visibility of DRL

On 4/5/2019 1:28 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

"Commodity for marketing" is precisely correct.

I've probably mentioned the book _Risk_ by Dan Gardner. It's largely
about the psychology of risk in the modern world. One of his major
points is that fear mongering helps profits. Newspaper headlines,
nightly news preview clips, etc. often spotlight horrors or potential
horrors because people reflexively want to learn more about any danger.
Gardner explains that the reflex is built into our brains.

Of course, companies like Trek are happy to market using fear to sell
lights. Bell and Giro are happy to use fear to sell helmets. Countless
bike companies are happy to use fear to sell disc brakes. People for
Bikes, Streetsblog etc. are happy to use fear to sell "protected" bike
lanes, as agents for Alta Planning and similar consulting firms.

Much of the above selling is done not directly by the companies
themselves, but by their agents - do-gooder institutes, compliant
magazine editors, academics desperate for publications, etc.

Not to mention freelance hand wringers posting here and talking to their
friends...

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 7:41:20 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote:

In general flashlights are bad because there can be a *lot* of bleed
outside the designed boresight angle. I suffer from this a lot from
people coming the other way at night, but tbf, it is very variable, with
some flashlights having little bleed. How do I tell? The conical beam
shape is a dead giveaway. With respect to your test, not a bad idea.
My IQ-X doesn't even illuminate tail lights/reflectors, and still throws
a beam some 20ft down the road, and in an exact mirror of your test, I

20ft - are you so greatly enjoying seeing all of the beam? I'd suggest you
set it to at least 20 yards if you ride more than half as fast as Jay or Joerg.

fitted a flashlight to the handlebars to try and determine the angle at
which the same occurred. It required *my* light to be set far to far
down to be useful.

My DRL for gloomy mornings like this morning in the rain is a 1 watt discontinued Nashbar blinky and a L&M rear pulsing "flasher." My DRL for nice sunny days is nothing.

This year, my light for actual night commuting was a L&M Urban 800 or a SECA 1200 for rainstorms. I previously used a SP PD8 and a Luxos B with my Nashbar blinky, but that bike broke, and the replacement frame/fork doesn't have a crown through-hole, and I didn't bother buying a bar mount.

I don't care that much about super-bright lights in situations where cyclists are separated from one another -- riding alone on a country road or trail. However, they are a serious annoyance and potentially dangerous in heavy car and bicycle traffic, and cut-off isn't that helpful in undulating terrain. I also understand the desire to retaliate and blind aggressive motorists, but there is no place for punishment lights in a bicycle facility.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/5/2019 2:38 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 22:28:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:25:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 23:05:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 9:47 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


--
- 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.

Yes, we've got one couple in our village who take walks wearing those.
The village is very pedestrian friendly, to the point that the president
of a pretty prominent local manufacturing firm moved here on his
doctor's recommendation, since he needed to walk for his heart health.

But nothing is safe enough for some.

I find it sort of strange. The apparent terror in which some modern
Americans seem to live.

When I was a kid we played football in a field in our regular clothes
although often we stipulated that it was "Tag" not "Tackle". People
played baseball with regular caps, people skied with nothing but ear
warmers.

Now it seems that one requires special equipment to participate yet I
can't remember anyone being injured. Well, the cousin of a good friend
broke his leg in several places ski jumping on a 35 meter hill but
that was because of across wind blowing him off center and no safety
gear in the world would have saved him.

When I was 6 years old I walked to school on a common 2 lane blacktop
road. My mother accompanied me the first two days of school and I went
alone after that. And, yes she did caution me about "look both ways
before you cross the road" and I wasn't unique, everyone walked to
school.

My point isn't that one should not wear safety gear if one desires to
but all the fear that seems to be shown... "OOOH! Bicycling is so
dangerous", yet from the age of 12 un till 16 I rode everywhere on a
bike and all the other boys in town did also, and there weren't any
bicycle lanes, and I don't remember any one telling us how dangerous
it was. And, I might add that I've been riding for 20 years, or so,in
a country with the second highest per capita road death rate in the
world... with only one close call and that was because I ran a stop
sign.
--
cheers,

John B.

For an interesting insight into the phenomenon of children and there
roaming getting smaller each generation Google "How children lost the
right to roam in four generations". It's England but still quite
interesting. Here's one link to an article with a map.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nerations.html

Fear seems to be quite the commodity for marketing these days.

Cheers

It's interesting. The place I grew up in was a small village in New
Hampshire and our house was almost exactly a mile from the center of
the village. We had several acres of land and kept a cow, chickens and
a couple of pigs, and of course had a garden. Given that from our
property "out"it was pretty much wooded with some pastures we used to
"play" for miles. Mostly just wandering around in the woods. One thing
that always made me wonder was that there were paths all through those
woods. they may have been game paths but I never notices any deer hoof
marks or anything like that.

I can imagine that growing up in a city is likely different but during
the time I was in the Military I lived in six of the U.S. states and
there were always villages surrounding the cities where one could live
outside the Urban Sprawl.

I'd guess that some of those villages must still exist, at least Frank
refers to his domicile as "the village".

This place is legally a village, but it probably doesn't fit the typical
person's mental image. It is contiguous with an adjoining city and two
populous suburban townships. (City, village and township all are legally
defined by state law and have different forms of government.) A person
driving through the area would probably be unaware that he'd crossed a
political boundary or border.

But it's very nice for bicycling, which is one reason we chose this
place when we moved in from out of state. In one direction I have fairly
low-traffic roads to get me to the university. In two other directions,
just a few miles of moderate traffic gets me out into semi-rural roads.
The remaining direction has tens of thousands of vehicles per day, but
features the biggest shopping area in the county. For a confident
cyclist, it all works very well.

Regarding kids: There are lots of quiet residential streets, and a few
cut-through paths to school yards, playgrounds, etc. A wonderful library
is in the center of the village, within walking or easy biking distance
of several schools, and kids from 10 to 18 hang around there daily. But
best of all, the village owns a forest preserve of over 250 acres, a
real gem that some of us are trying to defend and keep natural.

I'm sure there are many kids who are restricted by fear. But there are
plenty who roam the forest, who bike to playgrounds, who walk to school,
etc. And this has several times been ranked one of the safest
communities in the state.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 2:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

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

Where my parents live there is a couple 1/2 mile or so up the road who walk the highway into town and back each day. They wear yellow vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road. They also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing traffic that is closest to them. Seems kind of like common sense to me to wear something visible when you are walking on a road with 60+ mph cars, pickups, semis coming at you.

Yes, that's not unreasonable. But it doesn't explain the local couple
who wear safety vests while walking on sidewalks in a village with 25
mph speed limits, except 35 on a couple streets.

And that illustrates a common hand wringing mechanism:

Are bike lights reasonable at night or at dusk? Yes. "So we should use
them all the time!!!"

Is a helmet reasonable for a criterium race or gonzo downhill mountain
biking? Yes. "So every bicyclist must wear a helmet for every ride!!!"

This is how Safety Inflation happens.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 10:41 AM, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote:

In general flashlights are bad because there can be a *lot* of bleed
outside the designed boresight angle. I suffer from this a lot from
people coming the other way at night, but tbf, it is very variable, with
some flashlights having little bleed. How do I tell? The conical beam
shape is a dead giveaway. With respect to your test, not a bad idea.
My IQ-X doesn't even illuminate tail lights/reflectors, and still throws
a beam some 20ft down the road, and in an exact mirror of your test, I

20ft - are you so greatly enjoying seeing all of the beam? I'd suggest you
set it to at least 20 yards if you ride more than half as fast as Jay or Joerg.

fitted a flashlight to the handlebars to try and determine the angle at
which the same occurred. It required *my* light to be set far to far
down to be useful.

I too tried a flashlight, an adjustable focus model. It was pretty
horrible, no matter if I focused it tight or wide.

As Peter White explains, a cyclist (like a motorist) does far better
with a beam that is less intense in the portion that aims close, and
gradually increases in intensity as it spreads further forward. This
gives more uniform illumination of the road surface and eliminates the
flashlight "hot spot" that destroys night vision. I think 99% of night
bicyclists don't understand this.

The Busch & Mueller design - a downward facing LED shining into a custom
reflector - does a great job. I'm sure it was expensive to develop. I
wonder if it's patented, and that prevents other companies from copying
it? I came across only one other company that marketed a similar design,
and it's no longer available.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 3:44 AM, wrote:

As for politics: If only your state was Democrat then I guess that
motorcyclists would be able to wear helmets?

It does seem to be true that it's invariably Democrats who push
mandatory helmet laws.

But to John's question: There is no jurisdiction, AFAIK, that forbids
helmets. Motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists are all free
to wear helmets if they choose.

Some people portray the helmeteers and the helmet skeptics as being
mirror images, so to speak. But only the helmeteers try to use the laws
to force their opinions on others.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/5/2019 6:31 AM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
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


If you cross into Quebec you need a full set of reflectors in the daytime
and a white front light and red rear light at night. Rear reflector isn’t
enough at night and lights don’t replace reflectors during the day.

Tickets are up to 400 bucks without them and not rare.

Does that include tickets for lack of daytime reflectors? To me, that's
very objectionable.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 3:14:39 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 2:35:52 PM UTC-7, 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

The commuter scrum: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

Imagine if all those people had eye-popping, retina burning flashers and headlights.

And why do you need mega-light DRLs anyway? The vaunted Odense study proved that a tiny, induction powered front light prevented bicycle accidents -- even one-bike accidents, which is pretty amazing. http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-s...odense-denmark https://www.reelight.com/collections...s/products/cph

I'm fine with safety equipment that isn't annoying or unsafe. I'm not going to prescribe for others. Get your vest and flippy flag, clog the facility riding 8mph, but don't f****** blind me with your mega-light DRL! Consider this my very brief manifesto. Violators will be insulted with grammatically complex, late Victorian put-downs provided by Andre Jute.

-- Jay Beattie.

Systemic racism? So riding a bike on what should have been a residential thoroughfare represents systemic racism? Exactly how do the media get away with statements like that?

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:09:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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

I give hand signals all the time if I'm turning right and there is a car stopped from the right whom it would inform he had safe passage. Turning left is self explanatory unless you are a moron.

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 3:31:16 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 19:33:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:56 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?

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!
--
cheers,

John B.



Most cyclists here in Quebec signal turns. It’s required by the vehicle
code. Seems to me it was the same in the states that I lived in though I
don’t remember it being a legal requirement or not.

--
duane

It is a requirement in every state but it isn't enforced because to do so might cause a cyclist to lose control.