#81
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On 4/5/2019 4:16 PM, Joerg wrote:
On the MTB I even carry a small ham radio transceiver but that is only for emergency situations. A nice addition to a "Danger! Danger!" cartoon! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On 4/5/2019 4:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/5/2019 3:56 PM, wrote: On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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-visibilityÂ* 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.Â* They wear yellow vests/jackets to stand out to the drivers on the county road.Â* They also walk on the opposite side of the road so they are facing traffic that is closest to them.Â* 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 Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you into the dash, windshield, side door, etc.Â* Or eject you from the car.Â* If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village wear seatbelts?Â* The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect.Â* But as you know, the law does not work that way.Â* Just like bike helmets, helmets do work in some/most situations.Â* Not all of course.Â* So we require by law that helmets are worn all the time. Actually, we don't require bike helmets to be worn all the time. At least not for adults in this country, except for a very few cities where those laws are largely ignored. There are more states where helmets are required for kids of certain ages, but those laws too are largely ignored. And again, this is how safety inflation happens. "It might help _some_ time!!!" so "safety" nazis say it's unreasonable to _ever_ omit it. What puzzles me is the lack of, say, stepladder helmet promotion. Or pedestrian helmet promotion. Why on earth are those dangerous activities absolved of helmet requirements? Oh, and what about this guy? No helmet!!! https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...rk-el-capitan/ -- - Frank Krygowski |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On 4/5/2019 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:38:35 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: 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. Seatbelts ONLY save you if your car is going fast enough to propel you into the dash, windshield, side door, etc. Or eject you from the car. If you are only going 25 mph in your village, as you write, then WHY do we require by LAW that all motorists driving in that village wear seatbelts? The law should say they only have to wear seatbelts when driving outside of your 25 mph village, when speeds are higher and the safety of seatbelts is needed and comes into affect. But as you know, the law does not work that way. Just like bike helmets, helmets do work in some/most situations. Not all of course. So we require by law that helmets are worn all the time. In Wisconsin it's 'Let those who ride decide' for motorcycles. For bicycles it's 'Wear one if you like. Or not.' -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:31:14 -0000 (UTC), 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. I see some small (100 - 125cc) motorcycles that are everywhere here are now equipped with turn signals and some riders even use them. -- cheers, John B. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:31:15 -0000 (UTC), 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. Out of curiosity have bike collisions decreased and if so is it a result of the lights or a result of the $400 fines which likely tend to make bicycles ride in a more law abiding manner? -- cheers, John B. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:09:06 +0100, Tosspot
wrote: On 05/04/2019 00.17, wrote: snip 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. 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. By 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 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 suggest that the angle of the light, or to be more explicit the distance the road is illuminated is really a matter of how fast one is riding. Which I find, in the city. to not be startling fast, thus no need to shine the light a quarter of a mile down the road. It has been my experience that in city driving many, perhaps most, autos are driving with their lights down, not up. Obviously out in the country one does ride faster and thus lights must be aimed higher but then one isn't meeting a lot of riders coming the other way and if they are they are usually on the other side of the road. -- cheers, John B. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:14:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: 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... Generally, that was my point that, for whatever reason, Americans seem to, at least from what I read on the Internet, live in a world of fear. I read that kids can't walk to school, "because it isn't safe", that riding bicycles is not safe although statistically it is, based on numbers of drivers/riders and number of deaths , safer then driving a car, and on and on, "It's not safe". Or perhaps the ancestors were just a much braver generation. Think of it. Your ancestors left their home country and travelled on a small boat as much as three months, and landed in a country where they had nothing and didn't even speak the same language as the inhabitants, who looked down on them as "foreigners". -- cheers, John B. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On 2019-04-05 13:25, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 11:50:22 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2019-04-04 18:18, jbeattie wrote: 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! Especially at night I had neighbors who passed me later say "Man, from the distance I thought it was a cop so I tried to be on my best behavior". Objective accomplished. That's night. We're talking day. And if motorists think you're a cop, they're blind idiots and should have their licenses pulled -- unless you're riding with a blue light bar. I have never mistaken a bicycle with a red flasher for the police, and I ride around hundreds cyclists with flashers every day. Mine looks like the one on the left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XgjzBZ7wV8 ... I think my observed record is five rear flashers, including the helmet arrow. On the road bike I've got a total of three rear lights. When I find time I'll change that so there'll be two (bright) homemade lights with constant light and one with the above pattern. So far I received no complaints from other bike riders or motorists. They'd flash their high-beams at me if it was irritating them too much but they don't. https://lumoshelmet.co/ All that dope needed was a calliope and a stuffed monkey with cymbals and chattering teeth. He probably attracted cars, transfixed like moths. This is my safety get-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ojn3Lgg1mI Alright, that gets the attention! -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
visibility of DRL
On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 07:50:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/4/2019 9:45 PM, wrote: On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:09:04 -0400, 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. O.K. You, me, Muzi and maybe one other guy :-) On Hwy 41 south going into Chicago last week I saw a '53 Mercury signal a turn with arm out the window. His brake lights were working, just not turn indicators. Usually just replacing the "flasher" cures that :-) -- cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
visibility | Frank Krygowski[_4_] | Techniques | 145 | July 1st 16 02:14 AM |
visibility | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | September 3rd 15 11:34 PM |
visibility | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 33 | July 1st 06 06:38 AM |
visibility | wle | Techniques | 2 | December 9th 03 06:59 PM |
know where i can get a visibility flag? | George Stuteville | Recumbent Biking | 13 | October 13th 03 10:45 PM |