A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old September 16th 17, 09:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:


On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On
winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest.


Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then
observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car?

I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends,
with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous
compliments from motorists.

All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright
lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible.


During the day he does. As a motorist I am always thankful for oncoming
cyclists to have bright lights. I see them so early that I can plan on
it, move AFRAP with my car, giving oncoming cars lots of space and their
drivers, in consequence, give the cyclist lots of space.


Really? Are you legally blind? Eight out of ten times I will see a fluorescent jersey before I see a DRL. And as a rider, IME, there is a low correlation between being seen and safe passes. I get close passes with or without my very bright L&M VIS 180 rear light.

The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's
spouted by people who haven't done simple tests.


Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on
singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000
lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes
that is, of course, a different story.


Depends on the road and the rider. I'm sure there are plenty of PBP riders with dynos doing 25mph in the dark. But sure, the faster you go, the more light you need -- particularly if the road is more like a trail. But for the majority of commuters, super-bright lights are not needed for riding at night. Super-bright DRLs are totally unnecessary IMO. On dreary days I'll run a blinky, but in bright sunshine -- no.

-- Jay Beattie.

Ads
  #82  
Old September 16th 17, 10:17 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/16/2017 1:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote:

No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or
not. A
vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized
traffic or less is
always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at
same speed.
The risk goes up as the speed goes down.

More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data.

Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30
times higher than
bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes
down.


As an engineer you should at least try to find the real
reasons. They can be summed up in videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM


meh.
If that guy grows a pair he could working delivery on a
fixie in NYC.

Warning! Bicycle content:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N-I8fpBx-4

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


Note that in the video from 3:10 on they're riding AT NIGHT without any lights (never mind mega-lumens lights, or reflectors and they're doing that in heavy traffic and whilst breaking many traffic laws yet they didn't get run over. LOL

Oh, where I ride at night on trails or off road I can ONLY see my way until the next bend or steep section = no extra amount of light is going to increase the distance Icansee. Onthe open road it's a different story and somtimes I'd like a light with more range so that I could see critters like skunks on or near the road earlier. In the meantime I just slow down a bit so that my light shows me what I need to see when I need to see it.

Joerg's riding is different from most everyone elses.

Cheers

Cheers
  #83  
Old September 17th 17, 12:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 9/16/2017 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote:

No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or not. A
vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized traffic or less is
always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at same speed.
The risk goes up as the speed goes down.

More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data.

Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30 times higher
than
bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes down.


As an engineer you should at least try to find the real reasons. They
can be summed up in videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM


But by your simplistic statement ("The risk goes up as the speed goes
down") he would be in more danger if he slowed down!


Put your thinking cap on for once. It is obviously the speed
_differential_ that matters.


Joerg, I was quoting what YOU said. Perhaps you should put your thinking
cap on before you post?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #84  
Old September 17th 17, 01:03 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 9/16/2017 2:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:


On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On
winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest.


Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then
observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car?

I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends,
with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous
compliments from motorists.

All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright
lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible.

The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's
spouted by people who haven't done simple tests.


Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on
singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000
lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes
that is, of course, a different story.


At night, I don't often hit 25 mph. I don't know many cyclists who do.
But when I've done it I don't recall trouble seeing adequately with my
Busch & Muller Cyo headlights.

BTW, I do have one friend who completed Paris-Brest-Paris a couple
times, over ten years ago. (He's one of the guys who finished my double
century with me.) PBP is hilly riding in dark and remote Brittany, with
lots of night riding. His lighting equipment was very, very ordinary,
and nothing at all close to 1000 lumens.

However, I note a subtle shift in the topic of conversation. Upthread
you were claiming a nighttime road cyclist needs glaring lights to _be
seen_. Now you're switching to fast-riding cyclists needing 1000 lumens
to see where they're going.

I think you'll dance around any and all topics in your effort to "prove"
that riding a bike is very, very dangerous.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #85  
Old September 17th 17, 02:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 8:03:56 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 2:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:


On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it gets. On
winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too late is highest.

Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at night, then
observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you drove your car?

I've done things like that many times, with my family, with friends,
with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten spontaneous
compliments from motorists.

All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need super-bright
lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly visible.

The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly. It's
spouted by people who haven't done simple tests.


Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph on
singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it those 1000
lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see stuff. For slowpokes
that is, of course, a different story.


At night, I don't often hit 25 mph. I don't know many cyclists who do.
But when I've done it I don't recall trouble seeing adequately with my
Busch & Muller Cyo headlights.

BTW, I do have one friend who completed Paris-Brest-Paris a couple
times, over ten years ago. (He's one of the guys who finished my double
century with me.) PBP is hilly riding in dark and remote Brittany, with
lots of night riding. His lighting equipment was very, very ordinary,
and nothing at all close to 1000 lumens.

However, I note a subtle shift in the topic of conversation. Upthread
you were claiming a nighttime road cyclist needs glaring lights to _be
seen_. Now you're switching to fast-riding cyclists needing 1000 lumens
to see where they're going.

I think you'll dance around any and all topics in your effort to "prove"
that riding a bike is very, very dangerous.

--
- Frank Krygowski


My experiences riding off road in the dark is that once you get to a certain brighness of light with a good beam pattern (not flashlight-type narrow beam)that more lumens do nothing because due to trees, twists/turns on the trail, you can NOT see any further anyway. You have LONGER viewable distances on most roads than you do on most trails.

BTW, I wear eyeglasses and I now wear a pair of flip-up sunglass lenses on them at night when riding so that when a bicyclist or motor vehicle with blindingly bright lights approaches I can flip the lenses down to avoid being blinded.

Cheers
  #86  
Old September 17th 17, 07:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:


[...]

... This system is permanently mounted on the
bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the
flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even
tending to batteries.


How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill
slog? Like some of these sections:

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564

The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that
great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they
don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly
dimmer uphill is no disadvantage.


Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing
along and doesn't see you in time.

But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused?
any more than a bicyclist?

After all:
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1
Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body,
according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that
examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles
Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent
had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent.
http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm
Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to
crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol.
At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the
odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk
rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the
blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The
.08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks.

Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the
drunken bicyclist.


Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a
bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really
know how to handle a bicycle in traffic.

However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or
hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a
drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones,
aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car.

No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I
have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission
accomplished.


And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and
rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth
of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to
arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be.

You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. And you know this.

Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights
and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is
so".

I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did
make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then
a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the
handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red
lights I could buy on the rear.

My findings? There was no difference at all, None!

And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting,
writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc.

And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is
usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the
world.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html
Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated
14th out of 15.

I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the
universe is collectively hanging over your head.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #87  
Old September 17th 17, 02:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 9/17/2017 2:17 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:


[...]

... This system is permanently mounted on the
bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the
flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even
tending to batteries.


How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill
slog? Like some of these sections:

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564

The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that
great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they
don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly
dimmer uphill is no disadvantage.


Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing
along and doesn't see you in time.

But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused?
any more than a bicyclist?

After all:
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1
Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body,
according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that
examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles
Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent
had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent.
http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm
Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to
crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol.
At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the
odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk
rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the
blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The
.08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks.

Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the
drunken bicyclist.


Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a
bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really
know how to handle a bicycle in traffic.

However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or
hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a
drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones,
aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car.

No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I
have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission
accomplished.


And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and
rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth
of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to
arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be.

You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. And you know this.

Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights
and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is
so".

I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did
make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then
a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the
handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red
lights I could buy on the rear.

My findings? There was no difference at all, None!

And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting,
writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc.

And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is
usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the
world.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html
Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated
14th out of 15.

I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the
universe is collectively hanging over your head.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lk_Excerpt.png


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #88  
Old September 17th 17, 03:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 2017-09-16 16:51, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 11:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 2:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:16, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:34 AM, Joerg wrote:

No, cyclists get run over. Doesn't matter whether hill or not. A
vehicle that travels at 1/4 the speed of motorized traffic or less is
always at higher risk in the lane than traffic going at same speed.
The risk goes up as the speed goes down.

More bull****, Joerg, or at least, more ignorance of data.

Motorcyclists have a fatality per hour rate roughly 30 times higher
than
bicyclists. You can't say that risk goes up as speed goes down.


As an engineer you should at least try to find the real reasons. They
can be summed up in videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjtjexSg0SM

But by your simplistic statement ("The risk goes up as the speed goes
down") he would be in more danger if he slowed down!


Put your thinking cap on for once. It is obviously the speed
_differential_ that matters.


Joerg, I was quoting what YOU said. Perhaps you should put your thinking
cap on before you post?


Learn how to read in context.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #89  
Old September 17th 17, 03:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 2017-09-16 23:17, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 07:46:10 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 19:48, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:01:59 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-09-15 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/15/2017 2:43 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-15 11:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:


[...]

... This system is permanently mounted on the
bike, just like the corresponding components on a car. It's ready at the
flick of a switch and it's extremely reliable, requiring not even
tending to batteries.


How does it keep the lights at full brightness during a long uphill
slog? Like some of these sections:

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/5041564

The variation in brightess from, say, 6 mph to 20+ mph isn't really that
great. But more important, when a person is riding uphill slowly, they
don't need to see 1/4 mile ahead. Having a headlight that's slightly
dimmer uphill is no disadvantage.


Until the soused redneck in his dilapidated pickup truck comes tearing
along and doesn't see you in time.

But why should a "red neck" driving a pickup be soused?
any more than a bicyclist?

After all:
https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...eaths/?mcubz=1
Some 21 percent of autopsies for New York City bicyclists who died
within three hours of their accidents detected alcohol in the body,
according to a Department of Health and Mental Hygiene study that
examined fatal bicycling accidents in New York City from 1996 to 2005.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pe...facts/bicycles
Among bicyclists ages 16 and older who were killed in 2015, 23 percent
had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) at or above 0.08 percent.
http://www.bhsi.org/alcohol.htm
Blood alcohol levels were estimated from medical records, visits to
crash sites and testing of 342 passing bicyclists for breath alcohol.
At the .08 grams/deciliter level, legally drunk in most states, the
odds of a fatal or serious injury rose by 2,000 per cent. The risk
rose as alcohol rose, beginning at a 600 per cent increase if the
blood level was only .02 grams/deciliter, equivalent to one drink. The
.08 level is typically associated with four to five drinks.

Sounds like it isn't the Redneck we have to look out for it is the
drunken bicyclist.


Drunken cyclists are a problem, especially since many people resort to a
bicycle after losing their license due to DUI and then they don't really
know how to handle a bicycle in traffic.

However, I can't remember any of the hit-from-behind or
hit-from-the-front fatal accidents here reported as being caused by a
drunken cyclists. They were caused by drunken motorists, reckless ones,
aggressive ones and people fleeing from police or a crime scene in a car.

No matter, Frank can lament all day long, I know for a fact that since I
have bright lights front and back the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. So as far as lighting is concerned, mission
accomplished.


And that is largely "your problem". You have a preconceived notion and
rather then research the question to see if you can discover the truth
of the matter you simply argue from a position of ignorance. Akin to
arguing that 1 + 1 is not 2... because you don't want it to be.

You put on super bright lights and the number of close calls has
substantially dropped. And you know this.


Yes, I know this.


Can you document it? Say 10 close calls a day before the bright lights
and only one since you installed them? Or "you just know that it is
so".


I have no GoPro and also no nee to document. I know what I experienced
and that's good enough for me. If you don't believe me, fine.


I find it interesting that after reading all the blather here I did
make a test of it. First a week riding with no lights at all and then
a second week riding with, not one but two, bright lights on the
handle bars and two (count them), TWO of the brightest blinking red
lights I could buy on the rear.

My findings? There was no difference at all, None!


Thailand != USA


And note that I was making a deliberate test of the value of lighting,
writing notes in a little book, counting on my fingers, etc.

And I might add that this was riding in Bangkok city traffic which is
usually rated as the first, or second most, chaotic traffic in the
world.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/auto...ies/index.html
Notice that the only U.S. city mentioned is Los Angeles which is rated
14th out of 15.


There are huge differences between countries. For example, in France it
was (is?) popular to drive around town at night with just the position
lights on, no low beam. Worked. Because drivers pay attention and are
use to this. Here in the US the attention of drivers has majorly changed
with the advent of smart phones. That's just how it is.


I can only assume that you are unique. That all the danger in the
universe is collectively hanging over your head.



No, I am simply using common sense. Better light = seen better. Every
traffic safety expert. Some self-proclaimed ones, however, ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #90  
Old September 17th 17, 03:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Is there an updated Dynotest somewhere?

On 2017-09-16 13:05, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-16 09:28, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/16/2017 10:51 AM, Joerg wrote:


On a steep uphill I sure want my rear light as bright as it
gets. On winding uphill stretches the risk of being seen too
late is highest.

Have you ever bothered to get a friend to ride your bike at
night, then observe your bike's lights and reflectors as you
drove your car?

I've done things like that many times, with my family, with
friends, with bike club members. And as mentioned, I've gotten
spontaneous compliments from motorists.

All of this testing has showed that a cyclist does NOT need
super-bright lights or high tech equipment to be perfectly
visible.


During the day he does. As a motorist I am always thankful for
oncoming cyclists to have bright lights. I see them so early that I
can plan on it, move AFRAP with my car, giving oncoming cars lots
of space and their drivers, in consequence, give the cyclist lots
of space.


Really? Are you legally blind? Eight out of ten times I will see a
fluorescent jersey before I see a DRL.



Can you visit clients in your fluorescent jersey? Commuter cyclists out
here where khakis and stuff. Same when I visit a client, then I wear
clean and fairly new black jeans and a decent shirt.

For some people a bicycle is more than just a rolling gym.


... And as a rider, IME, there is
a low correlation between being seen and safe passes. I get close
passes with or without my very bright L&M VIS 180 rear light.



My experience is different. With bright lights I only get deliberate
close passes, usually when a driver is p....d because I took the lane
for too long and such.


The modern paranoia calling for super-bright lights is silly.
It's spouted by people who haven't done simple tests.


Nonsense. I did tests. If you want to be able to pull up to 15mph
on singletrack or 25mph on a road with occasional debris on it
those 1000 lumen lights are a safety feature. Because you see
stuff. For slowpokes that is, of course, a different story.


Depends on the road and the rider. I'm sure there are plenty of PBP
riders with dynos doing 25mph in the dark.



In France you normally do not have lots of debris from construction
worker pickup trucks lying in the way. I have lived in Northern Europe
and cycled there, a lot.


... But sure, the faster you
go, the more light you need -- particularly if the road is more like
a trail. But for the majority of commuters, super-bright lights are
not needed for riding at night. Super-bright DRLs are totally
unnecessary IMO. On dreary days I'll run a blinky, but in bright
sunshine -- no.


Well, I always do. Hence I always make sure the Li-Ion batteries of the
bike are adequately charged.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
unicyclepics.co.uk updated... petit_pierre Unicycling 63 November 5th 06 03:10 PM
FAQ Mirror Updated hippy Australia 0 November 18th 04 07:30 AM
Six-Day Site Updated [email protected] Racing 0 August 20th 04 02:48 AM
Six-Day Site Updated [email protected] Racing 0 August 14th 04 08:11 PM
Updated please take a look Gumbo Unicycling 7 September 9th 03 09:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.