Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:04:16



Quote:



> > > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > > for an instantaneous panic stop. ?Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > > strobe light or not.

> > > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

> > Yes. ?Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> > more and more common,

> Why are your laments so judgmental?

Why are you being so judgmental about my lament?  IOW, Dan, it really
is time for you to invest in a mirror.

Quote:

> > ... there are things that should be done, and other
> > things that should not.

> I agree, except that I find your range of valid choices and
> circumstantial considerations extremely narrow-minded and intolerant.

> Also, you seem to assume it is your place to do the "shoulding".

You often seem totally baffled by the idea of a discussion group -
i.e., you seem offended if I state an opinion that is not identical to
yours.

Similarly, you seem baffled by the fundamental concept of traffic
laws.  Most people seem to recognize that chaos on the road is a bad
thing, and recognize that chaos results if people are allowed to do
whatever they want at any moment they judge appropriate.

You, OTOH, seem to take offense at any suggestion that _you_ should
obey traffic laws. Why do you feel that _you_ are so special?

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:17:04


Quote:

> > Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> > of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> > pragmatically, your point stands.

> That is not clear to me (that an overtaking bicyclist has the legal
> right of way while passing in the bicycle lane). ?The CA vehicle code
> does not seem definitive.

I've read that California law and Oregon law differ on bike lanes.
IIRC, California law tells motorists to make right turns from the
rightmost part of the road, and that they must properly merge into the
bike lane before turning right, including checking that they're not
cutting off any cyclists.  That sounds like the ROW belongs to the
cyclist.  (Here's a page explaining that turn behavior:
http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelane_right_turns )

And IIRC, in Oregon the motorist is not allowed in the bike lane at
all, except of course when turning across it or otherwise crossing
it.  That means an Oregon driver is supposed to turn right from non-
rightmost position on the road.  That can't help but increase right
hook crashes.  Here's a page on that:
http://bicycledriving.org/bikeways/bike-lanes

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:24:45


Quote:

> What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
> non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
> Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
> These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
> enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
> have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
> powerful front strobe and the flash flag
> <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

Sorry, the Flashback flag is too small, too low, too easy to miss.
Every cyclist who uses a Flashback flag should immediately remove it
and replace it with this much more conspicuous product:
http://www.gettysburgflag.com/Bicycle_Flags.php

And there's the aesthetic benefit as well.  It's the perfect ensemble
piece to go with your hose clamp mounted flashlight!  ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:29:17


Quote:

> -0700 the perfect time to write:


> >> Daytime?  If you don't look for a blithe bicyclist coming up on the
> >> side, you're not going to see the strobe any more than you'll see the
> >> bicyclist themself.

> >In the daytime unlit cyclists are much less conspicuous than a well lit
> >cyclist at night. In the daytime unlit cyclists blend in with all the
> >other unlit stuff between the sidewalk and the traffic lane such as
> >parked cars, street light poles, etc. At night, a properly lit cyclist
> >is distinguished from all these other items.

> >I know that when I'm driving in the daytime a cyclist with a strobe
> >light is far more visible than an unlit cyclist.

> >Of course the whole idea behind daytime running lights, and especially
> >the requirement in many states that motorcycles have their lights on all
> >the time is based on the fact that the light makes the vehicle more
> >visible in the daytime.

> No, it's based on the IDEA.
> To call it a fact is simply untrue (and at best is based on victim
> blaming by careless and dangerous drivers).
> A daytime visibility light is a completely different type of light
> from a headlight.
> Decent motorcycle headlights these days are so good at focusing all
> their output into the beam that in bright daylight, you can't actually
> tell if the headlight is on or off unless you are in the beam, in
> which case you would be dazzled by it.
> Daytime visibility lights should scatter the light, instead of
> concentrating it into a defined beam.
> The critical aspect to their effectiveness is their area.

Well said, but inexpensive bicycle headlights in flashing mode have
quite an effectiveness that exceeds nothing (especially in reduced
visibility and reduced ambient light where they reflect off of many
things in a large area).

Quote:
> Of course, if people would only use their eyes properly, and engage
> brains before driving, there would be far fewer victims to blame.

I know you can't see this, but - as was often the case even before you
plonked me - I agree in fact and in sentiment.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:34:57


Quote:




> > > > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > > > for an instantaneous panic stop.  Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > > > strobe light or not.

> > > > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

> > > Yes.  Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> > > more and more common,

> > Why are your laments so judgmental?

> Why are you being so judgmental about my lament?  IOW, Dan, it really
> is time for you to invest in a mirror.

You are intolerant of points of view that differ from your own -
narrow-minded (not just me that thinks so).

Quote:

> > > ... there are things that should be done, and other
> > > things that should not.

> > I agree, except that I find your range of valid choices and
> > circumstantial considerations extremely narrow-minded and intolerant.

> > Also, you seem to assume it is your place to do the "shoulding".

> You often seem totally baffled by the idea of a discussion group -
> i.e., you seem offended if I state an opinion that is not identical to
> yours.

Uh...

Quote:
> Similarly, you seem baffled by the fundamental concept of traffic
> laws.

Not at all.  I get it.  I am just very glad to not (have to) be so
constained (to anything resembling the extent that cagers are).

Quote:
> Most people seem to recognize that chaos on the road is a bad
> thing, and recognize that chaos results if people are allowed to do
> whatever they want at any moment they judge appropriate.

> You, OTOH, seem to take offense at any suggestion that _you_ should
> obey traffic laws.

Not at all... unless you are suggesting that I should arbitrarily obey
*every* traffic law.  (Do you?  No, you don't.)

Quote:
> Why do you feel that _you_ are so special?

Well, I am.  Aren't you?  :-)
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:39:17


Quote:


> > > Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> > > of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> > > pragmatically, your point stands.

> > That is not clear to me (that an overtaking bicyclist has the legal
> > right of way while passing in the bicycle lane).  The CA vehicle code
> > does not seem definitive.

> I've read that California law and Oregon law differ on bike lanes.
> IIRC, California law tells motorists to make right turns from the
> rightmost part of the road, and that they must properly merge into the
> bike lane before turning right, including checking that they're not
> cutting off any cyclists.  That sounds like the ROW belongs to the
> cyclist.  (Here's a page explaining that turn behavior:http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelane_right_turns)

> And IIRC, in Oregon the motorist is not allowed in the bike lane at
> all, except of course when turning across it or otherwise crossing
> it.  That means an Oregon driver is supposed to turn right from non-
> rightmost position on the road.  That can't help but increase right
> hook crashes.  Here's a page on that:  ...

Maybe Hans was right (?)

("bicycledriving" is for delusional putzes)

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:40:37


Quote:

> > What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
> > non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
> > Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
> > These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
> > enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
> > have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
> > powerful front strobe and the flash flag
> > <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

> Sorry, the Flashback flag is too small, too low, too easy to miss.
> Every cyclist who uses a Flashback flag should immediately remove it
> and replace it with this much more conspicuous product:http://www.gettysburgflag.com/Bicycle_Flags.php

> And there's the aesthetic benefit as well.  It's the perfect ensemble
> piece to go with your hose clamp mounted flashlight!  ;-)

Smarmy, judgmental, intolerant, and supercilious to the bitter end.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by AMuz » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:12:36


Quote:

>> What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
>> non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
>> Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
>> These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
>> enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
>> have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
>> powerful front strobe and the flash flag
>> <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

> Sorry, the Flashback flag is too small, too low, too easy to miss.
> Every cyclist who uses a Flashback flag should immediately remove it
> and replace it with this much more conspicuous product:
> http://www.gettysburgflag.com/Bicycle_Flags.php

> And there's the aesthetic benefit as well.  It's the perfect ensemble
> piece to go with your hose clamp mounted flashlight!  ;-)

> - Frank Krygowski

Here's a good way to get noticed:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyuj8tb

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

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:51:51


Quote:




> > > > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > > > for an instantaneous panic stop.  Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > > > strobe light or not.

> > > > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

> > > Yes.  Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> > > more and more common,

> > Why are your laments so judgmental?

> Why are you being so judgmental about my lament?

Because your lament is of the "incompetence" that is nothing more than
choices you would not make yourself.

Quote:
> IOW, Dan, it really
> is time for you to invest in a mirror.

I reflect on who and what I am extensively - and deeply; and it is
very different form what I perceive of you (but  at the same time, the
same - I have said many time that much of what you say makes sense,
and I feel a certain brotherhood).

Your pronouncements of incompetence do not cut me, for I am
comfortably aware of my competenty and it's limitations, but...

You egregiously deride values different from your own, and you do so
from a contrived lecturn / pulpit, invoking the "royal we".  But I see
again that you are but a pathetic creature, and I (again) forswear to
let up my defensive offensive on that account.

<snip>

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 06:52:40


Quote:





> > > > > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > > > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > > > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > > > > for an instantaneous panic stop.  Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > > > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > > > > strobe light or not.

> > > > > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.

> > > > Yes.  Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> > > > more and more common,

> > > Why are your laments so judgmental?

> > Why are you being so judgmental about my lament?

> Because your lament is of the "incompetence" that is nothing more than
> choices you would not make yourself.

> > IOW, Dan, it really
> > is time for you to invest in a mirror.

> I reflect on who and what I am extensively - and deeply; and it is
> very different form what I perceive of you (but  at the same time, the
> same - I have said many time that much of what you say makes sense,
> and I feel a certain brotherhood).

> Your pronouncements of incompetence do not cut me, for I am
> comfortably aware of my competenty and it's limitations, but...

> You egregiously deride values different from your own, and you do so
> from a contrived lecturn / pulpit, invoking the "royal we".  But I see
> again that you are but a pathetic creature, and I (again) forswear to
> let up my defensive offensive on that account.

> <snip>

(I've put Doyle on the shelf and moved on to Melville :-)
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Jame » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:31:48


Quote:

> Here's a good way to get noticed:

> http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyuj8tb

I got noticed on Saturday.

The club race was about 40 km from home over some hills, and the wind
was in my face the whole way.  I knew I'd be home around dusk, so I left
my dynamo on the bike and set off with 2 bananas and 2 gels in my back
pockets.  Because on Sunday the annual Mt Baw Baw Classic race was on,
and a couple of regular A grade riders had race duty, the A grade field
was very small.  I didn't bother removing my dynamo or front light, just
my tool kit.  Raced 65 km, attacked the bunch with about 12 km to go and
won in a 2 up sprint, then rode home the long way, 60 km.

On the ride home I started with some others from lower grades, including
the winner of B grade.  He asked, "What's that 'thing' with the mudguard
over your back wheel?"  I replied, a dynamo to run my headlight.  I
turned it on to demonstrate.  He said, "Oh, wow!".  Then asked "And you
raced with that on your bike?"  "Yep.", I replied, "And this is a steel
frame and I built the wheels at home, and the back tyre is 25mm wide."
His jaw dropped for a moment, then he said, "That's cool!"

I was nailed when I got home, but backed it up with another 95 km the
next morning, and became a couch potato most of Sunday arvo ;-)

--
JS.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by SMS » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:18:32


Quote:
>> And there's the aesthetic benefit as well.  It's the perfect ensemble
>> piece to go with your hose clamp mounted flashlight!  ;-)

> Smarmy, judgmental, intolerant, and supercilious to the bitter end.

In other words, classic Krygowski.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by SMS » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:32:50


Quote:
> Well said, but inexpensive bicycle headlights in flashing mode have
> quite an effectiveness that exceeds nothing (especially in reduced
> visibility and reduced ambient light where they reflect off of many
> things in a large area).

That's the bottom line. Unlike Frank, I have no desire to use huge flags
or wear neon clothing when out around town on the bike even though they
might exceed the conspicuity of a front strobe (though it's doubtful
that this is the case). The strobe is always there as part of the
lighting system and it would be exceedingly foolish to not use it given
all the research that proves the value.

At least in the U.S. it would be rare to find a battery powered bicycle
light that lacks a front strobe, and even some dynamo lights now have
this feature. Unfortunately, since many dynamo lights have to meet the
German standard, they not only lack a strobe, but can't have an optimal
beam either (the way they sometimes get around it is to specify that a
light is for off-road use only).

The effectiveness of the strobe is quite noticeable in terms of vehicles
not turning right or left in front of you. If I had to guess it's that
it takes the driver a second to figure out what sort of "vehicle" is
present, and then they decide that they'd better yield.

The flash flag is extremely effective in terms of vehicles not passing
too close. "Originally known as the FLASH FLAG, this remarkable 24-hour
safety product was tested on national TV by the Insurance Bureau of
Canada. The tests proved that the flag gets cyclists at least an extra
body width of safe-riding room. Other tests by government departments,
police forces and cycling experts in Great Britain, the U.S. and Canada
confirmed its value."

It doesn't cost much to greatly increase your conspicuity and safety, at
least once you accept the conclusions of all the experts in the field.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Jay Beatti » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:33:01


Quote:


> > > Well, actually an overtaking bicyclist *does* have the *legal* right-
> > > of-way in a bike lane, and motorists are required to yield; but
> > > pragmatically, your point stands.

> > That is not clear to me (that an overtaking bicyclist has the legal
> > right of way while passing in the bicycle lane). ?The CA vehicle code
> > does not seem definitive.

> I've read that California law and Oregon law differ on bike lanes.
> IIRC, California law tells motorists to make right turns from the
> rightmost part of the road, and that they must properly merge into the
> bike lane before turning right, including checking that they're not
> cutting off any cyclists. ?That sounds like the ROW belongs to the
> cyclist. ?(Here's a page explaining that turn behavior:http://www.sfbike.org/?bikelane_right_turns)

> And IIRC, in Oregon the motorist is not allowed in the bike lane at
> all, except of course when turning across it or otherwise crossing
> it. ?That means an Oregon driver is supposed to turn right from non-
> rightmost position on the road. ?That can't help but increase right
> hook crashes. ?Here's a page on that:http://bicycledriving.org/bikeways/bike-lanes

It's a pretty simple concept -- a bike lane is a lane.  A bicycle in a
bike lane has the same rights as a motorist in a lane.  A motorists in
the far right lane has to yield to traffic in the bicycle lane, just
as a car in the fast lane has to yield to cars in the slow lane when
changing lanes.

Cars are prohibited from occupying the bicycle lane.  They can cross
it while executing a turn, but they can't sit in it while waiting to
execute a turn.  And yes, it does lead to right hooking.  Motorists do
not look over their right shoulders when turning right from the slow
lane -- or they are content to race bicyclists to the turn.  This
happens to me routinely and is one reason for leaving the bike lane
and taking the traffic lane in some places. The California approach is
better in that motorists are allowed to enter the bike lane before a
turn, which naturally requires bicyclists to move over in to traffic
to pass -- or if that is not possible, to slow or stop.  Bicycle lanes
can be great -- but they can also be an invitation to disaster -- at
least until motorists finally learn the rules or care about the
rules.

-- Jay Beattie.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Ralph Baron » Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:26:24

Quote:



>>> What many drivers actually do is to not pay extreme attention to
>>> non-four wheel vehicles, whether they are bicycles or motorcycles.
>>> Hence, various methods of increasing conspicuity have been developed.
>>> These methods are not 100% effective, but some of them are effective
>>> enough that they are definitely worth employing. The two methods that
>>> have the most effect in improving the behavior of drivers are the
>>> powerful front strobe and the flash flag
>>> <http://www.flashback.ca/flashflags.html>.

>> Sorry, the Flashback flag is too small, too low, too easy to miss.
>> Every cyclist who uses a Flashback flag should immediately remove it
>> and replace it with this much more conspicuous product:
>> http://www.gettysburgflag.com/Bicycle_Flags.php

>> And there's the aesthetic benefit as well.  It's the perfect ensemble
>> piece to go with your hose clamp mounted flashlight!  ;-)

>> - Frank Krygowski

> Here's a good way to get noticed:

> http://preview.tinyurl.com/dyuj8tb

Oh, it's a different Palestine...  Had me all confused for a second there.