Sunglasses

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:52:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:28:42 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:59:55 AM UTC-4, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Leaving my friend's house, I had a downhill for about half a mile, much of it at
25 mph or more. My tiny Busch & Mueller Eyc headlight was perfectly fine, except
through a fairly tight S turn, where I could have used more beam width. (The
IQ Cyo seems to have a wider beam.)

Even a wider cut-off beam and tight turns still aren't a good match.. The
Cyos are dated, btw. The only one I'd still consider would be this
third-party, modded version featuring switchable beams from a twin emitter:
https://www.laempie.de/cyo

He is aiming the the passing beam too low, but it demonstrates his mod's
extra features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-0lFSz-DNU

His modification seems intended to give more "throw" - that is, lighting further
down the road. I've never needed that with the Cyo. Now that we have excess
lumens available, I'd prefer they get used to form a wider beam. And as I've
said before, I think the optimum shape would have the extra beam width (beyond
one lane's width) should curl upward a bit. This is because a turning bike tilts.
Otherwise, the extra width of a flat beam would just burn into the ground close
to the inside of the turn.

Cutting through some neighborhoods later in the ride, I verified again that the
headlight illuminated road signs about a quarter mile away. I can't imagine
needing more. But as always, YMMV.

You do have good glasses if the Eyc enables you to read road signs a 1/4
mile away.

Oh, I'm not saying I could read the signs. But the signs (which are reflective)
were shining brightly.

This tells me that portion of my headlight beam was bright enough to travel the
quarter mile to the sign, bounce off (with some losses) and return to me, quite
visibly. It's proof that the headlight would be very noticeable to a motorist
at least that far away.

That's relevant because many cyclists who choose super-glaring round beam
headlights justify the glare by saying they want motorists to notice them. It's
nonsense.

I have a 1 watt blinky that lights up signs a quarter mile away. It's more of a comment on the quality of reflective signs than the light. The blinky is useless to see by. I'm hoping people see it, but who knows.

There is a comical range of lights out there, from seizure inducing landing strobes to the light on my friend's fender that I noticed while riding behind him in the rain on Sunday simply because it is red. It was on and pulsing like a dying Tinkerbell but totally invisible unless you were looking right at it. Kind of like a good-luck light. And then you get dopes on MUPS with retina burning, mis-aimed headlights. It's really bizarre -- and the light season is starting again.

Regarding "I'm hoping people see it but who knows": Why not check? It's over
four decades since the first time I had family check out my lights by driving
by me from each direction. (I think the young kid felt important when given
the job of taking notes.) I've done it many times since, with family and with
lots of friends. It just makes sense.

I'm sure the blinky is visible in the sense that people can see it, although I could do a test just to make sure.

What I'm getting at is whether people do see it -- whether people are even paying attention. Motorists pull out in front of other motorists with two automotive headlights all the time.

I think it is a good idea to use a low-watt blinky or front pulsing light and a fixed beam light just because it is easy to lose a fixed beam in the background of car lights and other point light sources. This happens to me a lot in a two way bike facility on my way home. It is on the left side of a busy road and adjacent to on-coming auto traffic. That on-coming traffic is indistinguishable from an on-coming mega-lumen bicycle headlight -- the only difference being the cars are on the road and the bike are coming straight at me. A bright headlight in that situation is almost like camouflage. A 1 watt blinky would actually make the cyclist stand out, assuming people are paying attention and even care.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:35:05 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:00:49 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:15:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes. I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small.

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions. California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...9194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight, wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.

I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthSAxn7BMU This is going up Larch Mountain. Look at the left side of the road and you'll see the descending cyclists getting lost in the shadow. The picture is really contrasty, but that's what you get with dark sun glasses. I figured with the dense greenery, you probably have similar situations. It really gets tree covered near the top with hard dappled light. An overcast day: https://tinyurl.com/y3jq2sxn

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

That camera on the motorcycle is self adjusting. You can see when you enter the shade that if its in there long enough you can see the road and then when it exits into the sunlight it takes a couple of seconds before the yellow center line is yellow. The pupil of your eye does the same thing and that is one of the bad things about dark glasses.

I suppose that polarized and slightly dark lenses would be more effective and I'll give that a try.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:18:50 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the
eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris
that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are
especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or
more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been
thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough
to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now
of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes..
I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small.

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and
out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes
the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions.
California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are
not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a
set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening
and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it
repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any
improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on
the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping
with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical
characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one
would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep
the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...ng&ie=UTF8&qid 69194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight,
wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose
or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't
react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't
seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I
know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably
get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription
sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which
makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.


I have a pretty heavy prescription and don’t tolerate contacts. So I need
presumption sun glasses. Oakley make a pair that work for me though
they’re a bit large. I use copper coloured lenses and find the contrast
quite good so sun to shade is not bad.

--
duane

That is what I've been trying. Since I had the lenses in my eyes replaced I have pretty fair vision beyond 10 feet so I can use normal sunglasses. But the yellow tint bothers me. I had a set of Performance sunglasses that were blue tinted and they worked really well but finally got too scratched up.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 08:15:45 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:00:49 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:


I tried for many years to buy a "jungle bike" to ride in the jungle
but never could find one so can only ride on the road these days.

But early in the morning, just after "sun up" the rays of the sun are
almost horizontal. Right straight in your eyes. A bit later and the
sun is high enough that your normal hat brim shades your eyes.

It might be different in a more northern latitude but here the dawn
comes up like thunder 'crost the bay and you need your sunglasses in
the early morning.

As mentioned: This time of year (near an equinox) it can be very hazardous to
ride an east-west road near sunrise or sunset. The sun rises and sets very near
due east or west, and the bright sun can be glaring in a motorist's eyes, even
if they use their sun visors. Very few motorists will stop driving or drive
cautiously enough to guarantee avoiding a cyclist.

If your shadow is long on the ground and pointed toward a motorist, he probably
can't see you. And sorry, no bike light is going to help. I either re-route to
avoid east-west roads, or I wait until the sun has moved.

- Frank Krygowski

But... if you wait for the sun to move, in some parts of the world, it
gets hot :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 9/24/2019 3:45 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 10:52:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:49:47 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

I have a 1 watt blinky that lights up signs a quarter mile away. It's more of a comment on the quality of reflective signs than the light. The blinky is useless to see by. I'm hoping people see it, but who knows. ...


Regarding "I'm hoping people see it but who knows": Why not check? It's over
four decades since the first time I had family check out my lights by driving
by me from each direction. (I think the young kid felt important when given
the job of taking notes.) I've done it many times since, with family and with
lots of friends. It just makes sense.

I'm sure the blinky is visible in the sense that people can see it, although I could do a test just to make sure.

What I'm getting at is whether people do see it -- whether people are even paying attention. Motorists pull out in front of other motorists with two automotive headlights all the time.

In my experience, that problem is worst for a motorcycle. I suspect it's
a combination of small frontal image and relatively high speed. Because
of relatively high speed, it's also a problem that happens with cars.
I've experienced both of those.

I have never experienced it with a bike at night (and only twice during
the day, neither a close call). Why? I speculate part of it is the
bike's relatively slow speed. At night, that speed gives people plenty
of time to wonder "what the heck is that??" As I've said, I've had
plenty of motorists wait WAY longer than they needed to, instead of
properly crossing my path and getting on with their trip.

BTW, I just returned from a nighttime excursion in a relatively
unfamiliar town. I was on my folding bike, which has the weakest
headlight of all (B&M Lumotec Lyt). Riding on dark and unfamiliar back
streets, I'd have preferred one of my other B&M lights, but I was still
able to see the road surface. And on the busy major streets with
traffic, there were no problems. Motorists saw me, nobody pulled out in
front of me.

If I were interested in increasing my conspicuity, I'd look into active
lights instead of reflectors on the pedals or cranks. I'm a big believer
in the conspicuity of biomotion. But from what I can tell, the pedal
reflectors plus regular lights are just fine.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:

:But once again, if a headlight illuminates even a mirror 1/4 mile away, that
:means a tiny portion of the light emitted has traveled half a mile to return
:to your eyeballs. Even with perfect reflection, that should be impressive; and
:it's pretty clear evidence that your light will be conspicuous from far enough
:away.

My pocket flashlight, on it's low setting, is a claimed 10 lumens. It
will make a stop sign glow from a mile away, if I'm somewhere dark.
That's not an exageration; I've done it. In a city, at night, a light
source like that will be totally lost in the background light.

that's not saying your need a stupid 1000000 lumen light, just that
lighting up a retroreflective sign from a distance is a meaningless
test.


--
sig 115

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 04:00:13 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

:But once again, if a headlight illuminates even a mirror 1/4 mile away, that
:means a tiny portion of the light emitted has traveled half a mile to return
:to your eyeballs. Even with perfect reflection, that should be impressive; and
:it's pretty clear evidence that your light will be conspicuous from far enough
:away.

My pocket flashlight, on it's low setting, is a claimed 10 lumens. It
will make a stop sign glow from a mile away, if I'm somewhere dark.
That's not an exageration; I've done it. In a city, at night, a light
source like that will be totally lost in the background light.

that's not saying your need a stupid 1000000 lumen light, just that
lighting up a retroreflective sign from a distance is a meaningless
test.

I used to sail and when you are out in the middle of the ocean, on a
moonless night, it is amazing how tiny a light is more than
sufficient. A birthday cake candle will illuminate a whole room.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 9/25/2019 12:00 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

:But once again, if a headlight illuminates even a mirror 1/4 mile away, that
:means a tiny portion of the light emitted has traveled half a mile to return
:to your eyeballs. Even with perfect reflection, that should be impressive; and
:it's pretty clear evidence that your light will be conspicuous from far enough
:away.

My pocket flashlight, on it's low setting, is a claimed 10 lumens. It
will make a stop sign glow from a mile away, if I'm somewhere dark.
That's not an exageration; I've done it. In a city, at night, a light
source like that will be totally lost in the background light.

that's not saying your need a stupid 1000000 lumen light, just that
lighting up a retroreflective sign from a distance is a meaningless
test.

But put the statement in context, don't focus too much on one point.
After all, this headlight doesn't focus too much on one point.

This is not a laser pointer or a pinpoint beam flashlight. It's a
headlight designed for bicycle use. It illuminates the road nicely,
sufficiently for at _least_ a 25 mph descent. And at the same time, it
illuminates signs about 1/4 mile away.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:10:27 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2019 12:00 AM, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

:But once again, if a headlight illuminates even a mirror 1/4 mile away, that
:means a tiny portion of the light emitted has traveled half a mile to return
:to your eyeballs. Even with perfect reflection, that should be impressive; and
:it's pretty clear evidence that your light will be conspicuous from far enough
:away.

My pocket flashlight, on it's low setting, is a claimed 10 lumens. It
will make a stop sign glow from a mile away, if I'm somewhere dark.
That's not an exageration; I've done it. In a city, at night, a light
source like that will be totally lost in the background light.

that's not saying your need a stupid 1000000 lumen light, just that
lighting up a retroreflective sign from a distance is a meaningless
test.

But put the statement in context, don't focus too much on one point.
After all, this headlight doesn't focus too much on one point.

This is not a laser pointer or a pinpoint beam flashlight. It's a
headlight designed for bicycle use. It illuminates the road nicely,
sufficiently for at _least_ a 25 mph descent. And at the same time, it
illuminates signs about 1/4 mile away.


--
- Frank Krygowski

If you wanted to talk about headlights and dynamos why didn't you start a string for that? This was about sunglasses and hoe difficult they are to get large enough to actually protect your eyes.

Give us another of your stories about moving fast enough to keep eye protection from 70 years ago when you were 11.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:18:50 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:54:10 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:55:52 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/22/2019 2:10 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
While sunglasses are usually valued for their ability to shade the
eyes from glare that is not the first use of them on a bike.

On a bike you need them to shield the eyes from wind and road debris
that might be kicked up from passing cars or the wind. They are
especially important descending when you can be traveling 40 mph or
more in the open air.

This used to be pretty well understood but it seems to have been
thrown aside. None of the reasonably priced glasses are large enough
to prevent a windstorm pulling around your glasses and blinding you at critical times.

The glasses that used to work well - Oakley, Bolle and Smith are now
of breath-taking expense and they TOO are now reducing their sizes..
I cannot even find a Bolle Contour anymore. Even the $200 Oakley is too small.

Another thing - as a cyclist you often ride from light to shadow and
out into the bright sunlight again. Heavily tinted sunglasses makes
the road turn totally invisible in these shadow conditions.
California roads filled with potholes and broken whiskey bottles are
not amiable to having your sight hindered. On the first ride on a
set of 600 Campy wheels I ran over a missing utility road opening
and broke several spokes and could barely make it home. I had it
repaired but it now breaks spokes so regularly that I no longer use it.

The polarized glasses I've used do not seem to provide any
improvements. Though the blue tinted ones seem to be a happy medium.

One would think that the Chinese who are generally really fast on
the uptake would jump on this market but they too are both skimping
with the size of the lens and even worse yet the optical
characteristics can have you seeing double.

And the latest fad of very wide side pieces can rob you entirely of peripheral vision.

I bought several pairs of $2 Chinese sunglasses in the hope that one
would work. One was Tifosi and it is pretty good as long as I keep
the speed below 30. Another is an unnamed brand.

Has anyone had any good luck with sunglasses lately?

I've had excellent luck with "sunglasses" since I started riding avidly
in about 1973. But my "sunglasses" have always been my regular glasses
with photochromic lenses.

For me, it's just one less thing to worry about. These work with any
bike I ride, for day or night riding, they work with my home-made
eyeglass mirrors (one stored in each bike), they never get misplaced
because they're always in front of my eyes, they don't clash with my
street clothes nor my riding clothes, etc.

I suppose in almost five decades I've had a couple incidents of grit or
a small insect getting in my eye, but it's never been more than a minor
irritation, and it's been rare enough that I don't feel the need for
fancy special protection.

YMMV.

I don;t wear glasses for normal vision - only when things get too
close - but have been quiter happy with "safety glasses. They are
shaped to provide eye safety, i.e., heep the crud out of the eyes, and
seem to have rasonably good sun protection. AND, are nrmally quite
reasonible in price :-)
see
https://www.amazon.com/GaoCold-Outdo...ng&ie=UTF8&qid 69194420&sr=1-6
--

I've been riding with safety glasses for years. Cheap, lightweight,
wrap around, ANSI Z87 rated. Cheap enough that you can afford to lose
or break a couple of pair a year. I prefer clear lenses - my eyes don't
react well to sunglasses when riding in and out of shade, which doesn't
seem to be a problem with clear lenses. I ride sunglass versions when I
know I'm going to be mostly in the sun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003OBZ1XI..._t1_B00323LZVU

I find that, for whatever reason, I seldom need, or use, colored
glasses. In fact the one time that I really need them is early in the
morning when the sun is barely over the horizon and I am heading east
:-)

Really dark sunglasses are bad in hard dappled light, which you probably
get there in the jungle. I get that in the forest with my prescription
sun glasses. It's hard to see what's happening in the shadows, which
makes fast descents under the trees a little hairy.

-- Jay Beattie.


I have a pretty heavy prescription and don’t tolerate contacts. So I need
presumption sun glasses. Oakley make a pair that work for me though
they’re a bit large. I use copper coloured lenses and find the contrast
quite good so sun to shade is not bad.

--
duane

I just found a set of supercheap blue sunglasses from Ebay. The Chinese smartened up and before the taxes went into place moved a lot of stock to a (Colorado?) American storage facility so you order and get them rapidly and they have bypassed the problems.