#121
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 17:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. This from a guy with a religious belief in daytime running lights, even "flea powered" ones, and a religious belief in magic plastic hats. A man who constantly touts "countless studies" but can't be bothered to post links to them. A man who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to be a "world's greatest expert" on multiple matters - helmets, lights, folding bikes, coffee... And who bragged online about his "guerilla marketing" via various discussion groups, at his websites which said "If you buy the items I recommend, please start by clicking the links here so I get my commission" or words to that effect. - Frank Krygowski It might be noted that while the Odense study clearly shows that the DRL's reduced daylight multi-vehicle accidents by a factor of ~50% they had a negligible effect on multi-vehicle accidents after dark. And, might even ponder whether, if the tiny little Reelights (powered by a magnet) reduced multi-vehicle accidents by such an astonishing factor, what would a really bright DRL do? -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/21/2019 5:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title, and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's content) as you so obviously do. Your fundamental error is that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Or you do understand it but you're dismissing it. This is not uncommon among non-technical individuals that lack training in statistics, probability, and engineering. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 5:48:46 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 17:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. This from a guy with a religious belief in daytime running lights, even "flea powered" ones, and a religious belief in magic plastic hats. A man who constantly touts "countless studies" but can't be bothered to post links to them. A man who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to be a "world's greatest expert" on multiple matters - helmets, lights, folding bikes, coffee... And who bragged online about his "guerilla marketing" via various discussion groups, at his websites which said "If you buy the items I recommend, please start by clicking the links here so I get my commission" or words to that effect. - Frank Krygowski It might be noted that while the Odense study clearly shows that the DRL's reduced daylight multi-vehicle accidents by a factor of ~50% they had a negligible effect on multi-vehicle accidents after dark. And, might even ponder whether, if the tiny little Reelights (powered by a magnet) reduced multi-vehicle accidents by such an astonishing factor, what would a really bright DRL do? A super-bright DRL would virtually eliminate all bicycle accidents, just as it has done for cars and motorcycles. You never hear of cars hitting each other anymore. Why would we not want the same for bikes? A super-bright flasher does make me feel better when cars are misbehaving. It's like a little punishment. Bad cars! Bad! Take that! I want a 2,000 lumen flashing helmet light that I can point at the dopes with 2,000 lumen flashing helmet lights. Have a light war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnMDtMysHo -- Jay Beattie. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
sms wrote:
On 4/21/2019 5:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title, and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's content) as you so obviously do. Your fundamental error is that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Or you do understand it but you're dismissing it. This is not uncommon among non-technical individuals that lack training in statistics, probability, and engineering. You may be guilty of the same sin yourself. How do you know? |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:07:45 -0700, sms
wrote: On 4/21/2019 5:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title, and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's content) as you so obviously do. Your fundamental error is that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Or you do understand it but you're dismissing it. This is not uncommon among non-technical individuals that lack training in statistics, probability, and engineering. Tell me, oh Sage. What am I dismissing? After all, to the best of my recollection I haven't mentioned a word about disagreeing with anything in the Odense Study. I simply highlighted a couple of their findings.... not disagreeing with them. After all, I'm the one that read the entire report and said so. You, on the other hand, apparently haven't read the report, or at least you seem strangely reluctant to admit it, and seem to rely on rather vague pronouncements to somehow obscure the fact that you really don't appear to know what you are talking about. . -- Cheers, John B. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 21:10:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 5:48:46 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 17:11:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote: On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:40:12 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: On 4/21/2019 3:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 13:33:47 -0700, sms wrote: On 4/19/2019 3:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip The Odense study, for example, tested the effectiveness of tiny little, "flea powered" (to use Jay's description) flashing lights mounted at hub level at both front and rear wheels. Yet today we are told that one must use blindly bright lights to be safe. The ultimate results of the Odense study seems to have been the change in a Danish law to allow the use of always on DRL's which, apparently, had previously been forbidden in Denmark. People with an agenda will always try to pick apart any study that is corporate funded, even when the study is conducted by a university and is published in a respected scientific journal https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/274548813/Safety_effects_of_permanent_running_lights_for_bic ycles.pdf. It isn't a matter of "picking apart". It is a matter of understanding what went on and what the results were. I might remind you that simply "being published in a respected scientific journal" is hardly proof of anything. After all the term "peer reviewed" means simply that one publishes and than your "peers" try to rip what you have published apart... and frequently are successful. Recognize that there aren't governments all over the world funding double-blind studies on daytime bicycle lights. You have the Odense study funded by Reelight and conducted by Aalborg University in Denmark, and the Trek funded study conducted by Clemson. The studies are cited by the companies that funded them in an effort to sell their daytime light products. Which appeared to prove that the use of tiny little magnet powered DRL's reduced bicycle accidents. In fact it proved that it reduced solo accidents... Imagine that. Put a tiny little flashing light on your bike (actually two of them, front and rear) and it will reduce the number of times that you fall off your bike, run off the road, or do some equally stupid stunt, while all alone. Besides these two studies, you have copious amounts of evidence on motorcycle DRLs which logically extend to bicycle DRLs in many respects. You also have the conspicuity studies unrelated to any type of vehicle that just measure conspicuity between light on no light. Yes, as you so frequently mentions "copious studies". It is certainly an easy thing to say but you never seem to be able to document, in any way, rather than by repeating your own words over and over, that what you say is in any associated with facts. These have been cited numerous times in this newsgroup. You're free to go back and look at them again, though there is no real reason for you to do so because you will find some minor flaw in all of them and declare them to be invalid. For those that oppose DRLs on bicycles (or cars, or motorcycles) on philosophical grounds, no quantity of studies will change their mind--there will always be something that they will point to in the study that isn't perfect and declare the study to be completely invalid. Sadly, that's the state of science in the U.S. today, and why we still have anti-vaxers, climate change deniers, and flat-earth believers. However in this case, it's a little more puzzling than in those other cases because there's no downside to DRLs at all. Yes a little puzzling... I refer you to: https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-studies-wrong Which states in part: "Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth." So that's the best you can do? It's rather hopeless to use scientific evidence or statistical evidence to convince you of anything. You've made up your mind. It's like the ultra-religious of any religion, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Scary. This from a guy with a religious belief in daytime running lights, even "flea powered" ones, and a religious belief in magic plastic hats. A man who constantly touts "countless studies" but can't be bothered to post links to them. A man who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to be a "world's greatest expert" on multiple matters - helmets, lights, folding bikes, coffee... And who bragged online about his "guerilla marketing" via various discussion groups, at his websites which said "If you buy the items I recommend, please start by clicking the links here so I get my commission" or words to that effect. - Frank Krygowski It might be noted that while the Odense study clearly shows that the DRL's reduced daylight multi-vehicle accidents by a factor of ~50% they had a negligible effect on multi-vehicle accidents after dark. And, might even ponder whether, if the tiny little Reelights (powered by a magnet) reduced multi-vehicle accidents by such an astonishing factor, what would a really bright DRL do? A super-bright DRL would virtually eliminate all bicycle accidents, just as it has done for cars and motorcycles. You never hear of cars hitting each other anymore. Why would we not want the same for bikes? A super-bright flasher does make me feel better when cars are misbehaving. It's like a little punishment. Bad cars! Bad! Take that! I want a 2,000 lumen flashing helmet light that I can point at the dopes with 2,000 lumen flashing helmet lights. Have a light war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnMDtMysHo -- Jay Beattie. Actually, I have read here that with a bright enough light motor vehicles simply will not pull out of a parking lot in front of a bicycle. It is simply amazing what a bright light will accomplish... But having said that I must quote James Thurber who once said that "There are two kinds of light - the glow that illuminates, and the glare that obscures." -- Cheers, John B. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 22/04/2019 01.36, John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip I repeat. I simply report what the Odense study showed.... that tiny DRL's reduced the number of solo accidents... Apparently just mounting these "flea power" (to use Jay's words) lights on your bike will reduce the number of time you fall off your bike, run off the road, miss the turn or any of the other things that you do with no help from others. AND it will even reduce, albeit slightly, the percentage of those solo accidents that result in "personal injury" as the Study has it. Sold! I'm going to get one. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 5:29:14 AM UTC+1, Ralph Barone wrote:
sms wrote: On 4/21/2019 5:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip But perhaps I am making a fundamental error in that I read the entire report before making a statement rather than simply reading the title, and than referring grandly to the report (in total ignorance of it's content) as you so obviously do. Your fundamental error is that you don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Or you do understand it but you're dismissing it. This is not uncommon among non-technical individuals that lack training in statistics, probability, and engineering. You may be guilty of the same sin yourself. How do you know? With reference to the reduction in solo accidents in the Odense Reelight study we may be looking at the inverse of the risk compensation the anti-helmet zealots are always going on about, in which cyclists with helmets are said to take more and crazier risks because they're wearing a helmet. The obverse would be that those issued with lamps and told they're taking part in a safety study took fewer risks and thus had fewer accidents. Both reactions seem reasonable though at the levels cited by posters to RBT, if honestly cited, these reactions seem questionably oversized, definitely worth investigation as psychological phenomena in their own right More generally, people who practice statistics in commerce where you can be fired for being stupid (more likely, if you're stupid, you won't be promoted into a position where even small misjudgements will have hugely destructive outcomes), soon discover that statistics are rarely dispositive, that you rarely have the time, even if you have the money, to do a killer study with a properly sized and stratified sample that precisely parallels the supposed universe (I'm still waiting for the resident self-proclaimed experts to tell me precisely who are "cyclists"). The upshot is that statistics, in rooms where big-money decisions are taken, become an art form of trying to extract rational conclusions or even just pointers to reduce the chaos of unknowns which managers are paid to navigate, from surveys that are always recognised as being "a good study, but not enough of it". Compare to academe where any old **** goes to such an extent that statistics often seem to be a branch of politics rather than the handmaiden of science, and where samples are generally, because of shortage of funds, "whoever is willing to speak to your interviewers", and the interviewers are usually students with their own passionate preformed bias rather than expensive professionals who are never told what the study's working hypothesis is. As for the inbuilt sampling errors of telephone interviews, don't get me started. Andre Jute An idiot is someone who asks first about the level of confidence |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/21/2019 9:10 PM, jbeattie wrote:
snip A super-bright DRL would virtually eliminate all bicycle accidents, just as it has done for cars and motorcycles. You never hear of cars hitting each other anymore. Why would we not want the same for bikes? The 2008 NHTSA study is probably the most applicable to bicycles. It showed a 25% reduction in crashes involving motorcycles when DRLs were used. The excuse drivers cite most often in crashes involving motorcycles and bicycles is "I just didn't see them." A super-bright flasher does make me feel better when cars are misbehaving. It's like a little punishment. Bad cars! Bad! Take that! I want a 2,000 lumen flashing helmet light that I can point at the dopes with 2,000 lumen flashing helmet lights. Have a light war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esnMDtMysHo I would advise against doing this. You could incur liability if there was a crash due to blinding the driver. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
IQ-X vs Edelux II
On 4/22/2019 12:00 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip Tell me, oh Sage. What am I dismissing? You are attempting to dismiss causation by focusing on correlation. It's a common argument technique in both the lighting debates and helmet debates. "Solo crashes descreased when DRLs were used so that proves that DRLs did not contribute to the reduction in other crashes." "Non-head injuries went down when helmets were worn so that proves that helmets don't reduce the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes." Neither is a valid argument. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. | Lou Holtman[_7_] | Techniques | 10 | December 24th 14 03:03 AM |
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux | Danny Colyer | UK | 3 | January 14th 09 06:21 PM |
Edelux - Wow! | Danny Colyer | UK | 10 | November 25th 08 09:05 PM |
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? | none | UK | 5 | May 27th 08 06:03 PM |