Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Jame » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:53



Quote:






>>>>>> 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).

>>>>> You're misstating my position, probably deliberately. I
>>>>> have no
>>>>> desire to use any flag on my bike - not the six foot
>>>>> tall, extra-
>>>>> visible one I linked to, nor the two foot horizontal one
>>>>> you say you
>>>>> use. And I don't wear neon clothing to ride; I don't
>>>>> own a single
>>>>> piece of neon cloth.

>>>> What is "neon" clothing?

>>> I believe Scharf is referring to the super-conspicuous, high-
>>> visibility colors used in some cycling jerseys, jackets,
>>> etc. They're
>>> typically yellow, greenish-yellow, pink or orange. IIRC, the
>>> manufacturers actually use dyes that re-radiate some of
>>> the sun's UV
>>> radiation, converting it to visible wavelengths.

>> Though I can't seem to find the reference in the group
>> archives right now, I recall someone posted a link to your
>> bike club where there was a picture I believe is of you and
>> a possibly the GLW, and you are in what you describe as
>> "neon" clothing. Would you like me to find a link to the
>> picture?

> Neon? Genuine Team Kit can help one look more aero:

> http://www.110pounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/sausage.jpg

Being aero is a relative thing, and at least his bum doesn't look big...

--
JS.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:12:41


Quote:




> >>>> ? ?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).

> >>> You're misstating my position, probably deliberately. ?I have no
> >>> desire to use any flag on my bike - not the six foot tall, extra-
> >>> visible one I linked to, nor the two foot horizontal one you say you
> >>> use. ?And I don't wear neon clothing to ride; I don't own a single
> >>> piece of neon cloth.

> >> What is "neon" clothing?

> > I believe Scharf is referring to the super-conspicuous, high-
> > visibility colors used in some cycling jerseys, jackets, etc. ?They're
> > typically yellow, greenish-yellow, pink or orange. ?IIRC, the
> > manufacturers actually use dyes that re-radiate some of the sun's UV
> > radiation, converting it to visible wavelengths.

> Though I can't seem to find the reference in the group archives right
> now, I recall someone posted a link to your bike club where there was a
> picture I believe is of you and a possibly the GLW, and you are in what
> you describe as "neon" clothing. ?Would you like me to find a link to
> the picture?

The "neon" stuff is not merely a normal bright color.  It's different,
in that it is somewhat flourescent - that is, it re-radiates UV input
into visible light output.  Most clothing - including most cycle
clothing - is not that "neon" or fluorescent fabric.  None of mine is
"neon" or fluorescent.

Our club jerseys have always been yellow and orange, based on the
rising sun logo designed (I believe, but I'm not positive) by Arni
Nashbar, one of the early and prominent members of our club.  (Yes,
_that_ Nashbar.)  However, our club jerseys have never been neon or
fluorescent.  Neither is my Gore-Tex cycling jacket, although it is
yellow.

Yesterday, I happened to be riding all in black, except when I had
that jacket on.  I also have dark blue, dark red, and white cycling
jerseys.  All my bike shorts are black (although I don't object to
anyone wearing other color shorts, as you well know.)  In addition,
most of my rides are done in absolutely normal street clothes, and I
tend to favor muted solid colors for those.  I've never noticed any
difference in driver behavior based on the color of clothing I wore.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Jame » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:21:33


Quote:





>>>>>>     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).

>>>>> You're misstating my position, probably deliberately.  I have no
>>>>> desire to use any flag on my bike - not the six foot tall, extra-
>>>>> visible one I linked to, nor the two foot horizontal one you say you
>>>>> use.  And I don't wear neon clothing to ride; I don't own a single
>>>>> piece of neon cloth.

>>>> What is "neon" clothing?

>>> I believe Scharf is referring to the super-conspicuous, high-
>>> visibility colors used in some cycling jerseys, jackets, etc.  They're
>>> typically yellow, greenish-yellow, pink or orange.  IIRC, the
>>> manufacturers actually use dyes that re-radiate some of the sun's UV
>>> radiation, converting it to visible wavelengths.

>> Though I can't seem to find the reference in the group archives right
>> now, I recall someone posted a link to your bike club where there was a
>> picture I believe is of you and a possibly the GLW, and you are in what
>> you describe as "neon" clothing.  Would you like me to find a link to
>> the picture?

> The "neon" stuff is not merely a normal bright color.  It's different,
> in that it is somewhat flourescent - that is, it re-radiates UV input
> into visible light output.  Most clothing - including most cycle
> clothing - is not that "neon" or fluorescent fabric.  None of mine is
> "neon" or fluorescent.

Many fabric brighteners make ordinary clothes appear that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

ISTM you are splitting hairs a little here.

--
JS.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:52:33


Quote:

> > Why do you praise a short horizontal flag, one that can't be seen
> > until a motorist is almost upon a cyclist, when you disparage a much
> > more visible vertical flag? ?Is it just a style thing?

> > Understand, I don't feel a need for either. ?Like almost all cyclists,
> > I do fine without any flag and without any daytime strobe lights. ?But
> > your attitude certainly seems to lack consistency.

> It always comes down to where one draws the dork line -- I squeezed
> around some Oompa Loompa on a bike this morning who had a half-dozen
> flashers, yellow reflective vest, flippy flag. ?Broad daylight with
> little cloud cover. ?I thought the circus had come to town -- but then
> I remembered I, too, had my front flasher on -- and a rear flasher.
> This safety shit can really creep up on you.

"This safety shit" has been creeping up on American society for
decades now.  It's not to say that there's no value in improving
safety; but we've now got a large contingent of the population who
seem to live their lives in fear, and who are willing to spend
endlessly for minute, or ephemeral, or imaginary improvements in
safety.

It's not restricted to bicycling (check the stuff that's come out in
the last 20 years to protect toddlers!) but since "everyone knows"
bicycling is very, very dangerous, it's fertile ground for this
spending.  And in the great tradition of American consumerism, the
spending takes the place of actually learning things, such as how to
properly ride.

So we have countless pieces of propaganda that say nothing is more
important than wearing a helmet, and ignore any instruction on riding
competently in traffic   We have people who never think about the
value of lane position to dissuade unsafe passing and enhance
conspicuity, but who are willing to spend money for strobes and flippy
flags (but only horizontal ones, never vertical!) for that purpose.

It's not just the accessories.  One must buy the right bike components
and clothing for "safety!"  I've been told that riding with anything
but clipless pedals is dangerous; that using a generator headlight is
dangerous; that shifters that require moving one's hand to shift are
dangerous; that riding without special sunglasses is dangerous; that
riding without bright colors is dangerous.

And yes, there is the "dork line" - or rather, the "currently
acceptable style line" - and its relation to safety and cycling in
general.  I've been told I _must_ wear gloves for cycling safety,
because gosh, what if I fell and skinned my hands?  But I've been told
by a bike shop employee that "NOBODY wears THAT style of glove any
more!"  So not only am I supposed to always wear hand protection, it
must be just the proper style.

Of course, the most common cycling injury isn't a head injury nor a
hand injury; it's a skinned knee.  Yet the obvious protection against
that injury would be considered dorky in the extreme - at least, this
season.  Who knows?  Maybe next year Nutcase will come out with
fashionable, trendy Kneecase knee protectors!

None of the "buy this!!!" haranguing, here or elsewhere, is data
driven.  Someone hoping for a quick buck releases a product; someone
like Scharf sees the product and buys it, and generates his own
confirmation bias; and next thing you know, everybody _must_ use that
product, or they're "foolish" or, perhaps, a burden on society.

I'm just hoping the mandatory knee protectors don't come out until
after I'm gone.  And I hope it doesn't happen by being mowed down by a
salmon-riding drunk cyclist because I didn't have a front strobe and
six foot vertical flag.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:56:36


Quote:

> Some people go overboard without any evidence to support their position...

:-) Gosh, Stephen, you think so?

Quote:
> i.e. the suggestion that a six foot vertical flag provides any benefit
> at all on a non-recumbent.

So, do you have tons of data that show that a two foot horizontal flag
is wildly effective?  Or do you merely not understand that your
personal testimonials don't count as data?

Quote:
> Daytime lighting and a horizontal flag (as nerdy as it may be) have an
> effect on drivers that is clear. For daytime lighting the effect on
> drivers is rather amazing in terms of drivers yielding to, rather than
> ignoring, cyclists. For the flag, they'll make a wide arc around the
> bicyclist.

Ah, it's the latter.  You simply can't understand that "Scharf says"
is not data.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:07:01


Quote:






> >>>>>> ? ? 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).

> >>>>> You're misstating my position, probably deliberately. ?I have no
> >>>>> desire to use any flag on my bike - not the six foot tall, extra-
> >>>>> visible one I linked to, nor the two foot horizontal one you say you
> >>>>> use. ?And I don't wear neon clothing to ride; I don't own a single
> >>>>> piece of neon cloth.

> >>>> What is "neon" clothing?

> >>> I believe Scharf is referring to the super-conspicuous, high-
> >>> visibility colors used in some cycling jerseys, jackets, etc. ?They're
> >>> typically yellow, greenish-yellow, pink or orange. ?IIRC, the
> >>> manufacturers actually use dyes that re-radiate some of the sun's UV
> >>> radiation, converting it to visible wavelengths.

> >> Though I can't seem to find the reference in the group archives right
> >> now, I recall someone posted a link to your bike club where there was a
> >> picture I believe is of you and a possibly the GLW, and you are in what
> >> you describe as "neon" clothing. ?Would you like me to find a link to
> >> the picture?

> > The "neon" stuff is not merely a normal bright color. ?It's different,
> > in that it is somewhat flourescent - that is, it re-radiates UV input
> > into visible light output. ?Most clothing - including most cycle
> > clothing - is not that "neon" or fluorescent fabric. ?None of mine is
> > "neon" or fluorescent.

> Many fabric brighteners make ordinary clothes appear that way.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

> ISTM you are splitting hairs a little here.

At this point, I'm really curious:  Do they not have such stuff in
Australia? Here it's sometimes called "neon," sometimes "day-glow,"
but the technical term is "fluorescent."

I've never heard of anyone searching out a certain fabric soap to make
a jersey fluoresce (and I doubt it would make an easily observed
difference), but I've seen plenty of people riding in jerseys that
exhibit that property.

I sag our club's century ride every year. The effect seems greatest on
a dim, cloudy day or when the rider is under a canopy of trees. It's
obvious when you see it.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Joy Beeso » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:39:06

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie

Quote:

> Even more O.T., my son was telling me that the approved hand position
> on auto steering wheels is no longer ten-and-two, but somewhere near
> nine and three (or even below, depending on the instructor) -- so when
> the air bag deploys, your thumbs are not blown off.  Of course, it
> takes away your control of the car,

Ten and two was for cars built before power steering became common --
it made it easier to hand-over-hand the wheel around and around.  

Nine and three is for greater control -- you have your hands where
they have the most leverage, and if you are bumped, the jerk
transmitted to the wheel through one hand is opposed by the jerk
transmitted to the wheel by the other hand, so you don't have swerving
off in an unplanned direction added to your other troubles.

If your driving instructor thinks it has anything to do with air bags,
get another instructor.   This one is making up stuff to fill in gaps
in an explanation he didn't understand.  

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Jay Beatti » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:05:10


Quote:


> > > Why do you praise a short horizontal flag, one that can't be seen
> > > until a motorist is almost upon a cyclist, when you disparage a much
> > > more visible vertical flag? ?Is it just a style thing?

> > > Understand, I don't feel a need for either. ?Like almost all cyclists,
> > > I do fine without any flag and without any daytime strobe lights. ?But
> > > your attitude certainly seems to lack consistency.

> > It always comes down to where one draws the dork line -- I squeezed
> > around some Oompa Loompa on a bike this morning who had a half-dozen
> > flashers, yellow reflective vest, flippy flag. ?Broad daylight with
> > little cloud cover. ?I thought the circus had come to town -- but then
> > I remembered I, too, had my front flasher on -- and a rear flasher.
> > This safety shit can really creep up on you.

> "This safety shit" has been creeping up on American society for
> decades now. ?It's not to say that there's no value in improving
> safety; but we've now got a large contingent of the population who
> seem to live their lives in fear, and who are willing to spend
> endlessly for minute, or ephemeral, or imaginary improvements in
> safety.

> It's not restricted to bicycling (check the stuff that's come out in
> the last 20 years to protect toddlers!) but since "everyone knows"
> bicycling is very, very dangerous, it's fertile ground for this
> spending. ?And in the great tradition of American consumerism, the
> spending takes the place of actually learning things, such as how to
> properly ride.

Even when taking the entire lane, cars may not see you due to visual
clutter. Conspicuity does matter, but I would never go so far as to
say that a daylight flasher is "necessary' -- I think a bright jersey
has far more impact on a sunny day, and I never worry about any of
this when riding in a group or in light traffic.  I don't worry about
much of anything when riding on a sunny day, really.  I think an
appropriate safety message would be to wear a conspicuous jersey/shirt
(meaning something that is not urban camouflage) and don't ride like a
dope.  OTOH, when its dark or gloomy . . . light 'em up!

-- Jay Beattie.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by SMS » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:55:35


Quote:
> Even when taking the entire lane, cars may not see you due to visual
> clutter. Conspicuity does matter, but I would never go so far as to
> say that a daylight flasher is "necessary'

"Necessary" is not the appropriate metric. No one would deny that front
(and rear) strobes makes cyclists far more visible in the daytime.
Whether or not the increased conspicuity actually has an effect on the
number and/or severity of bike/car collisions is the question. There is
unlikely to be a study that directly addresses this directly but based
on studies on the effectiveness of motorcycle DRLs, and the studies on
the effectiveness of vehicle DRLs as they relate to pedestrians, it
would appear to be logical that there is a positive effect for bicycle
strobes.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by datakol » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:45:35

I examine headlamp reflectors of Lexi, Infinity.....getting the lumens down the road.

Was in beachville today for IRS USPS and LO! turning left from Main across a gap left by the creeping opposite lane...

a middle age cyclist challenged me for the corner. INCROYABLE deafinitely a tourist.

Slowmo, large signal on large white van carrying very large kayak and el dopo runs past my miner blind side while I avoid ramming the motorcycle gang, 4 ***s, 6 *** HS girls, and a fat man with a dog.

The wife stopped at the curb lookin meak.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:48:44


Quote:





> > > > > > 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.

> > > > The choices I make are based fundamentally on obedience to traffic
> > > > laws, with some extra bike-specific competence added (i.e. riding
> > > > skills, attention to road hazards, etc.).

> > > > OTOH, you've made it clear that you disobey laws by riding at night
> > > > without lights, riding drunk, riding facing traffic, and riding so
> > > > chaotically that it startles motorists, and that you even take
> > > > pleasure in startling motorists.  You've also mentioned the crashes
> > > > that have resulted from your riding style.  So it's not just my whims
> > > > vs. yours; your choices fail by comparison against a recognized
> > > > external standard.

> > > The "royal we"?

> > > > > 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,...

> > > > As I've said before:  every wrong-way rider, or unlit night cyclist,
> > > > or red light runner thinks _they_ are competent, and _they_ know it's
> > > > best to ride as they do.

> > > You presume to know what *every* one of them thinks?

> > > > Yet those riders are heavily overrepresented
> > > > in crash data.

> > > Naturally.  So what?  (You seem to assume that avoiding crashes is the
> > > end all, be all of competency.)

> > > > Where's the external standard...

> > Hmm... I'm sure there must be many (the nice thing about
> > "standards" :-).  Let me work on that for you when I have the time and
> > possibly the inclination...

> > > ... that proves you're not really just
> > > > another drunk, lightless, wrong-way, red-light-running person on a
> > > > bike?

> > > Who ever said I wasn't another of those?

> > This is where the "judgmental" comes in.  I never said I wasn't
> > another of those; In fact I've said that's exactly what I am
> > (variously, at times, and only very occasionally all at once).  The
> > reason I say that you're judgmental is that you regard "another of
> > those" as "just another of those", ascribing faulty thinking,
> > reasoning, character, and ability - when in fact the difference may
> > simply be one of values.  I do not lack intelligence, skill, or
> > consideration for others, but that is what you conclude, and that is
> > faulty logic.

> > >  And yet, I am not
> > > represented _at all_ in the data that you seem to consider the
> > > ultimate criteria of competency.

> > And yet, your cracked logic "proves" the correlation in your own mind;
> > and your (feeble) mind extends this distortion to the "royal
> > we" (which is also in your head).

> You're blathering, Dan,

I do more than my share of blathering, but some worthwhile concepts
sneak in there.

Quote:
> ... and wasting time following up your own posts.

Judge much?

Quote:
> Let's summarize, OK?  You mock me for riding according to the rules of
> the road and for trying to be competent and predictable in traffic.

I do, but only because you are so supercilious about it, and so super-
silly about it.

Quote:
> You praise your "anything goes" riding style,

Well, yeah, you could say "praise".  I greatly enjoy it.

Quote:
> ... and have bragged...

Pride is one of my major faults.  I understand that's quite common
though.  I'm working on it.

Quote:
> ... about
> riding in lots of ways I think are crazy.

I have no problem with *you* thinking they're crazy.  (Heck, I might
be disappointed if you didn't.)

Quote:
> Yet you've also talked about your crashes, and about the motorists
> you've startled, and the ones you've angered to the point of outright
> hostility.

I've had crashes; it goes with the risk/reward territory.  I do
observe reactions to my actions that suggest people expected something
else; but meeting their expectations is not that important to me.  And
as for getting angry... well, that's up to them.

Quote:
> My on-road riding experience is almost totally absent of crashes.
> (One 3 mph fall on a super steep, gravel-covered downhill in the
> 1990s, one fork that suddenly broke on our tandem about five years
> ago.)  That's since 1972

I think you've missed out on a *lot* of what life has to offer, but if
it makes you happy, nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
> I get along well with almost all motorists,

So do I... well, most motorists, anyway - relatively well.  It *might*
be "almost all", but I wouldn't put it that way.  But I notice you
don't say "all"; not even a super swell guy like you?

Quote:
> I enjoy riding in a wide variety of environments for a wide variety of
> purposes - commuting, shopping, recreation rides, club rides, touring
> and off-road...

I also enjoy a wide variety of [blah, blah, blah... ]

Quote:
> - and I've ridden in most states of the union plus about
> a dozen foreign countries.

And I've ridden countless places that you never have.

Quote:
> Despite your claims to be absolutely unique, your crash experience
> matches the general trend: those who make up their own rules or
> violate traffic laws at whim crash more frequently, no matter how
> smart they think they're being at the moment.

You're being judgmental again.

Quote:
>  OTOH, I don't claim to
> be unique.

"OTOH"?  Where did I claim to be unique?

(And whether or not you claim it, you *are* one unique individual ;-)

Quote:
>  I know that people who ride my way...

Your way.

Quote:
> ... have only very rare
> crashes, far fewer per mile than the average.  I'm just another
> competent rider.

(Eek!)  So approximately how many of you are there in the world?

You seem to consider yourself pretty special:

"Well, I'm into it a bit deeper than that. You see, I teach the
course. I'm a League Certified Instructor, number 315, certified by
the League of American Bicyclists. That's the national organization
that puts the course together."

"Whoo boy! No wonder you're always giving me advice!"

Quote:
> You seem to want my approval for your riding style.  Give up - it's
> not going to happen.  Hell, you shouldn't even be trying.  A spitball-
> throwing kid shouldn't expect approval from a teacher, a tatooed
> slacker street beggar shouldn't expect approval from a hard-working
> taxpayer, and a no-rules POB shouldn't expect approval from a
> competent vehicular cyclist.

Whoa!  Spitball, slacker, beggar, drunk - and I was telling myself to
get a grip.

Anyway I don't want your approval (let alone expect it).  Blech!  I
guess because of that brotherhood thing that I perceive elements of, I
keep trying for some understanding (that's all), but it's probably not
going to happen (would require the capacity for it).

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Dan » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:54:45

Speaking of bike lights, I was at the mall today in the degenerate
city and saw a bike locked up at a bike rack around the corner of the
building and kind of out of sight of all but a deserted back corner of
the parking lot with two (2) ~$60 PB Blaze 2-watt headlights, some
kind of 'puter, and a ~$20 SuperFlash tailight on QR brackets (!)

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by J.B.Slocom » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:45:48



Quote:

>Speaking of bike lights, I was at the mall today in the degenerate
>city and saw a bike locked up at a bike rack around the corner of the
>building and kind of out of sight of all but a deserted back corner of
>the parking lot with two (2) ~$60 PB Blaze 2-watt headlights, some
>kind of 'puter, and a ~$20 SuperFlash tailight on QR brackets (!)

What'cha gonna do with two new lites? :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Duan » Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:53:15


Quote:






>>>>>> 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).

>>>>> You're misstating my position, probably deliberately. I
>>>>> have no
>>>>> desire to use any flag on my bike - not the six foot
>>>>> tall, extra-
>>>>> visible one I linked to, nor the two foot horizontal one
>>>>> you say you
>>>>> use. And I don't wear neon clothing to ride; I don't
>>>>> own a single
>>>>> piece of neon cloth.

>>>> What is "neon" clothing?

>>> I believe Scharf is referring to the super-conspicuous, high-
>>> visibility colors used in some cycling jerseys, jackets,
>>> etc. They're
>>> typically yellow, greenish-yellow, pink or orange. IIRC, the
>>> manufacturers actually use dyes that re-radiate some of
>>> the sun's UV
>>> radiation, converting it to visible wavelengths.

>> Though I can't seem to find the reference in the group
>> archives right now, I recall someone posted a link to your
>> bike club where there was a picture I believe is of you and
>> a possibly the GLW, and you are in what you describe as
>> "neon" clothing. Would you like me to find a link to the
>> picture?

> Neon? Genuine Team Kit can help one look more aero:

> http://www.110pounds.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/sausage.jpg

Thanks for that.  I was contemplating a do-nut with my coffee that I
really don't need.
 
 
 

Another spontaneous headlight compliment

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:09:15


Quote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie


> > Even more O.T., my son was telling me that the approved hand position
> > on auto steering wheels is no longer ten-and-two, but somewhere near
> > nine and three (or even below, depending on the instructor) -- so when
> > the air bag deploys, your thumbs are not blown off. ?Of course, it
> > takes away your control of the car,

> Ten and two was for cars built before power steering became common --
> it made it easier to hand-over-hand the wheel around and around.

> Nine and three is for greater control -- you have your hands where
> they have the most leverage, and if you are bumped, the jerk
> transmitted to the wheel through one hand is opposed by the jerk
> transmitted to the wheel by the other hand, so you don't have swerving
> off in an unplanned direction added to your other troubles.

> If your driving instructor thinks it has anything to do with air bags,
> get another instructor. ? This one is making up stuff to fill in gaps
> in an explanation he didn't understand.

Actually, the 9 and 3 advice is the very latest thing, and it is
apparently based on fear of airbags injuring hands & arms, or worse.
Here's a link:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/get-times-youre-driving-all-wrong-518710

Of course, I don't see that anyone's tallied the number of such hand
and arm injuries, to determine how likely they are.  It seems to be
more of the usual mentality:  "This _could_ happen, so you must
NEVER..."

I look at this as another unintended consequence of ever-increasing
standards for safety devices.  "An explosive device in your steering
wheel that will propel plastic parts toward you at 200 mph?  Sure!
What could go wrong?"

And before the airbag fans jump all over me: Yes, they've certainly
saved lives.  But they've saved far fewer lives than projected, and
they may have saved most of those by simply scaring people into
actually wearing seat belts.  When your car's visor has a warning that
your airbag can take off your head if you don't wear your seatbelt, it
tends to make you buckle up.

- Frank Krygowski