Thinking Outside The Box

On Feb 29, 4:29 pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 29, 11:29 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Feb 28, 8:00 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Feb 28, 4:47 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
I about got nailed once when riding when I didn't see a car

"Almost" is probably too strong a word, but yesterday I was
riding a more-or-less residential street when this guy came
*wheeling* out of a school parking lot right at me.

He zigged, I zagged, nobody got hurt - and he apologized
profusely saying he just did not see me, which I take as an
indictment of my wearing a gray pullover and brown work pants
that day instead of red or orange on top.

Funny thing, though, a week before that and one block away the
same approximate time of day, this kid blew a stop sign and my
front wheel actually hit the inside of his rear wheel well. He
kept on going.

But, in retrospect, I was wearing the same stealth-colored
clothing.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by
incompetence."....

FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Does that include the poor driver who hits a bicyclist at night
because said cyclist was wearing all black or all very dark clothing
as well as riding a dark coloured bicycle without lights or even
reflectors at night? Such bicyclist are laughingly referred to as
"Stealth Cyclists". Why some of them even ride like that on unlighted
country roads at night.

Come on Frank. Are you saying that all of the responsibility for
accident avoidance rests with the driver of an automobile? Many times
I've narrowly avoided hitting a "Stealth Cyclist" at night who
appeared out of nowhere. And I wasonly riding my bicycle at about 20 -
30 kmh. Some bicyclists either just do not have a clue as to how
invisible they are at night or either that they are Kamikaze Bicycle
Wannabes". I really do feel sorry for the poor driver who hits and
seriously injures or kills one of these "Stealth Bicyclists".

I've got several research papers on conspicuity of bicyclists and
pedestrians. They've shown that light colored clothing adds very
little conspicuity at night. Reflectors are conspicuous at far
greater distances than white clothing, and lights are conspicuous at
far greater distances than reflectors. (As an aside, those papers
showed "left, right, left" motion like a walking human triggers
recognition even sooner.)

I advocate that bicyclists obey (or if they choose, exceed) the legal
requirements regarding lights or reflectors on the bike. But once a
cyclist has a bike properly equipped for night riding, he should not
be required to dress in an outlandish manner. Such a requirement
would add negligible benefit, and would dissuade people from using
bikes. It's another variant of the "Danger! Danger!" craze.

I feel the same regarding pedestrians. It would be very distasteful
to me to have someone say "It's his own fault he got run over walking
in that crosswalk, because he wore dark trousers." Walking is the
most fundamental method of transportation. I feel we have a right to
walk in a reasonably normal manner, and in perfectly normal clothes.

Imposing extra costume requirements for cycling or walking is giving
far too much to motorists. They must be made to watch where they're
going, and not shift responsibility or blame to their potential
victims.

(BTW, we were in Estonia a couple years ago. Estonia has a law
requiring pedestrians at night to carry reflectors. I think walking
reflectors are OK if one chooses to use them, but I strongly disagree
with making them mandatory.)

- Frank Krygowski

Frank you have great difficulty with logic and are mixing apples and
oranges .
If a person is likely to be visible (objectively speaking), such as
because of use of lights, the color of their clothing is unlikely to
ever be raised as an issue.
But if its a nun in a black habit with no lights and a driver cannot,
in fact, see her, there is a huge inequity in holding the driver 100%
responsible for not seeing her (if that is the only basis for
liability).

And contrary to your suggestion, fault can be and is often
apportioned. To take your quote "It's his own fault he got run over
walking in that crosswalk, because he wore dark trousers." That is
unlikely. An accurate view could readily be "The fact that he was
wearing dark clothing was found to be a contributing factor in his
being run over in that crosswalk." It could be found to be the
PREDOMINANT factor. Nothing remotely strange or unjust about that.

I know you want to automatically establish that NO driver is EVER
justified when they say "I didn't see the victim" but in some cases
it's accurate without any fault of the driver.


Reasonableness applies.

(And it's bad to run down a nun no matter what the excuse.)

On Mar 1, 11:50*am, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:









John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John *wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. *A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.

Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. *DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.

As to tone: *Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. *Re-read what I wrote above. *What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

As a separate point: *why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?

- Frank Krygowski

You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.

But to answer your question....

John, please answer my first question. *What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? *I simply don't see
one. *And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. *I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.

A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.

Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.

The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.

Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, *that caused the phenomena.

I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)

Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. *I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.

Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. *Outfits like thishttp://www..copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinue to be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.

Right. *If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. *The same should be true of walking
for transportation. *Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.

Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough g. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ing-insult-to-
injury/

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.
That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
--D-y

wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:50 am, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:









John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.
Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.
Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.
As to tone: Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. Re-read what I wrote above. What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?
As a separate point: why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?
- Frank Krygowski
You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.
But to answer your question....
John, please answer my first question. What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.
A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.
Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.
The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.
Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, that caused the phenomena.
I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)
Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.
Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinue to be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.
Right. If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.
Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough g. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ing-insult-to-
injury/

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.
That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
--D-y

Shocking result after an horrific event, and I've followed
these things all my life. Here's your link without the line
break:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7arvqk9

I'm not an attorney, but one might surmise that running over
the victim after a traffic incident and then stopping a
vehicle on her body in the roadway would imply intent. But
then I am not a judge either. Maybe he was ruling an an
emanation form a penumbra or some such.


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

AMuzi wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:50 am, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:









John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is
certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist
should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no
matter how
they are dressed.
Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.
Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.
As to tone: Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. Re-read what I wrote above. What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?
As a separate point: why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?
- Frank Krygowski
You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.
But to answer your question....
John, please answer my first question. What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.
A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.
Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.
The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.
Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, that caused the phenomena.
I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)
Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.
Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like
thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinue to be legal,
and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.
Right. If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it
was in
most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.
Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough g. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ing-insult-to-
injury/

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.
That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
--D-y

Shocking result after an horrific event, and I've followed these things
all my life. Here's your link without the line break:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7arvqk9

I'm not an attorney, but one might surmise that running over the victim
after a traffic incident and then stopping a vehicle on her body in the
roadway would imply intent. But then I am not a judge either. Maybe he
was ruling an an emanation form a penumbra or some such.

And I'm simply saying we need to fight such prejudice, whether people
claim "you deserved it because you shouldn't have been riding there" or
"you deserved it because you weren't wearing bright enough clothing."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 1, 11:55*am, AMuzi wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:50 am, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 1, 8:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:
On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John *wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:
FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. *A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.
Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.
Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. *DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.
As to tone: *Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. *Re-read what I wrote above. *What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?
As a separate point: *why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?
- Frank Krygowski
You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.
But to answer your question....
John, please answer my first question. *What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? *I simply don't see
one. *And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. *I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.
A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.
Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.
The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.
Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, *that caused the phenomena.
I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)
Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. *I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.
Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. *Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinueto be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.
Right. *If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. *The same should be true of walking
for transportation. *Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.
Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough g. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ing-insult-to-
injury/

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.
That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.
--D-y

Shocking result after an horrific event, and I've followed
these things all my life. Here's your link without the line
break:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7arvqk9

I'm not an attorney, but one might surmise that running over
the victim after a traffic incident and then stopping a
vehicle on her body in the roadway would imply intent. But
then I am not a judge either. Maybe he was ruling an an
emanation form a penumbra or some such.

Don't dis the liberal penumbra judges (penumbra being the operative
term from Roe). They would have thrown the book at the defendant and
felt compassion for the victim. It's the conservative, small town
judges -- those who froth at liberals and faggots in lycra -- who make
these kinds of decisions.

And yes, a determined DA would have charged two offenses, with the
second impact comprising a separate vehicular assault -- probably
assault 2. -- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:


FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.

Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.

As to tone: Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. Re-read what I wrote above. What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

As a separate point: why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?

- Frank Krygowski

You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.

But to answer your question....

John, please answer my first question. What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.

What really presents a problem is why you seem intent on turning a
discussion about visibility of objects on the highway into a personal
attack?

Is this an attempt to demonstrate that anyone who doesn't accept your
pronouncement as graven on tablets of stone is a heretic and obviously
wrong? Or an exercise in paranoia, "he doesn't agree with me so he
must be out to get me?"

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mar 1, 11:54*am, Dan O wrote:
On Feb 29, 2:43 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:









On Feb 29, 4:06 pm, " wrote:

Well that's the point (IMHO), that if a cyclist has reflectors, lights
front and rear, that when the feces descends in court, say, or when
fighting to get an errant motorist a much-needed citation, that a lack
of "clown clothing" not be used against the cyclist.

Yep, exactly.

Texas requires a reflector at the rear on bikes. Compare a reflector
to a Planet Bike rear flasher, and forget about it. The reflector is
only to satisfy the law; its being seen requires an alignment of
incoming and reflected light that is not reliable.

That is a shortcoming of reflectors. *My state is one of only two
(IIRC) that require a red rear light in addition to (or combined with)
a red rear reflector. *But when I cross the state line I still use
that taillight. *Downside is approximately zero, and upside is LOTS
more conspicuity from the rear.

I do not disagree entirely, but I think people gush too much about the
effectiveness of active lighting. *Good reflectors are still effective
off-axis, and lights have directional limitations, too.

I am not a neon vest and christmas tree lighting and reflective tape
plastered on every surface kind of guy (preferring to rely on my
situational awareness and my own appropriate action to avoid being
creamed), but I do sport quite the smattering of highly reflective
elements on different planes.

... For one example, the color red might as well be black
after dark and no, "you can't see them" even though they seem to
think, some of them, that they are quite visible.

Sounds like joggers, too, should be checking out their nighttime
equipment to see how much they really show up!

Exactly - joggers, pedestrians, and other critters on or near roadways
typically must rely substantially on their situational awareness and
their own appropriate action to avoid being creamed.

The problem is that some drivers simply do not see a bicyclist for any
number of reasons such as simply not looking for them or the driver is
intoxicated orsomething. Case in point from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
around 1985 on Bloor Street/ Danforth Avenue (sameroad name changes
part way) that involved me on a very well lit bicycle. A driver in the
west end very nearly ran into me as he made a left turn across Bloor
Street. Fortuantely I saw the car in my periphreal vision as he
started the turn and was able to accelerate away from him. Braking
would have stopped me right where he was going to be. This was at
night and witnesses commented that the driver must have been drunk not
to have seen my light. How bright was my light? It was a car quartz-
halogen driving light hooked up to the battery from a 750 hp
motorbike. The battery was carried on the rear rack of the bike and it
gave me plenty of light to see and be seen by. This was proven a short
time later that very night on the same road as I crossed the Bloor
Street viaduct and approached the turn off for the Don Valley Parkway.
As I approached the DVP turnoff I was flagged down by a policeman
engaged in RIDE checks. When I stopped he said he saw me *BEFORE* I
got onto the viaduct at about Parliament Street and though he was
going to ticket a one-eyed-bandit automobile. Take a look at a map of
that area and you`ll see that the bike`s light was visible at quite a
distance. Yet the driver who nearly cramed me earlier on that ride
either did not see me or he didn`t care.

It has been proven over and over again by many studies that people
often *DO NOT SEE WHAT THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING TO SEE*. A lot of
drivers only spare a glance and are looking for large motor vehicle
size objects before that driver moves their vehicle into what could be
the space about to be occupied by a bicyclist. Therefore it behooves a
bicyclist riding at night or at any other time to make himself/herself
as conspicuous as is reasonable so they can be seen by other road
users (read drivers) who are sparing just a glance when they look for
an obstruction in their way.

It has also been demonstrated that amber lights are more effective at
night than red lights.

Cheers

On Mar 1, 11:48*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John *wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
*wrote:

FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. *A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.

Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. *DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.

As to tone: *Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. *Re-read what I wrote above. *What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

As a separate point: *why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?

- Frank Krygowski

Snipped:

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. *Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/should continue to be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. *The same should be true of walking
for transportation. *Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I notice that every image on that page was taken in daylight. I also
noticed that most of the bicyclistwere wearing something red or other
fairly light coloured clothing or riding a bright coloured bike such
as red. The bicyclists who were wearing dark coloured clothing would
be far less visible at night than the ones with lighter coloured
clothing. If any study shows that light coloured clothing is less
visible at night than dark clothing (study such as the one you
provided a linkto upthread) I must wonder why the military uses dark
colours for stealth operations. Or why Ninjas and break-and-enter
persons wear black instead of white.

As far as the last 100 years of cycling and clothing goes; well speeds
for both motor vehicles and some bicyclists have increased a fair bit
even on urban streets with the result that the time to react to any
event is shorter. Therefore again it is prudent to make onself as
visible as one can reasonably be.

Cheers

On Mar 1, 11:24 am, " wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:50 am, Dan O wrote:



On Mar 1, 8:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:37 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Feb 29, 7:57 pm, John wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:15:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

FWIW, I reject the idea that a cyclist (or pedestrian) bears some
responsibility if he chooses non-glare clothing. A person is certainly
free to be extra-conspicuous if he likes; but a motorist should be
responsible for properly responding to anybody's presence, no matter how
they are dressed.

Your intent may have been one thing but the tone in which it was
written was something else - or at least that seems to be the
comprehension of most of your readers.

Honestly, we don't know about the response of most readers. DR will
attack me if I say a bicycle has two wheels, and the vast majority of
readers will not post anything.

As to tone: Usenet, like e-mail, is notorious for misinterpretations
of tone, and people sometimes take astonishing umbrage at very mild
statements. Re-read what I wrote above. What word in my statement
implies anything other than a matter-of-fact personal opinion?

As a separate point: why should a cyclist be expected to sympathize
with a motorist who didn't sufficiently watch where he was going, and
thereby injured someone else using the road in a perfectly legal
manner?

- Frank Krygowski

You obviously can't give up. whether you are being lucid or not.

But to answer your question....

John, please answer my first question. What word or words in my
paragraph above indicate any sort impolite tone? I simply don't see
one. And I know I was feeling no hostility when I wrote it; in fact,
for days I've been ill and feeling very low-key. I think there's a
problem on the receiving end, not the transmitting end.

A few years back the law here was changed
to force motorcycles to have their headlight and tail light on any
time the bike was moving. Accidents decreased.

Now, rationally if accidents decreased it seems likely that people
didn't really want to run into motorcycles in the first place and that
the always on lights had some effect which caused this reduction in
accidents.

The most likely effect of lighting up a motorcycle is to make it more
visible, which seems to demonstrate that while stating that a driver
should see, they frequently don't see and increasing the visibility of
the target does decrease appear to reduce collisions.

Unless you can demonstrate some deep seated fear of lights, or other
reason, that caused the phenomena.

I don't doubt that accidents decreased for those motorcyclists.
(Interesting that there was no mention of day-glow clothes, though!)

Note that I am _not_ claiming that day-glow clothing, nor daytime
running lights, nor any other conspicuity aid is useless. I have no
doubt that a cyclist would be more noticeable if he dressed in a Bozo
the Clown costume, with a revolving searchlight mounted on his head and
a siren running continuously.

Smarmy, offensive to the neon vest afficionados.

What I am claiming is that a cyclist or pedestrian should have no
obligation to dress in unusual clothing. Outfits like thishttp://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/shouldcontinueto be legal, and if
such a person is struck by an inattentive motorist, they should not be
held even partially responsible.

Right. If you go there at all it's an infinitely slippery slope to
anyone blaming anyone who doesn't employ *every* possible optimum
visibility accoutrement.

Normal bicycling should be considered an ordinary activity, as it was in
most countries for over 100 years. The same should be true of walking
for transportation. Neither should be considered an extreme activity
requiring garish costumes for safety.

Absolutely true (but neither should we judge people if they *want* to
dress like Bozo :-)

Well, I certainly have been "judged" for my Safety Neon Green
windjacket, and "Bozo" is close enough g. Especially when they see
me.

OK, reality check:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadright...ing-insult-to-
injury/

Cyclists are the lowest form of life on the food chain. I don't like
it either but there you are.

Then why should we toe their line?

The traffic controls are instituted with motor vehicle traffic in
mind. The subject of this thread is about the very entities that
instituted these traffic controls acknowledging they don't make sense
applied to bicycles. But we should go out of our way and arbitrarily
adhere to them anyway because we want to make a good impression? On
people who unfairly disregard us either way in the first place?
Because maybe then they'll dislike us a little less?

That's one reason I don't bust stop signs and stop lights, because my
maxim is "Don't ever give them a shot at you" which includes road and
courtroom.


I hear you; but they've got a shot at you all the time on the road
anyway, and I don't anticipate winding up in court (although, yes,
then my scofflaw ass could be hanging out in the wind).

If I approach a stop sign or red light and there's anybody around
there with so much as the potential to have the right-of-way or take
me out anyway, I observe what's going on - not just their indications
but *all* the surrounding context (situational awareness) that may
affect what they can and will do - and I do not blow the stop until
I'm acceptably sure of no conflict.

I think being lit up like a mini-semi-truck makes my look like a Bozo
(or dork, if you prefer), too-- but if worse comes to worst, I wanna
"have a case" and the opposing lawyers (including the sharks from the
insurance company if the driver has any insurance in the first place)
don't care about anything except their own bottom line.

No judgment from me about appearances (although - and just an
impression - the neon vest seems to say, "I'm scared ****less to be
riding in traffic", or a demand for respect, ala Rizzo, "I'm walkin'
here!". I totally understand enhancing visibility to hopefully
prevent getting creamed, but don't like to think about things like
evidence of fault for a crash I haven't even had.

On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Mar 1, 11:54 am, Dan O wrote:



On Feb 29, 2:43 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 29, 4:06 pm, " wrote:

Well that's the point (IMHO), that if a cyclist has reflectors, lights
front and rear, that when the feces descends in court, say, or when
fighting to get an errant motorist a much-needed citation, that a lack
of "clown clothing" not be used against the cyclist.

Yep, exactly.

Texas requires a reflector at the rear on bikes. Compare a reflector
to a Planet Bike rear flasher, and forget about it. The reflector is
only to satisfy the law; its being seen requires an alignment of
incoming and reflected light that is not reliable.

That is a shortcoming of reflectors. My state is one of only two
(IIRC) that require a red rear light in addition to (or combined with)
a red rear reflector. But when I cross the state line I still use
that taillight. Downside is approximately zero, and upside is LOTS
more conspicuity from the rear.

I do not disagree entirely, but I think people gush too much about the
effectiveness of active lighting. Good reflectors are still effective
off-axis, and lights have directional limitations, too.

I am not a neon vest and christmas tree lighting and reflective tape
plastered on every surface kind of guy (preferring to rely on my
situational awareness and my own appropriate action to avoid being
creamed), but I do sport quite the smattering of highly reflective
elements on different planes.

... For one example, the color red might as well be black
after dark and no, "you can't see them" even though they seem to
think, some of them, that they are quite visible.

Sounds like joggers, too, should be checking out their nighttime
equipment to see how much they really show up!

Exactly - joggers, pedestrians, and other critters on or near roadways
typically must rely substantially on their situational awareness and
their own appropriate action to avoid being creamed.

The problem is that some drivers simply do not see a bicyclist for any
number of reasons such as simply not looking for them or the driver is
intoxicated orsomething. Case in point from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
around 1985 on Bloor Street/ Danforth Avenue (sameroad name changes
part way) that involved me on a very well lit bicycle. A driver in the
west end very nearly ran into me as he made a left turn across Bloor
Street. Fortuantely I saw the car in my periphreal vision as he
started the turn and was able to accelerate away from him. Braking
would have stopped me right where he was going to be. This was at
night and witnesses commented that the driver must have been drunk not
to have seen my light. How bright was my light? It was a car quartz-
halogen driving light hooked up to the battery from a 750 hp
motorbike. The battery was carried on the rear rack of the bike and it
gave me plenty of light to see and be seen by. This was proven a short
time later that very night on the same road as I crossed the Bloor
Street viaduct and approached the turn off for the Don Valley Parkway.
As I approached the DVP turnoff I was flagged down by a policeman
engaged in RIDE checks. When I stopped he said he saw me *BEFORE* I
got onto the viaduct at about Parliament Street and though he was
going to ticket a one-eyed-bandit automobile. Take a look at a map of
that area and you`ll see that the bike`s light was visible at quite a
distance. Yet the driver who nearly cramed me earlier on that ride
either did not see me or he didn`t care.

It has been proven over and over again by many studies that people
often *DO NOT SEE WHAT THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING TO SEE*. A lot of
drivers only spare a glance and are looking for large motor vehicle
size objects before that driver moves their vehicle into what could be
the space about to be occupied by a bicyclist. Therefore it behooves a
bicyclist riding at night or at any other time to make himself/herself
as conspicuous as is reasonable so they can be seen by other road
users (read drivers) who are sparing just a glance when they look for
an obstruction in their way.


If I understood your point above, it was that you have to assume you
might not be seen (no matter what you do), so I don't make myself
crazy trying to make sure that I will (be seen), and don't count on it
(being seen) to save my life.

It has also been demonstrated that amber lights are more effective at
night than red lights.

Cheers