visibility of DRL

On 4/4/2019 8:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:32:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Yes, I am aware of that but given that the bicycles seem to be
demanding special considerations for themselves, one assumes because
it is so dangerous to ride a bicycle on the public roads and highways,
that they must have special paths, why should they not comply to the
safety equipment demanded for other vehicles.

It is to make themselves safer but they seem to want to avoid this on
the one hand and demand their own safe paths on the other.

Or are bicycles somehow God's chosen people and have rights that are
denied to the other users of the highway.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

Sure, because they are longer, wider and higher than many other users.
But is that a reason for the tiny insignificant bicycle to be without
safety features whatsoever?

OK, what safety features would you require on bikes? (There might be
some you and I agree on.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2019 9:03 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


When following some farm equipment or antiques you'll notice
they use hand signals, just as we do.


"WE" may mean you, me, and maybe one other guy, as I can't ever
remember, in some 20 or 30 years, seeing another bicycle give a hand
signal. Never!

Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing a bicycle give a hand signal
either. Neither has a piece of farm equipment.

OTOH, it's pretty easy to see a _bicyclist_ give a hand signal. Just
observe me sometime.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/4/2019 7:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 8:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

"tiny, induction powered front light prevented bicycle
accidents"

I resemble that remark.

Haven't died in traffic for some 50 years of regular
riding. My 6v tire drive dynamos & SA GH6 DynoHub are a
real upgrade from French Wonder leg lights (even I have
some minimal standard).

I just got back from an evening ride. On that bike, a B&M
Eyc headlight is powered by an old Union rim driven dynamo
(it used to be tire driven). I noticed once again that it
lit up stop signs roughly a quarter mile away.

If the light rays are bright enough to make it to the sign
then bounce back to my eye, they will certainly be bright
enough in the eye of a motorist who's that far away.

Andrew, what bulb are you using in the Dynohub headlamp?
I've wondered about the NL432 LED bulb from Reflectalite:
http://www.reflectalite.com/LEDpage.html#anchor78877

See the section "STURMEY ARCHER VINTAGE DYNOHUBS" down the
page a bit.


Soubitez halogen tail lamp bulb. It's the killer app for the
underpowered GH6, albeit still miserable by modern standards.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/4/2019 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:32:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Yes, I am aware of that but given that the bicycles seem to be
demanding special considerations for themselves, one assumes because
it is so dangerous to ride a bicycle on the public roads and highways,
that they must have special paths, why should they not comply to the
safety equipment demanded for other vehicles.

It is to make themselves safer but they seem to want to avoid this on
the one hand and demand their own safe paths on the other.

Or are bicycles somehow God's chosen people and have rights that are
denied to the other users of the highway.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

Sure, because they are longer, wider and higher than many other users.
But is that a reason for the tiny insignificant bicycle to be without
safety features whatsoever?

Cyclists are God's Chosen People; everyone else must die:

https://ktla.com/2019/04/03/hes-shoo...e-and-lynwood/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 3:01:46 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-04 12:15, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime
running lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave
on all the time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on
or off. I found myself on google street view on my ride home
last fall. I got passed by the car, and then passed it, and got
passed again. So I, and the bike, are in a bunch of pictures,
from the front and behind, over several blocks. This one gives a
good view of the headlight. It's more visible than I'd have
expected. This was about an hour before dark, and overcast
November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in
the street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a
male toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that
rose-colored baby seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the gray
Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem seeing him
if I were in a car or on a bike.


Next to the red car behind it, less visible:

https://goo.gl/maps/dNQBiRm4z672

I am not talking about you or me seeing him. I am talking about the
slightly soused dude who is keeping an eye on his smart phone.

What about the moth effect! https://www.poconorecord.com/article...NEWS/207150316 What if the soused dude who is keeping an eye on his smart phone has a seizure induced by the flasher! What if he is so distracted, he wouldn't notice the second coming -- let alone a retina burning blinky! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!


-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 3:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in the
street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a male
toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby
seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.

For some "Danger! Danger!" people, it's not enough to be clearly
visible. They're not satisfied unless they are absolutely the most
noticeable people on the street, visible from a mile away.

What's next? Several of these per bike, with lights fastened to the top?

https://www.amazon.com/Safety-Flags-...=fsclp_pl_dp_2


--
- Frank Krygowski

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.

Cheers

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 7:17:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/3/2019 9:58 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
David Scheidt wrote:
:From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
:lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
:time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
:myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
:by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
:bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
:several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
:more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
:dark, and overcast November day.

:https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p

And one that will make Frank happy:
https://goo.gl/maps/S1QRDrdpBhz

I used your Street Views to track you along the street for quite a
while. Looks to me like in most photos, the light is visible only as a
white dot. (I suspect the photos where it looks brighter happened to
capture a moment when your handlebars twitched a big more toward the
Google car.) Overall, I doubt very much that it will make any more
difference than, say, if you painted a white circle on the middle of
your chest.

Which is not to say your light - or a white circle - has zero value in
daylight. There's data out there showing that motorcyclists who choose
white helmets get hit a bit less than motorcyclists who choose dark
helmets. However, that doesn't justify forcing all motorcyclists to wear
only white hats.

Some here will say that the problem is your Busch & Mueller headlight,
which is designed for lighting the road but not glaring in the eyes of
other road users. They have called for super-bright lights with
unsophisticated round beams, the kind that can irritate or even blind
others.


I've read you and others going on about lights that blind oncoming
riders but frankly I don't see how that happens if the light is aimed
to illuminate the road. I use a regular single cell (3.7 VDC)
flashlight with the normal "unsophisticated" round beam and if I aim
it to illuminate the road it does not shine in the eyes of oncoming
riders, in fact after reading your various posts about blinding lights
I tested my lights.

I tested this, in full darkness, by parking the bike and walking a
distance in front of the bike and then turning and walking back toward
the bike. If the flashlight is aimed to illuminate the road it doesn't
shine in my eyes.

At other times I have observed where the light shines on autos that I
overtake in traffic and the beam seems to hit a car at about the level
of the tail lights.

Thus it would appear that blinding bicycle lights are simply aimed to
shine in approaching traffic's eyes. I might point out also that a
normal bicyclist's eyes are at a height above the roof level of the
average modern automobile.

This is not to say that it can't happen rather that it appears to be
just one of the usual short comings of the bicyclist.

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were on vacation in a city south of
here. On a riverside bike path at night, we were assaulted by one of
those glaring beams used by a rider coming the opposite direction. We
had to stop by the side of the bike path and shield our eyes until he
rode by. But I'm sure he felt very virtuous as well as safe.

We were passed by only one other cyclist. She had no lights at all.

So much for the Golden Mean.
--
cheers,

John B.

I was coming back into town around dusk but not fully dark when a bicyclist with a very bright strobing light was riding towards me. His light was so blinding that I had to stop and turn my head because I could not see a dang thing because of his light. He never offered to adjust his light so that it didn't shine in others eyes. I often wonder; what would happen if a bicyclist blinded another road user that was driving/riding around a curve or if there was debris on the road? Is it possible that the other person could have an accident?

Cheers

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:32:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 6:56 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:07:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 10:09 AM, sms wrote:

Studies show the benefit of DRLs on bicycles, but it doesn't make any
difference to those that don't believe in scientific studies.

The study that's most often cited by Daytime Running Light fans did,
indeed, purport to show that the lights caused fewer crashes. The
assumption, of course, is that because the cyclists were more visible,
cars and pedestrians avoided them more often.

But that study was funded by the company that manufactured the lights
and gave them away to the subjects of the study. It would be hard to
dream up a more biased way of conducting a study. And indeed, the
study's data tables showed that those using the lights suffered far
fewer _solo_ crashes. Those are crashes where the cyclist simply falls
on his own, perhaps running into a curb, losing balance when starting
out, slipping on wet leaves, etc. It's proof of bias built into the study.

But to a person like "sms" (AKA Stephen M. Scharf) those fine points
don't matter. Any study that confirms his prejudices is just fine, no
matter how badly it's done.

And his main prejudice is that bicycling is terribly dangerous! SO
terribly dangerous that one must always use lights front and back that
blind others, and one must never ride without a funny plastic hat, and
cities must build cattle chutes to hind cyclists behind parked cars, and
you really ought to have a flippy flag sticking out sideways from your
bike, and you're foolish if you ride without a loud electric horn on
your bike...

Given that bicycles, in all states I believe, are deemed to be
vehicles that have a legal right to use the public roads and highways
why shouldn't they be equipped as other vehicles are?

After all, if vehicle "A" must be equipped with a horn, stop lights,
turn lights, etc, why shouldn't vehicle "B" be equally as well
equipped?

One simple reason is that the laws don't require the same equipment on a
bike as on a car. By law, bicycles don't need two working headlights,
two working taillights, brake lights, windshields, wipers, turn signals,
seat belts, air bags, and much more.

Perhaps some might advocate changing the laws to require all that stuff
and more on bikes. But based on my (admittedly limited) experience
getting bike laws changed, I know there would be extensive committee
discussions on the desirability and practicality of such changes. And
you can be sure the bicycle industry would put up strong arguments
against such changes.

And they would be very reasonable arguments. If you really want to get
into specifics, we can discuss. As a sort of warm up, I'll note that the
equipment requirements for tractor-trailer rigs are different than those
for private cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

In Ontario Canada bicyclist are supposed to have at night working front light a reed rear light or reflector, reflectors on the front and rear wheels, reflective tape on the front forks and rear seat stays and also a working horn or bell. That's the LAW here. Yet most bicyclists I see have none of those at night. The odd one will have front light that's hardly discernible even without other traffic. Fortunately very few bicyclists hereabouts have bought into the ultra-bright lights camp.

Cheers

On 4/4/2019 8:47 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2019 3:15 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 11:15:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-03 18:56, David Scheidt wrote:
From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
dark, and overcast November day.

https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p


Not bad, for a StVZO light. However, I went virtually behind you in the
street view and it seems you need a better rear light. And as a male
toddler I wouldn't want to be seen sitting in that rose-colored baby
seat :-)

Really? https://tinyurl.com/y5v8pva3 He's more visible than the gray Hyundai ahead of him. I would have absolutely no problem seeing him if I were in a car or on a bike.

For some "Danger! Danger!" people, it's not enough to be clearly
visible. They're not satisfied unless they are absolutely the most
noticeable people on the street, visible from a mile away.

What's next? Several of these per bike, with lights fastened to the top?

https://www.amazon.com/Safety-Flags-...=fsclp_pl_dp_2

I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing high-visibility workmens' vests complete with the multiple reflective strips. It seems to me that the "DANGER! DANGER!" thing is getting into everything.


Yellow Vests haven't even moved Macron in twenty weekends
and he's a lightweight compared to you or any cyclist.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/4/2019 8:52 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 7:17:35 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:55:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/3/2019 9:58 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
David Scheidt wrote:
:From time to time, we have discussed the visibility of daytime running
:lights. I commute on a bike with B&M Cyo, which I leave on all the
:time, because I can't tell the difference if it's on or off. I found
:myself on google street view on my ride home last fall. I got passed
:by the car, and then passed it, and got passed again. So I, and the
:bike, are in a bunch of pictures, from the front and behind, over
:several blocks. This one gives a good view of the headlight. It's
:more visible than I'd have expected. This was about an hour before
:dark, and overcast November day.

:https://goo.gl/maps/NQURJ9dps3p

And one that will make Frank happy:
https://goo.gl/maps/S1QRDrdpBhz

I used your Street Views to track you along the street for quite a
while. Looks to me like in most photos, the light is visible only as a
white dot. (I suspect the photos where it looks brighter happened to
capture a moment when your handlebars twitched a big more toward the
Google car.) Overall, I doubt very much that it will make any more
difference than, say, if you painted a white circle on the middle of
your chest.

Which is not to say your light - or a white circle - has zero value in
daylight. There's data out there showing that motorcyclists who choose
white helmets get hit a bit less than motorcyclists who choose dark
helmets. However, that doesn't justify forcing all motorcyclists to wear
only white hats.

Some here will say that the problem is your Busch & Mueller headlight,
which is designed for lighting the road but not glaring in the eyes of
other road users. They have called for super-bright lights with
unsophisticated round beams, the kind that can irritate or even blind
others.


I've read you and others going on about lights that blind oncoming
riders but frankly I don't see how that happens if the light is aimed
to illuminate the road. I use a regular single cell (3.7 VDC)
flashlight with the normal "unsophisticated" round beam and if I aim
it to illuminate the road it does not shine in the eyes of oncoming
riders, in fact after reading your various posts about blinding lights
I tested my lights.

I tested this, in full darkness, by parking the bike and walking a
distance in front of the bike and then turning and walking back toward
the bike. If the flashlight is aimed to illuminate the road it doesn't
shine in my eyes.

At other times I have observed where the light shines on autos that I
overtake in traffic and the beam seems to hit a car at about the level
of the tail lights.

Thus it would appear that blinding bicycle lights are simply aimed to
shine in approaching traffic's eyes. I might point out also that a
normal bicyclist's eyes are at a height above the roof level of the
average modern automobile.

This is not to say that it can't happen rather that it appears to be
just one of the usual short comings of the bicyclist.

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I were on vacation in a city south of
here. On a riverside bike path at night, we were assaulted by one of
those glaring beams used by a rider coming the opposite direction. We
had to stop by the side of the bike path and shield our eyes until he
rode by. But I'm sure he felt very virtuous as well as safe.

We were passed by only one other cyclist. She had no lights at all.

So much for the Golden Mean.


I was coming back into town around dusk but not fully dark when a bicyclist with a very bright strobing light was riding towards me. His light was so blinding that I had to stop and turn my head because I could not see a dang thing because of his light. He never offered to adjust his light so that it didn't shine in others eyes. I often wonder; what would happen if a bicyclist blinded another road user that was driving/riding around a curve or if there was debris on the road? Is it possible that the other person could have an accident?

He would if you had your Taser along.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971