AG: On being overtaken
 

On 6/28/2015 9:07 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:24:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Cropduster? I hope you were holding your breath!

I don't think he was actually dusting crops -- they were the wrong
kind of crops, for one thing -- but he was flying back and forth in a
cropdusterly manner. Perhaps sight-seeing, or practicing turns -- or
trying not to get too far from the airstrip before it was his turn to
land, though I don't know of any airstrips in that area.

We were bike touring through the Dakotas when we did encounter a crop
duster, servicing the fields immediately beside the highway. I actually
did try to hold my breath. But it's a hard thing to do while riding a bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Twist-ties
 

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

. . . or just throwing the half bag of chips
away :-)

The chips were all eaten by the time I got to the next re-supply
point. Hot day, salt tasted *good*.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

AG: On being overtaken
 

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:50:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/28/2015 9:07 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:24:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Cropduster? I hope you were holding your breath!

I don't think he was actually dusting crops -- they were the wrong
kind of crops, for one thing -- but he was flying back and forth in a
cropdusterly manner. Perhaps sight-seeing, or practicing turns -- or
trying not to get too far from the airstrip before it was his turn to
land, though I don't know of any airstrips in that area.

We were bike touring through the Dakotas when we did encounter a crop
duster, servicing the fields immediately beside the highway. I actually
did try to hold my breath. But it's a hard thing to do while riding a bike.

Or for very long :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Twist-ties
 

On 28/06/2015 11:22 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

. . . or just throwing the half bag of chips
away :-)

The chips were all eaten by the time I got to the next re-supply
point. Hot day, salt tasted *good*.


Was going to suggest that as an alternate to the original solution. :-)

AG: Twist-ties
 

On 6/28/2015 11:22 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

. . . or just throwing the half bag of chips
away :-)

The chips were all eaten by the time I got to the next re-supply
point. Hot day, salt tasted *good*.

Oh, it does! One friend of mine swears by V8 juice while riding,
largely because of the salt content, she says. (I think it's got a fair
amount of potassium as well as sodium.)

As mentioned, for hot rides, I add a bit of salt substitute to my water
bottles.

But I think it was mostly Pringles and Mountain Dew that got me
coast-to-coast. ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Twist-ties
 

On 6/29/2015 11:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2015 11:22 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

. . . or just throwing the half bag of chips
away :-)

The chips were all eaten by the time I got to the next re-supply
point. Hot day, salt tasted *good*.

Oh, it does! One friend of mine swears by V8 juice while riding,
largely because of the salt content, she says. (I think it's got a fair
amount of potassium as well as sodium.)

As mentioned, for hot rides, I add a bit of salt substitute to my water
bottles.

But I think it was mostly Pringles and Mountain Dew that got me
coast-to-coast. ;-)

It was definitely Snickers and good ole water for me!

Orange juice or a mix orange-mango really helped in recharging as well.

Those energy drinks were worthless. They only upset my stomach.


SMH

AG: On being overtaken
 

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 20:58:11 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Joy Beeson considered Sun, 28 Jun 2015
22:07:17 -0300 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:24:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Cropduster? I hope you were holding your breath!

I don't think he was actually dusting crops -- they were the wrong
kind of crops, for one thing -- but he was flying back and forth in a
cropdusterly manner. Perhaps sight-seeing, or practicing turns -- or
trying not to get too far from the airstrip before it was his turn to
land, though I don't know of any airstrips in that area.

Most civil aviation regulations around the world specifically prohibit
low level flying except for specific purposes or by special permit.
Actual crop dusting, or maybe training to do it, would qualify,
hanging around to get a landing slot certainly wouldn't, nor would
sight-seeing.
Generally, it's 500ft above ground level that is the specified
minimum, although in metric countries that may be 150M (which is
492ft) - I'd have to look that up before traveling to such a country
if I was going to fly there (unlikely now, as I'm no longer current
and very unlikely to ever regain my medical certificate).
Even on approach, if you can't see a clear runway in front of you by
500ft AGL, you go around - even on most instrument approaches (you
need a high category auto land capability to descend lower without
visibility) that's called the "decision height" (although it's only
the first one - you can reject the landing right up until the point
where you've slowed too much to be able to take off on the remaining
runway).

When waiting to land, you just join the pattern/circuit, inserting
yourself (in whichever way is "normal" for the country you are in)
where there is a gap big enough, and if there isn't a gap, you go into
a holding pattern nearby (within gliding range), which is a racetrack
pattern where you just fly back and forth between two points, making
standard rate 180 degree turns around each one. Busy
airfields/strips/ports have fixed locations for these which will be
published in the airfield information, which is required briefing for
any pilot using that field - even unexpectedly. A pilot is expected
to carry information for all airfields that (s)he may even divert to,
including those of sufficient size along the route. Those big bags
that you see the pilot lugging onto every flight are not just for his
packed lunch!

So I very much doubt if he was just hanging around drilling holes in
the sky waiting to land somewhere!
You do that as high as you can, so that if things go pear-shaped, you
can glide in to the field - if you call a mayday, any other traffic
WILL get out of the way (if the pilots value their licenses!).

During training, I had to demonstrate the ability to make an
"unplanned" diversion, including choosing the airfield (from the
chart), looking it up in the airfield directory and reading the
information for the airfield (runway heading, airfild elevation,
approach guidance, radio frequencies, radio navigation beacon
availability and frequency, specified holds, and layout diagram), and
make a safe approach and landing there, with no prior use of that
field - and all of this while flying the aircraft and maintaining
situational awareness.
This ability was required before I was allowed to fly solo away from
the training field, although it wasn't included in either of the
actual flight tests (although an engine failure was, including a low
approach to an empty [agricultural, not air] field which I had to
select and visually check for obstructions, then make an approach to
100ft before climbing away - flight tests are another "allowed
activity" for low descents).

In all flying, the priorities are the same - aviate, navigate,
communicate, in that order.
So the absolute priority is to fly the aircraft, maintaining proper
control and observation at all times.
Then know where you are, where you are going, and what is around you.
Finally, tell whoever needs to know where you are, what you are, and
what your intentions are.

In general, pilots stay as far from the ground as possible - not many
people have ever got into trouble colliding with the sky.

There used to be a joke that circulated where fixed wing aircraft
were. The anxious mother telling her son to, "fly low and slow". :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Twist-ties
 

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I've been using rubber bands,

And yesterday, while writing my time of departure from the
supermarket, I noticed that a loop of the rubber band around the top
of my pencil had come undone.

I don't think I would have used it. I also noticed that it was time
to throw it out and put on a fresh one (though when I did that just
now, the old one held together and stretched normally).

Not to mention that my memo-pad case won't work properly without the
rubber band. It is a very cheap case that was intended as a party
favor, so the special pen that keeps it closed broke early on, but I
found that a short pencil with a rubber band around the top to keep it
from falling on through works fine.

The pencil is short enough that the point is inside the hinge-like
clasp, so it doesn't matter that it doesn't retract.


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

AG: Twist-ties
 

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:13:56 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jun 2015 19:55:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I've been using rubber bands,

And yesterday, while writing my time of departure from the
supermarket, I noticed that a loop of the rubber band around the top
of my pencil had come undone.

I don't think I would have used it. I also noticed that it was time
to throw it out and put on a fresh one (though when I did that just
now, the old one held together and stretched normally).

Not to mention that my memo-pad case won't work properly without the
rubber band. It is a very cheap case that was intended as a party
favor, so the special pen that keeps it closed broke early on, but I
found that a short pencil with a rubber band around the top to keep it
from falling on through works fine.

The pencil is short enough that the point is inside the hinge-like
clasp, so it doesn't matter that it doesn't retract.

I used to carry a notebook and pencil to record things such as changes
to a route or times and was continually either loosing a pencil or the
point was broken, etc.

Finally reason triumphed and I now just use my "smart phone" with a
"notes" app.
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Twist-ties
 

On 7/2/2015 9:09 PM, John B. wrote:

I used to carry a notebook and pencil to record things such as changes
to a route or times and was continually either loosing a pencil or the
point was broken, etc.

Finally reason triumphed and I now just use my "smart phone" with a
"notes" app.

I, too, find a smart phone to be much more efficient. For example, it
allows me to lose* all my notes all at once, rather than slowly losing
them bit by bit. Ah, electronics!

(BTW, note the spelling. "Lose" is one of the most frequently
misspelled words in English - so much so that I briefly wondered if
other English-speaking countries spelled it differently.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Twist-ties
 

Am 03.07.2015 um 05:32 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

(BTW, note the spelling. "Lose" is one of the most frequently
misspelled words in English - so much so that I briefly wondered if
other English-speaking countries spelled it differently.)

Homophones are difficult to deal with for native speakers who learn
language by ear; more important common errors are
who's vs whose
it's vs its
their vs there (vs. they're in Northern England)

So lose vs. on the loose (escaped) just lines up with the others.

AG: Twist-ties
 

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:48:59 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 03.07.2015 um 05:32 schrieb Frank Krygowski:

(BTW, note the spelling. "Lose" is one of the most frequently
misspelled words in English - so much so that I briefly wondered if
other English-speaking countries spelled it differently.)

Homophones are difficult to deal with for native speakers who learn
language by ear; more important common errors are
who's vs whose
it's vs its
their vs there (vs. they're in Northern England)

So lose vs. on the loose (escaped) just lines up with the others.

From time to time I've had folks that were learning English tell me
how difficult it is. For example, if an Indonesian can hear an
Indonesian word pronounced he can spell it. I remember my secretary
trying to come to grips with some of the English words, break and
brake, for example.
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Grease on your hands
 

(written 23 June 2015)

Tragically, one day I bungeed a plastic grocery bag of emergency stuff
to the outside of a pannier without tying the handles through the
wires.

I'd been refining that kit for decades, and I'd just made a spiffy new
case for the tools. http://wlweather.net/pagesew/BIKE_KIT/BIKEROLL.HTM

This morning I realized that one thing I haven't added to the
regenerating tool kit is a lip-salve box filled with Eucerin Original
Healing (the hand-lotion you can slice). So where do I get a
lip-salve box now that lip salve comes only in sticks? Perhaps the
screw-top nail-art boxes they sell at Sally's Beauty Supply would do
(but what do I do with the other five boxes in the package?)

I have some drop-dispenser bottles, and could substitute olive oil --
but I had a *very* good reason to stop carrying liquids in my tool
kit.

Oh, well, these days I fix my flats with a cell phone anyway.

I've heard of people who clean their hands with gasoline after working
on their bikes. Ew, gross, ick! *Any* grease or oil will take chain
grease off; you don't have to use a solvent that stinks to high
heaven, poses a fire hazard, and strips enough fat out of your skin to
leave you with a medical condition.

I used to use abrasive soap, but it doesn't dissolve grease as well as
grease does.

I generally use olive oil, because there's a bottle next to the
microwave, and the kitchen is only one door from the garage. Before I
started cooking with olive oil, there was usually a skillet of used
fat sitting around.

Special containers of "mechanic's hand cleaner" are available; the
smallest can of Crisco works just as well.

All work the same way: grab a glob of grease, rub it into the stain,
rub it off with a paper towel, repeat until clean -- or, out on the
road, until you don't mind touching stuff.

-------------------

At that point I stopped writing and went for a twenty-five mile ride.
Happened to pass Sally's Beauty Supply on the way back, but they have
discontinued the empty boxes. Maybe I can find something suitable in
the craftsy-waftsy department at Walmart. (Or I might find an old
lip-salve box if I cleaned out all my drawers.) I must also check
pill-box displays.

-------------------

Before getting around to posting this, I found a sample packet of hand
lotion left over from when I was a Fuller Brush Man. It still
squished, so I added it to the emergency kit.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
http://wlweather.net/N3F/ -- Writers' Exchange

AG: Grease on your hands
 

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 23:31:17 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:


(written 23 June 2015)

Tragically, one day I bungeed a plastic grocery bag of emergency stuff
to the outside of a pannier without tying the handles through the
wires.

I'd been refining that kit for decades, and I'd just made a spiffy new
case for the tools. http://wlweather.net/pagesew/BIKE_KIT/BIKEROLL.HTM

This morning I realized that one thing I haven't added to the
regenerating tool kit is a lip-salve box filled with Eucerin Original
Healing (the hand-lotion you can slice). So where do I get a
lip-salve box now that lip salve comes only in sticks? Perhaps the
screw-top nail-art boxes they sell at Sally's Beauty Supply would do
(but what do I do with the other five boxes in the package?)

I have some drop-dispenser bottles, and could substitute olive oil --
but I had a *very* good reason to stop carrying liquids in my tool
kit.

Oh, well, these days I fix my flats with a cell phone anyway.

I've heard of people who clean their hands with gasoline after working
on their bikes. Ew, gross, ick! *Any* grease or oil will take chain
grease off; you don't have to use a solvent that stinks to high
heaven, poses a fire hazard, and strips enough fat out of your skin to
leave you with a medical condition.

I used to use abrasive soap, but it doesn't dissolve grease as well as
grease does.

I generally use olive oil, because there's a bottle next to the
microwave, and the kitchen is only one door from the garage. Before I
started cooking with olive oil, there was usually a skillet of used
fat sitting around.

Special containers of "mechanic's hand cleaner" are available; the
smallest can of Crisco works just as well.

All work the same way: grab a glob of grease, rub it into the stain,
rub it off with a paper towel, repeat until clean -- or, out on the
road, until you don't mind touching stuff.

-------------------

At that point I stopped writing and went for a twenty-five mile ride.
Happened to pass Sally's Beauty Supply on the way back, but they have
discontinued the empty boxes. Maybe I can find something suitable in
the craftsy-waftsy department at Walmart. (Or I might find an old
lip-salve box if I cleaned out all my drawers.) I must also check
pill-box displays.

-------------------

Before getting around to posting this, I found a sample packet of hand
lotion left over from when I was a Fuller Brush Man. It still
squished, so I added it to the emergency kit.


Way back when I was an apprentice one of the lads used to get cleaned
up at the end of the day by plunging both hands in a 50 gal. drum of
oil, scrubbing his hands together and than "rinsing " them in the oil
again. Than just wash the oil off with soap and water. Apparently the
oil and scrubbing got the grease and grime off, the rinse cleaned off
the dirty oil-grease-grime layer and the soap just sluiced the new
clean oil away.

While the rest of us were struggling with the "Lava" soap and the
scrubbing brushes he was off and away with clean hands :-)

( I'm not sure whether that was good for the lube oil though :-)



--
cheers,

John B.

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

I read somewhere on the Web that if you haven't got a wringer, you can
press water out of wet clothing with a rolling pin: Simply lay the
clothes out flat and roll the pin over them.

The source said "a plastic table" -- I'd use my wooden picnic table,
because the expressed water is going to drip all over, and it would be
nice not to have to mop it up.

I once stayed in a mountain cabin that had a wooden counter that also
served as the drainboard of the sink; that would be an ideal place to
roll water out of wet cloth.

This trick might be useful when you've come in out of the rain, or
when you come home dripping with sweat and rinse your clothes in a
bucket.

Better make it two buckets -- one for the black stuff and one for the
rest.


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

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 00:03:46 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I read somewhere on the Web that if you haven't got a wringer, you can
press water out of wet clothing with a rolling pin: Simply lay the
clothes out flat and roll the pin over them.

The source said "a plastic table" -- I'd use my wooden picnic table,
because the expressed water is going to drip all over, and it would be
nice not to have to mop it up.

I once stayed in a mountain cabin that had a wooden counter that also
served as the drainboard of the sink; that would be an ideal place to
roll water out of wet cloth.

This trick might be useful when you've come in out of the rain, or
when you come home dripping with sweat and rinse your clothes in a
bucket.

Better make it two buckets -- one for the black stuff and one for the
rest.

Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

My wife just reminded me that way, way, way, back when we were first
married and coin washers weren't invented she used to wash all our
stuff by hand, To get the water out, she tells me, just twist (wring)
the clothes and then give them several vigorous shakes to get the
wrinkles out.
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

John B. Slocomb wrote in
:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 00:03:46 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:


I read somewhere on the Web that if you haven't got a wringer, you can
press water out of wet clothing with a rolling pin: Simply lay the
clothes out flat and roll the pin over them.

The source said "a plastic table" -- I'd use my wooden picnic table,
because the expressed water is going to drip all over, and it would be
nice not to have to mop it up.

I once stayed in a mountain cabin that had a wooden counter that also
served as the drainboard of the sink; that would be an ideal place to
roll water out of wet cloth.

This trick might be useful when you've come in out of the rain, or
when you come home dripping with sweat and rinse your clothes in a
bucket.

Better make it two buckets -- one for the black stuff and one for the
rest.

Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

My wife just reminded me that way, way, way, back when we were first
married and coin washers weren't invented she used to wash all our
stuff by hand, To get the water out, she tells me, just twist (wring)
the clothes and then give them several vigorous shakes to get the
wrinkles out.

The other day after cycling to my gym to work out, I rinsed my jersey to
get the sweat out. All I had to do was hand-wring it and, after 45
minutes, it was wearable--and it kept me cool in the 30 Celsius weather
until it dried.

It was a "Screaming Yellow" version of this:
http://www.mec.ca/product/5036-376/p...-jersey-mens/?
q=pearl%2Bizumi%2Bss%2Bjersey.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

On 7/12/2015 8:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

Several choices:

https://www.lehmans.com/p-690-our-good-wringer.aspx

https://www.lehmans.com/p-2399-lehma...d-wringer.aspx

https://www.lehmans.com/p-3046-home-...r-washers.aspx

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:12:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

$195.00 from Dynajet
$159,99 from Lehman
$115.00 from Etsy
$140.00 from Woodward Crossings
$149.00 "from 2 stores"
$165.33 from Shopzeon

But there isn't room in my closet-size laundry room -- not to mention
no tub to clamp it to.

Swimming pools used to have free-standing hand-cranked wringers to dry
bathing suits before you went home. I believe that the water just
dripped onto the floor, which was designed for dripping-wet people. If
I recall correctly there was a grid-like mat to accommodate people who
hadn't taken their shoes off yet.


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

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:44:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/12/2015 8:12 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

Several choices:

https://www.lehmans.com/p-690-our-good-wringer.aspx

https://www.lehmans.com/p-2399-lehma...d-wringer.aspx

https://www.lehmans.com/p-3046-home-...r-washers.aspx


Goodness. I didn't know that Americans were allowed to actually do
laundry any more. I assumed that the political correction police would
have labeled it as discriminatory toward Women, Men or "Others" as
well as being hazardous to the environment.

--
cheers,

John B.

AG: I never tried this myself, but it ought to work
 

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:45:53 -0300, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:12:10 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Way back when, they used to make a two roller "wringer" for those who
did the laundry by hand. Two rubber rollers in a frame with a hand
crank to turn the rollers and a clamp sort of thing to attach it to
the wash tub.

Just the thing, if they still make them :-)

$195.00 from Dynajet
$159,99 from Lehman
$115.00 from Etsy
$140.00 from Woodward Crossings
$149.00 "from 2 stores"
$165.33 from Shopzeon

But there isn't room in my closet-size laundry room -- not to mention
no tub to clamp it to.

Swimming pools used to have free-standing hand-cranked wringers to dry
bathing suits before you went home. I believe that the water just
dripped onto the floor, which was designed for dripping-wet people. If
I recall correctly there was a grid-like mat to accommodate people who
hadn't taken their shoes off yet.

Strange, You know. Hand wringers used to be for "po folks" that
couldn't afford an electric washing machine. It looks that they have
moved up-market more than a little.

Perhaps they have been classified as "retro" and thus have become more
valiable :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Grease on your hands
 

Yay, rah! Today, in preparation for embroidery class, I cleaned out
my other little bag of stuff -- the one I carry in my purse. Lo and
behold, it contained a lip-salve box with Eucerine already in it.
Needlework emergencies seldom leave me with black grease on my hands,
so I moved it to the emergency kit on the bike.

And I hope that I never need it.

I still plan to go to the craftsy-waftsy department at Walmart -- if
only because I've realized that I can leave our car there and ride my
bike to Etna Green. Pity there isn't much else within fifteen miles
of that parking lot, but even *one* entirely-new ride is a big deal.

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

AG: Roadside repairs
 

Make an unshakeable habit of putting the valve cap in your pocket
whenever you inflate a tire. If you forget to put it back on, at
least you'll have it with you, and small parts in your pocket never
get bumped off the tube'n'tool tote and roll into a ditch.

The muffin-tin trick is quite acceptable when you are taking something
apart in the comfort of your own workshop, but if you don't have a
table to set it on, a container of loose parts is sooner or later
gonna get kicked.


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

AG: Keys: too tired to write -- I've been riding
 

I'm too tired to write tonight, so I'll just natter a bit.

Last Wednesday, I drove to a grocery store and went for a ride for the
first time since we moved here in 2001.

I was surprised to realize that that meant that I had to carry both my
bike keys and my car keys. Made it hard to get at the sunscreen etc.
that I carry in the same pocket. Not to mention that I always got out
the wrong set of keys first.

I think that back when buying groceries in a distant town was a weekly
event, I carried all my keys on one ring. But since then we've bought
a vehicle that has a radio transmitter among its keys, and the house
key and folding scissors accompanying my bike key have been joined by
nail clippers, two knives, a six-foot tape measure, and eight
frequent-customer cards.

To think that once upon a time the bike key was the only key, and I
had a blue key made so it would look nice on a chain around my neck.
I've worn out two locks since then.

That was long before I started keeping a safety pin on my key ring.
That started when my car keys fell out of my pocket while I was trying
to take a nap on a very narrow bench in the warming bus during a night
fire. Luckily, my spouse had brought his keys, and the boys found my
keys when they cleaned the bus.

A while after we moved, I noticed that what I'd thought was a key to
the house didn't open any door in the house. But the key had to be to
something important. I carried it for years, and finally realized
that it was a very important key indeed. It was the key to a
firehouse seven hundred miles away, which is no longer a firehouse.

I wonder whether there is still a kitchen on the second floor.

Just a few weeks ago, I went to the bead shop and bought a package of
brass "lobster-claw clasps". Now all the tools on my key ring are
detachable.

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

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

One day I rode my bike to the grocery. After I'd returned my cart, a
man I passed on my way back to my bike said "I see that you are
wearing a helmet. I wear a helmet too. Helmets are very important."

I hear "helmets are important" a lot, but on a list of important
bicycle safety equipment, helmets would come in no higher than
twentieth.


(1) First and foremost among safety equipment is correctly
tightened nuts and bolts. A bike that falls apart while you are
riding it can ruin your whole day.


A number of second-place items, in the order that I happen to think of
them:

(2) Handlebars firmly connected to your front wheel, so that you
can steer the bike.


(3) Brakes: check that they are present, appropriate, properly
adjusted, brake blocks not worn clear off.


(4) Leather-palm gloves. Sooner or later, you are going to fall,
and when you fall, you are hard-wired to put out your hand to save
yourself. Even ordinary road grit embedded in your palm can make it
difficult to continue, and Murphy guarantees that you'll land on the
only piece of broken glass in ten miles. Glass will slice right
through leather, but probably will be slowed enough to save your
tendons. (Gloves should fit very tightly to prevent "glove stopped,
hand didn't" abrasions.)

Gloves also protect you from the handlebars.


(5) At least two bottle cages. The first sign of dehydration is
stupidity, and sometimes stupidity is fatal. (On a flatfoot/crank
forward bike, one cage will suffice.)


(6) Bottles. Empty cages don't help much.


(7) Fresh water in the bottles. You must see to this before
every ride, no matter how brief. Take the first sip as you are
rolling out the driveway -- this sets the proper rhythm, and also
notifies you that you forgot to clean the bottles while you can still
go back and do something about it.


(8) Properly-built wheels. You don't want to be stranded out in
the boonies with a broken spoke.


(9) Properly-mounted wheels. A wheel with a missing spacer can
roll just fine until you stand up on the pedals to evade some danger.


(10) Tires in good condition, properly mounted. *Usually* a failed
tire is only an inconvenience but if an improperly-mounted front tire
blows off the rim at a critical moment . . .


(11) Spare tube, frame pump, and a tube-repair kit. Mostly just
saves you annoyance, but can save you from a long walk if you flat
where there is no taxi service.


(12) Sound drivetrain: pedals, chainwheels, cranks, cogs, etc. You
know that if a drivetrain fails, it's going to fail when you're
pushing extra hard, and that's not likely to be a convenient time to
lose power.

Luckily, it's very rare for a correctly-installed chain to break.

(Not impossible, though. You'd be amazed at how far a road bike can
draisine up a hill even though one can use only one foot to propel
it.)


(13) Visible clothing -- *please* don't go out after dark dressed
all in black.


(14) Reflectors, white in front and red in back. Even if you don't
plan to go out after dark, you might be delayed, and reflectors are a
cheap back-up. Get real reflectors from an auto-parts store; special
bike reflectors often reflect only in the middle third.

Reflectors on the sides of a bicycle are purely symbolic. Reflectors
work only when headlights are aimed directly at them. If you are
side-on to a headlight beam and far enough away that the driver can do
something about having seen you, you will be out of the headlight beam
by the time he gets there.


(15) A white light in front and a red light in back. If you want
to be seen from the side after dark, or if you want a driver to know
that he is about to pull out of a side road into your path, you *must*
glow with your own light.

It is also important that the lights be the correct colors so that
other operators can tell which way you are going without waiting to
watch you move. A yellow light can be seen from farther away, but you
need a red light too -- and make sure the red light isn't a tight beam
pointed straight back. A red light is most important when seen from
the side, so make sure that it *can* be seen from the side.


(16) Rear view mirror. Don't get one until *after* you've mastered
the art of looking back. A mirror can't tell you when it's safe, but
knowing when it's *not* safe is very valuable information.

Well, the helmet sneaks in early -- a helmet is the most-convenient
place to put a rear-view mirror. It also helps to distinguish you
from a pedestrian in the minds of passing motorists, so I guess it
sneaked in even earlier under "visible clothing".


(17) A luggage rack, preferably fitted with panniers. This is
particularly important on a child's bike: if you don't give a child a
safe way to carry things, he's going to carry things anyway, probably
in his hand, or tied to his handlebars where they interfere with
steering.


(18) -a dime- -a quarter- a cell phone.


(19) and for close-up calls for help: if you can't scream real
loud, carry a whistle. When you need help, scream (or whistle) in
sets of three. "Did I hear something? Yes, I did. And it's coming
from that direction."

Three is the smallest number that can be equally spaced and therefore
unmistakably a signal, so three is nearly always a feature of official
distress calls. One yelp will be dismissed as children playing, two
yelps are random noise, but three equally-spaced yelps, repeated over
and over, mean Something Is Wrong.

On an off-topic but related note: When you find someone lying on the
ground, there are three steps to take: (1) Look around to make sure
that whatever got him won't get you. (2) verify that he isn't just
taking a nap. (3) shriek "help help help" as loud as you can.

*Then* you can start to render first aid.


(20) And yes, if you should happen to bump your head, it's probably
a good idea to have a piece of foam over it -- even better if there's
a stiff shell over the foam to spread the force over a wider area.

The most-important part of a helmet is the chin strap: It doesn't
matter how good the helmet is if it isn't on your head.

Proper fit is also essential -- no chin strap can keep a loose helmet
on your head, and if a helmet is too small, it won't be on your head
in the first place -- a foam fascinator perched on top won't do any
good, unless maybe it deflects a wrench somebody dropped while you
were walking under a ladder.

Then you must put the helmet on in such fashion that your brain is
inside it -- too many "helmets" merely decorate the back of the head,
leaving the most-important parts of the brain fully exposed. The brim
of a helmet must be level when you are standing straight, and you
should be able to see the brim by rolling your eyes up.

Chin straps slip, so a child's helmet should be inspected at intervals
to make sure it still sits on the head properly. Be aware that a
child sometimes thinks it kewl to help a chin strap slip.

If you use a helmet-mounted rear-view mirror, your helmet gets checked
for proper alignment every time you look back. If you don't, put your
helmet on in front of a mirror whenever one is handy -- shop windows
frequently serve -- and roll your eyes up to look at the brim whenever
it occurs to you that you haven't used a mirror recently.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:43:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Out of curiosity do you wear glasses? I ask as I tried a helmet
mounted mirror to see whether I wanted to use one and it almost drove
me crazy. I wear bifocals and the mirror was "above level", if that is
the right description, and when I looked at it, it was through the
upper, "long range" part of my glasses. Couldn't see anything but a
blur. tipping my head back to use the lower part of my glasses didn't
work either as, of course, when I tipped my head back the mirror went
up too :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

Frank Krygowski wrote in news:mpldnc$kp7$1@dont-
email.me:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

I haven't yet found a satisfactory mirror, period. I face optical
challenges similar to those John B. mentions.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road?

Yes.

For bicycling only when sober?

No, but it hasn't come up.

For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

Actually, yes.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Over the past 10 years I have been struck twice by vehicles, come unstuck
three times, and been thrown when a gap between two gratings grabbed my
front wheel. On the one occasion that necessitated a visit to an emergency
room, I was asked if I had been wearing a helmet--I had; they collect that
data for epidemiology and offer no judgement. On the two occasions when my
head did impact the ground, my helmet prevented injury.

I feel ill-equipped when I am astride a bicycle and helmetless. YMMV. No
one has yet complimented me for wearing a helmet, only for wearing a
blinking light on it so I am more visible. But then, I am nearly 59 and
not looking for compliments. Full disclosu I spent over 25 years in the
army and got paid to wear a steel helmet, so I find this styrofoam
headgear they flog to us cyclists is not much of an imposition.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On 8/3/2015 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:43:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Out of curiosity do you wear glasses? I ask as I tried a helmet
mounted mirror to see whether I wanted to use one and it almost drove
me crazy. I wear bifocals and the mirror was "above level", if that is
the right description, and when I looked at it, it was through the
upper, "long range" part of my glasses. Couldn't see anything but a
blur. tipping my head back to use the lower part of my glasses didn't
work either as, of course, when I tipped my head back the mirror went
up too :-)

Yes, I do wear glasses, which is one of the reasons I like
glasses-mounted mirrors. Instead of standard bifocals, mine are
"blended" bifocals.

I don't understand your problem, though. I position my mirror so it's
visible through the top left corner of the glasses lens. That's in the
"distant focused" portion, so it works perfectly for viewing the image
of a car or other cyclist who's a long distance away. Remember, you're
not focusing on the mirror itself, but on the image in the distance.

If the mirror were visible only through the "close focus" portion of the
bifocals, there would be a problem; but that's not the case.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On 8/3/2015 9:47 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in news:mpldnc$kp7$1@dont-
email.me:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

I haven't yet found a satisfactory mirror, period. I face optical
challenges similar to those John B. mentions.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road?

Yes.

For bicycling only when sober?

No, but it hasn't come up.

For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

Actually, yes.

But surely you'll agree that helmets are the number one thing commented
on. It's slacking off just a bit in recent years, but "Always wear a
helmet" is still very commonly the first item in lists of bike safety
advice. Sometimes it's the only item.


But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Over the past 10 years I have been struck twice by vehicles, come unstuck
three times, and been thrown when a gap between two gratings grabbed my
front wheel.

Wow. Over the past 40+ years, I've had only two on-road falls, both at
very slow speed. I've never been hit by a car.

On the one occasion that necessitated a visit to an emergency
room, I was asked if I had been wearing a helmet--I had; they collect that
data for epidemiology and offer no judgement. On the two occasions when my
head did impact the ground, my helmet prevented injury.

I feel ill-equipped when I am astride a bicycle and helmetless. YMMV.

It does vary, and it's interesting. The sentiment you describe is
common in America (and I suppose, in Australia and parts of Canada).
Those are the places where the helmet marketing and propaganda have been
heaviest. Those are also the places where riding a bike is considered a
fringe activity, which allows portraying it as very hazardous.

OTOH, in most of Europe, helmets are mostly confined to the "go fast"
riders, and only since the UCI was persuaded (or incentivized?) to
mandate them for races. On all other continents, they're vanishingly
rare, and almost nobody feels "ill equipped" without one.

Marketing works, I guess.

No
one has yet complimented me for wearing a helmet, only for wearing a
blinking light on it so I am more visible. But then, I am nearly 59 and
not looking for compliments.

Oh, you're just a little kid! ;-)

Actually, one of the incidents that triggered my re-examining of helmet
culture was a compliment, sort of. I'd ridden my bike to the bank, just
as I do to most other "utility" destinations. Having finished my
business there, I was putting the funny hat back on, when a woman
exiting the bank looked at me with scorn and said "Well, at _least_
you're wearing a helmet."

The intended message was that riding a bike was crazy and dangerous.
That was one of the incidents that got me wondering where this "Danger!
Danger!" nonsense comes from. That triggered years of examination of
data. I learned a lot.

Full disclosu I spent over 25 years in the
army and got paid to wear a steel helmet, so I find this styrofoam
headgear they flog to us cyclists is not much of an imposition.

I tend to judge based on data. I wonder why it's promoted for an
activity with such small risk, and ignored for other common activities
with higher risks and/or higher potential societal benefit.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in news:mpldnc$kp7$1@dont-
email.me:


FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.


I haven't yet found a satisfactory mirror, period. I face optical
challenges similar to those John B. mentions.


And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road?


Yes.


For bicycling only when sober?


No, but it hasn't come up.


For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.


Actually, yes.


But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.


Over the past 10 years I have been struck twice by vehicles, come unstuck
three times, and been thrown when a gap between two gratings grabbed my
front wheel. On the one occasion that necessitated a visit to an emergency
room, I was asked if I had been wearing a helmet--I had; they collect that
data for epidemiology and offer no judgement. On the two occasions when my
head did impact the ground, my helmet prevented injury.

I feel ill-equipped when I am astride a bicycle and helmetless. YMMV. No
one has yet complimented me for wearing a helmet, only for wearing a
blinking light on it so I am more visible. But then, I am nearly 59 and
not looking for compliments. Full disclosu I spent over 25 years in the
army and got paid to wear a steel helmet, so I find this styrofoam
headgear they flog to us cyclists is not much of an imposition.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

I was stopped at a light in downtown Northampton, MA one winter day on my
return commute from Amherst and a lady on the corner congratulated me for
riding the bike in the winter. She said she was very impressed with people who
forsook their motorized transport in winter to pedal a bicycle.

However...she then asked me why I was not wearing a bicycle helmet; only a
winter knit cap and thought someone as socially responsible as I obviously was,
would not value their head more.

Fortunately, before I could have a bicycle-pedestrian debate on the merits of
the bicycle helmet, the light turned green and any chance of controversy had
vanished.


SMH

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I tend to judge based on data. I wonder why it's promoted for an
activity with such small risk, and ignored for other common activities
with higher risks and/or higher potential societal benefit.

Perception can almost always trump reality.

I've always wondered why the people telling me I obviously don't value
my head because I'm not wearing a helmet on that deathtrap machine called
a bicycle, yet appear to have no problem not wearing a helmet while they
walk a city street, walk around their yards or in their homes.

An awful lot of people fall walking about with attendant head injuries and
even death.

Yet most would surely say walking doesn't entail the risk that bicycling
does, so no helmet required.

I've seen national statistics on a range of activities, and they do seem to vary
quite a bit. Some of those stats put walking as far more dangerous than
bicycling.


SMH

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:00:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2015 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:43:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Out of curiosity do you wear glasses? I ask as I tried a helmet
mounted mirror to see whether I wanted to use one and it almost drove
me crazy. I wear bifocals and the mirror was "above level", if that is
the right description, and when I looked at it, it was through the
upper, "long range" part of my glasses. Couldn't see anything but a
blur. tipping my head back to use the lower part of my glasses didn't
work either as, of course, when I tipped my head back the mirror went
up too :-)

Yes, I do wear glasses, which is one of the reasons I like
glasses-mounted mirrors. Instead of standard bifocals, mine are
"blended" bifocals.

I don't understand your problem, though. I position my mirror so it's
visible through the top left corner of the glasses lens. That's in the
"distant focused" portion, so it works perfectly for viewing the image
of a car or other cyclist who's a long distance away. Remember, you're
not focusing on the mirror itself, but on the image in the distance.

If the mirror were visible only through the "close focus" portion of the
bifocals, there would be a problem; but that's not the case.

It must be my eyes than as I just tried out your theory with as hand
mirror and there is a distinct difference in how clearly I see the
reflected image in the mirror when I look through the top or bottom
portion of my glasses and that difference also varies depending on how
far the mirror is from my eye.

It is also apparent that different mirrors have a different focal
length or whatever as if I look the central "inside" mirror in the
truck I get a different prospective than when I look in the "wing"
mirrors with both mirrors are essentially the same distance from my
eye. In the wing mirrors the object appears to be much further away
than the inside mirror shows.

I have the suspicion that a glasses ort helmet mounted mirror is a bit
more complex than "just stick a mirror on there".
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On 03/08/2015 9:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:00:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2015 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:43:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Out of curiosity do you wear glasses? I ask as I tried a helmet
mounted mirror to see whether I wanted to use one and it almost drove
me crazy. I wear bifocals and the mirror was "above level", if that is
the right description, and when I looked at it, it was through the
upper, "long range" part of my glasses. Couldn't see anything but a
blur. tipping my head back to use the lower part of my glasses didn't
work either as, of course, when I tipped my head back the mirror went
up too :-)

Yes, I do wear glasses, which is one of the reasons I like
glasses-mounted mirrors. Instead of standard bifocals, mine are
"blended" bifocals.

I don't understand your problem, though. I position my mirror so it's
visible through the top left corner of the glasses lens. That's in the
"distant focused" portion, so it works perfectly for viewing the image
of a car or other cyclist who's a long distance away. Remember, you're
not focusing on the mirror itself, but on the image in the distance.

If the mirror were visible only through the "close focus" portion of the
bifocals, there would be a problem; but that's not the case.

It must be my eyes than as I just tried out your theory with as hand
mirror and there is a distinct difference in how clearly I see the
reflected image in the mirror when I look through the top or bottom
portion of my glasses and that difference also varies depending on how
far the mirror is from my eye.


I have progressive lenses and I don't use helmet mounted mirrors for the
same reason. Also when I get it to the position where it mostly works
it would tend to cause a blind spot for me when I'm looking left at a
stop. I use bar ends on my drop bars.

It is also apparent that different mirrors have a different focal
length or whatever as if I look the central "inside" mirror in the
truck I get a different prospective than when I look in the "wing"
mirrors with both mirrors are essentially the same distance from my
eye. In the wing mirrors the object appears to be much further away
than the inside mirror shows.


The "wing" mirrors here usually have a sticker saying that images may be
closer than they appear.

I have the suspicion that a glasses ort helmet mounted mirror is a bit
more complex than "just stick a mirror on there".

My bar ends need adjusting every time I lean my bike against a wall.


I've never done more than try a glasses mounted mirror and didn't like
the slight weight increase so I can't comment on them but the helmet
mount seemed to work once I had it positioned. I just didn't like the
blind spot. This could have just been me, my helmet, my prescription
etc. I know several people that use them and like them.

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On 8/3/2015 9:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:00:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2015 7:58 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 11:43:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road? For bicycling only when
sober? For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

But a funny hat intended to prevent the 0.6% of the brain injury
fatalities in America that occur while cycling? Oh, gosh, that's very
important.

Out of curiosity do you wear glasses? I ask as I tried a helmet
mounted mirror to see whether I wanted to use one and it almost drove
me crazy. I wear bifocals and the mirror was "above level", if that is
the right description, and when I looked at it, it was through the
upper, "long range" part of my glasses. Couldn't see anything but a
blur. tipping my head back to use the lower part of my glasses didn't
work either as, of course, when I tipped my head back the mirror went
up too :-)

Yes, I do wear glasses, which is one of the reasons I like
glasses-mounted mirrors. Instead of standard bifocals, mine are
"blended" bifocals.

I don't understand your problem, though. I position my mirror so it's
visible through the top left corner of the glasses lens. That's in the
"distant focused" portion, so it works perfectly for viewing the image
of a car or other cyclist who's a long distance away. Remember, you're
not focusing on the mirror itself, but on the image in the distance.

If the mirror were visible only through the "close focus" portion of the
bifocals, there would be a problem; but that's not the case.

It must be my eyes than as I just tried out your theory with as hand
mirror and there is a distinct difference in how clearly I see the
reflected image in the mirror when I look through the top or bottom
portion of my glasses and that difference also varies depending on how
far the mirror is from my eye.

Sure. Looking through an ordinary flat mirror is no different than
looking through (say) a hole in a fence. If you were trying to peek
through a fence to see a distant object, you wouldn't use the close
focus part of your bifocals.

It is also apparent that different mirrors have a different focal
length or whatever as if I look the central "inside" mirror in the
truck I get a different prospective than when I look in the "wing"
mirrors with both mirrors are essentially the same distance from my
eye. In the wing mirrors the object appears to be much further away
than the inside mirror shows.

Yep, some external auto & truck mirrors are convex. So are some
handlebar mounted mirrors for bikes. Convex mirrors gain a wider field
of view and, on bikes, a little less sensitivity to vibration. Convex
mirrors make it a bit more difficult to judge distance, hence the
warnings on some of them that "objects may be closer..."

AFAIK, all eyeglass mirrors are flat, not convex. They don't need the
wider field of view, because one can pivot one's head to scan a wide
area behind.

I have the suspicion that a glasses ort helmet mounted mirror is a bit
more complex than "just stick a mirror on there".

The mechanical and optical parts are not complex at all. (I make my own
eyeglass mirrors; it's pretty easy.) But some people have trouble
learning to use them.

I've read that for some folks, problems may be caused by extra-strong
eye dominance. I'm right eye dominant, but have my mirror on my left
glasses temple. I eventually realized I blink every time I turn my
attention to the mirror. Perhaps that gives a useful disconnect,
allowing re-focusing my attention.

Some people are bothered by the mirror obstructing a bit of the
forward-sideward field of view. I make my mirrors small and as close to
my eye as practical (maybe 2" away) and mount them so they're as high
and as far leftward as possible. There's effectively no blind spot,
because my dominant right eye covers that part of my field of vision.

But this might not work for everybody.


--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:31:17 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/3/2015 9:47 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in news:mpldnc$kp7$1@dont-
email.me:

FWIW, I find eyeglass-mounted mirrors to be much superior to helmet
mounted ones. Positional stability is better, ease of attachment is
greater, and of course it works with any (or no) hat. And as a little
detail, I can even use it flat-water kayaking, to make sure my wife
doesn't get too far behind in her boat.

I haven't yet found a satisfactory mirror, period. I face optical
challenges similar to those John B. mentions.

And isn't it interesting that helmets are still number one the minds of
Americans in the "bike safety" category? Have you ever been
complimented for obeying the rules of the road?

Yes.

For bicycling only when sober?

No, but it hasn't come up.

For properly choosing your lane position? Probably not.

Actually, yes.

But surely you'll agree that helmets are the number one thing commented
on. It's slacking off just a bit in recent years, but "Always wear a
helmet" is still very commonly the first item in lists of bike safety
advice. Sometimes it's the only item.

No, I don't think so. Mostly, they comment on bicyclists' flouting of traffic laws, such as riding on sidewalks and running stop signs. Here the law requires helmets only for those riders under 18 years of age.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

I have smacked my helmet against the ground at least twice, with my head inside and had no injury. Can't say I regret having wearing a helmet. Also, I have a friend that spent 2 weeks in the hospital after passing out on a bike and slamming his head on a brick wall without a helmet. He has a scare that runs from the front of his ear to the back of his neck. My son and I rescued a bike rider who had a head injury one day. My son never complained again about wearing a helmet. Granted this evidence is anecdotal, but as we learn more about head injuries it's becoming apparent the importance of protecting it. Granted other activities are as bad or worse for getting a head injury. Personally, ice skating comes to mind, as well as most contact sports. that said laws that keep people from hurting themselves are probably better for those under 18. After 18, the government can put you in harms way so you probably should have the right to do the same.

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On 8/5/2015 7:39 AM, fairbornCCF wrote:
I have smacked my helmet against the ground at least twice, with my head inside and had no injury. Can't say I regret having wearing a helmet. Also, I have a friend that spent 2 weeks in the hospital after passing out on a bike and slamming his head on a brick wall without a helmet. He has a scare that runs from the front of his ear to the back of his neck. My son and I rescued a bike rider who had a head injury one day. My son never complained again about wearing a helmet. Granted this evidence is anecdotal, but as we learn more about head injuries it's becoming apparent the importance of protecting it. Granted other activities are as bad or worse for getting a head injury. Personally, ice skating comes to mind, as well as most contact sports. that said laws that keep people from hurting themselves are probably better for those under 18. After 18, the government can put you in harms way so you probably should have the right to do the same.

Yes, bike helmets have been very efficient at generating anecdotes!
Unfortunately, they've not been very good at reducing concussions or
fatalities.

The data's out there. Since helmet use soared, bike concussions are way
up and fatalities are essentially flat.

(More detail: Fatality counts have dropped a bit, but not as much as
those of unhelmeted pedestrians.)

And again, helmet promotors have grossly exaggerated the risk of serious
brain injury (TBI) while biking. Bicyclists make up only 0.6% of
American TBI fatalities. Perhaps it's the other 99.4% that should wear
helmets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AG: Safety Equipment for Bicycles
 

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 04:39:29 -0700 (PDT), fairbornCCF
wrote:

I have smacked my helmet against the ground at least twice, with my head inside and had no injury. Can't say I regret having wearing a helmet. Also, I have a friend that spent 2 weeks in the hospital after passing out on a bike and slamming his head on a brick wall without a helmet. He has a scare that runs from the front of his ear to the back of his neck. My son and I rescued a bike rider who had a head injury one day. My son never complained again about wearing a helmet. Granted this evidence is anecdotal, but as we learn more about head injuries it's becoming apparent the importance of protecting it. Granted other activities are as bad or worse for getting a head injury. Personally, ice skating comes to mind, as well as most contact sports. that said laws that keep people from hurting themselves are probably better for those under 18. After 18, the government can put you in harms way so you probably should have the right to do the same.


But equally true is my experiences.

When I was a little fellow I had a horse brush me off by running at a
full gallop under a tree branch. I tried to duck under the branch but
it hit me square on the top of the head and knocked me off the horse.
I was either unconscious or disoriented for a short period but came to
my senses before a neighbor had run, say 75 yards to reach me. No
helmet, no lasting damages.

About three years ago I recently crashed hitting a tree limb at about
30 KPH. I was knocked off the bike and broke my hip. Again I was
disoriented or unconscious for a short period, but this time I was
wearing a helmet. After getting out of the hospital and examining both
the bike and helmet found no marks or damage to the helmet and the
only mark on the bike was a small scrape on the very end of the L.H.
handle bar.

Would a helmet have saved me?
--
cheers,

John B.

AG: Wash Water
 

I tend to forget that one can wash with water carried for drinking --
and it comes in a handy squirt bottle that's convenient for flushing
grit out of road rash.

It's less convenient for washing hands -- I can squirt only one hand
at a time.

There should be a sliver of soap in your first-aid kit. (This doubles
as a way to mark your tire for thorn-finding purposes, if you weren't
forethoughty enough to line the valve stem up with the tire label.)

If an ambulance is on its way, leave wound-cleaning to the
professionals.


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