|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
gds wrote:
Pat Lamb wrote: I'd be happy with a prima facie assumption of liability. Say the car driver is assumed to be liable for damages, including property, medical, and lost wages costs, etc., unless the driver can prove otherwise. This is not a criminal matter, so there's no need for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nor is there a presumption of innocence. Are you serious? You are arguing against the legal assumptions in all countries using the English common law tradition. I don't think it's violently opposed to the common law tradition. If you check, I think you'll find there's a number of places in civil law where a prima facie assumption exists. It's not automatic; the presumption can be overcome, but this proposal would shift the starting position in civil cases. Your position is more anti motorist than pro cyclist. A number of regulars on this group remind us that statistically cycling is not verey dangerous. One can not easily hold that position and still offer draconian solutions for solving what is argued to be a minor problem. It's more like getting the attention of a mule; in this case, the population of drivers. Pat |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark
Pat Lamb wrote: It's more like getting the attention of a mule; in this case, the population of drivers. Like I said your suggestion is more anti motorist than pro cyclist. And probably of no practical value. Think about how it would play out. First, we need to accept the statiscal data that there simply are not that many motorist/cyclist crashes. That has to be the case if the overall cycling serious accident rate is small as has been presented. So, if there are relatively a small number of these events then the economic loss is small in comparison to other types of motoring events. So, if that is the case the payouts will be relatively small as a % of total payouts. So, there will be relatively a small impact on rates which are a reflection of payouts. If there is a relatively small impact on insurance rates then -I would argue- there will be a relatively small impact on behavior. And since it is behavior that we want to change-if you are pro cyclist and not just anti motorist- you haven't accomplished much. And if you then argue to move the assumption of guilt to the arena of criminal action by the motorist you hit a legal wall-as you admit. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
Pat Lamb wrote:
Since I've been too lazy to try it myself, have you compared the visibility of a twinkling tail light to a blinking light? My impression, leaning over the seat and looking down at it, is that the blinking light is much brighter and likely to attract attention much more than the same light in twinkling mode. Looking at it is the wrong test. Looking (relaxed, not staring) somewhere and having somebody walk round you from behind at a few yards distance until you spot the light is the test to do -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
Tony Raven wrote: wrote: I'd bet that a bike fitted with 2 otherwise identical lights with one flashing and the other constant - then if disappearing off on a foggy night the constant light would remain visible for longer. (if I was a betting man). If the problem in hand was seeing how long you could track a bike riding off into the fog then you are probably right. But that isn't the problem that needs to be solved. The problem is which light would be spotted first when the driver probably isn't even looking in its direction. And the answer is a flashing one every time. Once its spotted a continuous light is better for tracking its path while watching it but not for spotting it in the first place. You really don't seem to have grasped this difference between peripheral vision, meaning anything outside the area covered by a quarter/10p coin about 6" from your eye and central vision which is within that area. Judging lights by looking at them gives you the wrong answers because that is not the part of your visual system you use for spotting things. Peripheral vision has poor colour perception, lower resolution, better light sensitivity, little ability to identify and classify objects but much better ability to notice movement or fluctuations in the scene. Its designed to cover a wide field and spot potential threats so that the brain swivels the central "intelligent" vision part of the eyes round to identify and classify the threat and take appropriate ignore or run decisions. -- Tony Don't agree. Peripheral vision is not as a important as forward visibility - since it is only the vehicles forward of the driver in his direction of travel which he is likely to collide with, except in the less common circumstance of converging collision courses - (in which circumstance those spoke attached reflectors are brilliant IMO). Infact if a driver is distracted by peripheral things such as flickering lights, is there not a risk that he will collide with things in front? This is one of my objections to flashing lights - yes they do attract attention but that they are distracting, even irritating! I think the foggy night test is extremely relevant to safety since it is a likely scenario ("the problem to be solved") - and the sooner a light is seen the better for the driver to take avoiding action. When I'm cycling a night its always the drivers coming up behind which worry me most. On a converging course e.g. at a T junction then at least I can see the car approaching even if he can't see me. Jacob |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
"cycle-one" typed
If the cyclist is invisible does it matter if it is Solstice dark or summer high noon bright? So true! There are more road fatalities in August Daylight than on winter nights. Cyclists are invisible because they aren't a 'threat'... -- Helen D. Vecht: Edgware. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Experiment design (was Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?")
in message , Tony Raven
') wrote: wrote: I'd bet that a bike fitted with 2 otherwise identical lights with one flashing and the other constant - then if disappearing off on a foggy night the constant light would remain visible for longer. (if I was a betting man). If the problem in hand was seeing how long you could track a bike riding off into the fog then you are probably right. But that isn't the problem that needs to be solved. The problem is which light would be spotted first when the driver probably isn't even looking in its direction. In fact the really interesting test would be the reverse of 'owdman's test. On a foggy night, mount a red light on the /front/ of a bicycle, and ride it slowly /towards/ an observer until he first notices it. The observer knows that a bike will come, from roughly (but not exactly) what direction and roughly (but not exactly) when. As soon as the observer sees the bike he sings out, the bike stops, and you measure the distance from the observer to the bike. Repeat a number of times, sometimes with flashing, sometimes with steady, sometimes with both. The observer does not know in advance which mode of lamps will be used on any run. Repeat the whole test, on a clear night, against a background with a lot of light pollution and visual clutter. That seems to me an experiment design which is (i) easy and cheap to set up; (ii) easy to repeat (and should be repeatable); (iii) reasonably accurately models visibility of tail lights to /attentive/ /drivers/; (iv) potentially publishable; (v) would potentially give solidly based advice to cyclists and to regulators. Anyone setting exercises for an undergraduate engineering design or psychology class this winter? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act(); uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast. [adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05] |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
|
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
SMS wrote:
True, but this may be the best you can do with a single light. At least the varying intensity may help grab attention better than steady-on. I'd go for two separate lights. Then you have the added advantage that if one fails or the batteries go flat, the other will mean you are still lit. -- Tony "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right." - Lord Hailsham |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Invisible Cyclists in Solstice Dark or "Is black white?"
SMS wrote: I'd say that for the best of both steady and flashing, set the LED tail light to steady-on, and use a yellow xenon flasher. This would also make you legal (at least in the U.S.), since technically you're supposed to have a solid red light, and yellow flashing lights are legal for slow moving vehicles. I think you'd better research bicycle lighting laws before making such pronouncements. The last I saw (a few years ago) there were only two US states that required a rear light. See http://www.massbike.org/bikelaw/bikelawh.htm#ALABAMA, as an example. The situation may be different in other countries, of course. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gobsmacked | wafflycat | UK | 63 | January 4th 06 06:50 PM |
water bottles,helmets | Mark | General | 191 | July 17th 05 04:05 PM |
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 | Mike Iglesias | General | 4 | October 29th 04 07:11 AM |
Five cyclists cleared | Marty Wallace | Australia | 2 | July 3rd 04 11:15 PM |
MP wants cyclists banned-Morn. Pen. | rickster | Australia | 10 | June 1st 04 01:22 AM |