lifepaint?

http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore off. But
I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side views of
bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not aware of any data
indicating those views matter much. Head on should matter primarily to
wrong-way riders, and side view only if the cyclist is standing in front
of a car; otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually matters, and ISTM
that's adequately dealt with by a proper taillight plus a few reflective
bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something bicyclists are
supposed to use to protect themselves against cars and their drivers.
How about educating motorists about their responsibility, and enforcing
the same? Already, Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain conditions.
One California legislator is calling not only for all-ages mandatory
helmets, but also for high-vis clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing day-glow
clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective paint, and he was not
using a high-powered daytime strobe light"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Franko....I posted this 2 weeks ago giving Ohio enough time to order and apply..

crit without use is substandard and really Frank NOT ACCEPTABLE BY OHIOAN STANDRADS

why anyone from Ohio would pick on a No. 1 safety automaker ????

for trying. I dunno. We weep.

The Assyrians made off with my eyeglasses. This was expected, happened previously but with both the Scientology whoha and Don McClean out of the closet, Harrison back in flight...I was safe.

I couldn't find the frame. I dId find the spares so to order another set I called the eye doctor who, being Cuban, refused to cooperate without filling out 20 forms...from Pascagoula...you know where the Cubans are right ?

So I called emergency for the main butcher...was put on hold....turned finding the Assyrians had hung the frames from the UPPER SEATBELT MECHANISM.

thanks Gilgamesh

On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."


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

1 April, 1971

I assume lifespray is sprayable on bare skin ?

BOO !

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

the femur fracture was a cover up for not wearing a helmet into a concussion

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.

OH OH! Look at this part:
"According to the text of the bill, Davis wants anyone caught riding a bicycle, "on a highway or on premises open to the public" without wearing reflective clothing to be punished by a maximum fine of $250. The bill also dictates that the clothing is, "including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest." The new law would only apply to people riding bicycles at night (between sunset and sunrise)."

Seems that he wants a LOT of high-visible clothing if you ride after dusk. Or is he just trying to kill bicycling by making it too expensive (10 times the fine of similar laws elsewhere)so that motorists can have all roads for themselves?

"Similar bills have been introduced in California, Wyoming and South Dakota.. In California, Senate Bill 192 mandates helmets for all ages and reflective clothing, but carries a maximum fine of just $25."

Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.

Cheers

O Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.

Cheers.

great idea...unenforceable at this time...how regulate the poor and children ?

if Homedepot dayglo vests came with the bike or Law Enforcement handed vests for free that's sill a no go. You know people.


People would scream Turd Reich Turd Reich

I wudguess somewhat similar to he AUS helmet law travails.

I have arrived at the time where on coming onto a cyclist o the shoulder, I pop the flashers on until I pass.

This is a possible law

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 7:15:52 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:45:33 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:50:57 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/8/2015 10:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
http://www.volvocarslifepaint.com/

I can see that it would increase conspicuity, until it wore
off. But I'd be surprised if it lasted very long on fabric.

And I note that most of the images shown are head on or side
views of bicyclists directly in headlight beams. I'm not
aware of any data indicating those views matter much. Head
on should matter primarily to wrong-way riders, and side
view only if the cyclist is standing in front of a car;
otherwise, he'll move out of the car's path before the car
arrives. The rear view of the cyclist is what usually
matters, and ISTM that's adequately dealt with by a proper
taillight plus a few reflective bits.

I'm pretty skeptical of a car company selling something
bicyclists are supposed to use to protect themselves against
cars and their drivers. How about educating motorists about
their responsibility, and enforcing the same? Already,
Estonia mandates reflectors for pedestrians. France
mandates high visibility clothing for cyclists under certain
conditions. One California legislator is calling not only
for all-ages mandatory helmets, but also for high-vis
clothing. It's a bad trend.

Will we soon have "The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light"?

and perhaps

"The injured cyclist was not wearing
day-glow clothing, his bike was not sprayed with reflective
paint, and he was not using a high-powered daytime strobe
light,

which along with a lack of headgear were all contributing
factors to his femur fracture."

BTW, it's not just California. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...e_bicycli.html http://bikeportland.org/2015/02/27/o...lothing-135100

-- Jay Beattie.

OH OH! Look at this part:
"According to the text of the bill, Davis wants anyone caught riding a bicycle, "on a highway or on premises open to the public" without wearing reflective clothing to be punished by a maximum fine of $250. The bill also dictates that the clothing is, "including but not limited to a reflective coat or reflective vest." The new law would only apply to people riding bicycles at night (between sunset and sunrise)."

Seems that he wants a LOT of high-visible clothing if you ride after dusk. Or is he just trying to kill bicycling by making it too expensive (10 times the fine of similar laws elsewhere)so that motorists can have all roads for themselves?

"Similar bills have been introduced in California, Wyoming and South Dakota. In California, Senate Bill 192 mandates helmets for all ages and reflective clothing, but carries a maximum fine of just $25."

Seems counter productive to getting citizens to be physically active.

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists

--
- Frank Krygowski