's not.

You can't seriously be suggesting that we rely on statistical evidence
and studies conducted by university researchers rather then what Frank
says that his fellow club members said when prompted. It's like an
atheist trying to convince a religious zealot to look at evidence rather
than relying on faith.

True, because statistics never lie, 62% of the time. Judging by the video of the woman I posted, the cohort with front lights may have had less one-bike accidents because their front hub axle nuts had been recently tightened. Or the cohort may avoid bottomless puddles to keep the light from getting wet. Maybe the cohort that didn't get the light became depressed and attempted suicide by turning sharply over wet manhole covers. Who knows? I like safety things -- I've got reflective tape on my commuter and wear conspicuous clothing and even run a DRL on gloomy or rainy days, but I encounter people all the time with flaccid little blinkies that I don't see until I'm passing them. I see the people from a hundred yards away, particularly if they're wearing fluorescent jerseys.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:08:36 AM UTC-4, duane wrote:
On 23/04/2019 9:16 p.m., Steve Weeks wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 5:55:53 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:

One of the problems in defining solo versus multi-vehicle collisions
is determining the basic cause. What is the basic cause of the guy
that gets "doored" is it because he was riding, nose down, arse in the
air, at 30 kph in a 25 kph zone or is it the lady that opened the
door?

Just as a point of interest, in Chicago a "dooring" results in a ticket and a $1,000 fine for the person who opened the door. All that's necessary is for the police to care.


The law just changed here in Montreal to raise the fine from $30 to
$300. The problem is that whether or not the motorist gets a ticket is
left to the discretion of the cop. There was a recent case here where
the driver was not ticketed and I complained to the city. Actually got
a reply from the cop in charge and his response was that it was up to
the officer on the scene.

On the face of it, I was upset thinking how in the world can it not be
the fault of the driver. But on the other hand, I don't ride in door
zones so I guess the question is one of contributory negligence.

In Quebec the highway code specifies that the cyclist must keep to the
extreme right of the road. This was amended recently to read:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

I know a person who was riding their bicycle in the door zone and tries to pass an illegally stopped taxi whilst still in the same lane as the stopped taxi was in. The driver of the taxi opened the driver's door and the bicyclist hit the door and went over the handlebar. The bicyclist sued the taxi driver. the result? The bicyclist was awarded a settlement by the court for FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! The bicyclist did get the entire amount. What got me was that in this case the bicyclist was just as much at fault as the stopped taxi was - the bicyclist's failure to move into the adjacent lane in order to pass the stopped taxi safely.

Cheers