Light works

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:07:46 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:07:40 +1000, James
wrote:

On 16/09/14 11:02, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But, in essence, no matter what one does, on a bicycle, it does not
"prevent" a car from hitting the bicycle. Yes, one can be as visible
as possible, wave one's arms and shout, but ultimately it is the
actions of the auto driver that determine whether the bicycle is hit
or not and if the bicycle is hit the results are likely to be a dead
cyclist and a dented car fender.

Not really.

Provided you have an escape route, it is often possible to avoid a
collision with a motor vehicle by taking that route. It might involve
braking and swerving, but does not rely on arm waving, visibility or
shouting.

Yes, you are correct. But "avoiding" is not "preventing". When the
bullock charges across the paddock and you hop over the fence you
don't tell folks you prevented the bullock from getting you, you say
"I got away".

Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Hardly exaggeration. True, a good friend hit a car broad side at 60
MPH and did a header over the car body - broke both arms - but the
description was, if I remember correctly, a car doing 110 KPH and a
bike at 30 KPH. I suggest that when someone hits you at a relative
speed of 80 KPH the chances of a fatal injury does exist.

Watch it. The danger danger police will get you.

Nope. The bloke I was talking about was riding a motor cycle :-)



I have always assumes that the logical thing to do was avoid the
speeding auto by any means necessary. Being brave and assertive may
make one feel like a hero but I'm not sure that lying in a box while
friends and family are extolling one's bravery is where I want to be.


Indeed. My assertiveness declines rapidly when they show no signs of
accommodating me.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:45:18 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/15/2014 8:07 PM, James wrote:
On 16/09/14 11:02, John B. Slocomb wrote:


But, in essence, no matter what one does, on a bicycle, it does not
"prevent" a car from hitting the bicycle. Yes, one can be as visible
as possible, wave one's arms and shout, but ultimately it is the
actions of the auto driver that determine whether the bicycle is hit
or not and if the bicycle is hit the results are likely to be a dead
cyclist and a dented car fender.

Not really.

Provided you have an escape route, it is often possible to avoid a
collision with a motor vehicle by taking that route. It might involve
braking and swerving, but does not rely on arm waving, visibility or
shouting.

Also, having been hit by a few cars, and having hit a few cars, and not
being dead (yet), the idea that a collision will result in death is a
complete exaggeration.

Some cyclists have the idea that there's no point in increasing their
conspicuousness because no matter what they need to be yield to the
larger, heavier vehicle even when the cyclist has the right of way.

The reality is that it's best to take the approach that combines
increasing your conspicuousness to greatly reduce the number of times a
vehicle fails to yield and still be prepared with an escape path if they
don't.

The reality is in a belligerent meeting between a motor vehicle and a
bicycle the bicycle will usually suffers either death or, in a best
case situation, the most severe injuries.

Thus it might be thought that the bicycle, having the most to lose,
would have the greatest interest in avoiding the meeting. In fact I
remember someone posting an epitaph which describes the departed death
and adds, "but he had the right of way".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:52:28 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 9/16/2014 12:26 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 16.09.2014 03:02, schrieb John B. Slocomb:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS
wrote:

It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,
but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the
right of way.


That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne
and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on
your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,
perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?

To use your example, 40 tons of a heavy goods vehicle thundering along
and you in a 1 ton car. And you want to contest 'Right of way'?

My Grandad died that way in the 1950s; in the 2010s the trucks stop dead
because the drivers know they lose their job otherwise.

Law replaces the 'Might is right' attitude but sometimes it takes a while.

Rolf 'in most civilized countries, cars yield when they have to' Mantel

By increasing your conspicuousness you reduce greatly reduce the number
of times you have to yield when you have the right of way.

You always have an escape path (braking, swerving, etc.) for the times
when a vehicle driver does something stupid.

Then I can only suppose that all the bicycles that die on the road
were at fault as they "always have an escape path" ?

The key is intentionally making yourself conspicuous rather than
foolishly making yourself invisible. For example, regardless of whether
or not you believe that daytime front flashers are annoying to drivers,
there is no dispute that they greatly increase the conspicuousness of
cyclists. You experience far fewer instances of drivers doing stupid and
illegal things because "I just didn't see the cyclist."

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:55:10 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:39:08 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 9/14/2014 7:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:57:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/13/2014 10:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/13/2014 3:27 PM, Duane wrote:


A better question would be whether any cyclist with a dynamo was rear
ended
at a stop because his dynamo didn't have a stand light.

Not just that. When waiting at a red light, going straight, how many
people have had someone making a left turn cut them off.

So, really: How many?

Is this yet another "Danger! Danger!" campaign?


lol. Trolling to the end.

Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've
been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how
they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.

Granted, there are always accidents - we had a car leap over a 10 ft
wide median strip and crash into a bus stop on the other side of the
road but that was once, two years ago - but it appears to me that this
sort of crash must either (1) be uncommon, or (2) largely the fault of
the cyclist.

For example, at an intersection where a whole line of cars are turning
left (non U.S. traffic scheme) one would have to be mentally
defective to blithely ride up to the corner planning on going straight
through existing traffic.


Granted but in some cases it's probably not that the rider is mentally
defective but that the law requiring him to ride to the right is a bad
idea. Our local "advocate" can let you know all about taking the lane
here but some people comply with the law to their own detriment.
Especially when the speed limit is 90k/h and cars are doing 110
generally. Taking the lane to prevent turning cars from hooking you is
not all that obvious.


But, in essence, no matter what one does, on a bicycle, it does not
"prevent" a car from hitting the bicycle. Yes, one can be as visible
as possible, wave one's arms and shout, but ultimately it is the
actions of the auto driver that determine whether the bicycle is hit
or not and if the bicycle is hit the results are likely to be a dead
cyclist and a dented car fender.

I have always assumes that the logical thing to do was avoid the
speeding auto by any means necessary. Being brave and assertive may
make one feel like a hero but I'm not sure that lying in a box while
friends and family are extolling one's bravery is where I want to be.

The secret is knowing when to beat your chest and when to get out the way
PDQ.

Kenny Roberts even popularized a song that contains the advice,

"You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:07:48 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 9/16/2014 11:55 AM, Ian Field wrote:


"John B. Slocomb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:39:08 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 9/14/2014 7:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:57:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/13/2014 10:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/13/2014 3:27 PM, Duane wrote:


A better question would be whether any cyclist with a dynamo was
rear
ended
at a stop because his dynamo didn't have a stand light.

Not just that. When waiting at a red light, going straight, how many
people have had someone making a left turn cut them off.

So, really: How many?

Is this yet another "Danger! Danger!" campaign?


lol. Trolling to the end.

Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've
been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how
they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.

Granted, there are always accidents - we had a car leap over a 10 ft
wide median strip and crash into a bus stop on the other side of the
road but that was once, two years ago - but it appears to me that this
sort of crash must either (1) be uncommon, or (2) largely the fault of
the cyclist.

For example, at an intersection where a whole line of cars are turning
left (non U.S. traffic scheme) one would have to be mentally
defective to blithely ride up to the corner planning on going straight
through existing traffic.


Granted but in some cases it's probably not that the rider is mentally
defective but that the law requiring him to ride to the right is a bad
idea. Our local "advocate" can let you know all about taking the lane
here but some people comply with the law to their own detriment.
Especially when the speed limit is 90k/h and cars are doing 110
generally. Taking the lane to prevent turning cars from hooking you is
not all that obvious.


But, in essence, no matter what one does, on a bicycle, it does not
"prevent" a car from hitting the bicycle. Yes, one can be as visible
as possible, wave one's arms and shout, but ultimately it is the
actions of the auto driver that determine whether the bicycle is hit
or not and if the bicycle is hit the results are likely to be a dead
cyclist and a dented car fender.

I have always assumes that the logical thing to do was avoid the
speeding auto by any means necessary. Being brave and assertive may
make one feel like a hero but I'm not sure that lying in a box while
friends and family are extolling one's bravery is where I want to be.

The secret is knowing when to beat your chest and when to get out the
way PDQ.

Sometime you can't do either.
On Saturday in Vermont we were riding along and a bit further into the
lane than normal. It was a winding road through the Champlain Islands.
We were maybe a yard and a half into the road. Too many overhanging
branches by the shoulder I guess g.

An impatient idiot in a pickup was behind us revving his engine and
being a dickhead rather than wait until the road was straight for him to
pass us. Eventually he pulled out in front of an oncoming car and then
tried to squeeze the woman in the front off the road. The car coming
the other way went off the shoulder to avoid him. After this he pulled
up next to us telling us what kind of assholes we were. Beating your
chest didn't seem to be the thing to do at the time. Some people are
just dickheads. Most are not. In 100km most people were extremely polite.

You need to be alert and try to avoid these situations but dickheads
exist and seem intent to show their presence.

Yup, the "dickheads". I remember a bloke arguing, in this group, that
the public busses should be banned "as their constant stopping was
impeding his morning ride".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:06:23 +0100, "Ian Field"
wrote:



"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Ian Field wrote:


"Ralph Barone" wrote in message
news:701498375432351075.828509address_is-invalid.invalid@shawnews...
"Ian Field" wrote:
"Joerg" wrote in message
...
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 12:58:45 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
wrote:

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_112922/article.html




So when do bike accessory manufacturers finally wake up and build

something like this? Why do things take so long with bicycles?



Until now all the lights I've tried and seen are between "barely
bright

enough" and utter junk.



--

Regards, Joerg



http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Reading the entire thread I see a post where you say you are an
electrical engineer. Why don'y you just design something tthat you
feel fits the needs of nightime trails MTB riders and test it then
sell the design to a manufacturer?


I'd love to do that but I am not retired yet and must concentrate of
designs that create revenue. Something has to pay for our food and
health care and so on. I even occasionally design LED lighting
electronics but for aircraft. In general, my experience with
approaching
ground-based vehicle manufacturers with a design that is better that
the status quo is not too positive. Especially in the world of
bicycles
progress seems to be more on the slow side.

Also, in order to make all this work a bicycle needs a "real"
electrical
system with a battery, wiring, fuses, switches and so on. It would be
fairly easy to do but some manufacturer would have to be willing to
blaze the trail.

Back in the days when Sturmey-Archer were king; I had both front & rear
hub dynamos and also a Miller "bottle" (rub-wheel) dynamo for battery
charging.

If we had even half the LEDs then that we have now, I could've made
something worthwhile of it.

Modern hub dynamos on mountain bikes are a bit more powerful - but
only just.

Back in the day, lighting was pretty expensive, I didn't have any
dynamos
until I started using second hand bikes.

Its all about production economics -I can only assume the show-offs
that
buy conspicuously the most expensive cycle accessories don't do much
night riding.

Now that all bike lights include their own electronic regulation, it
sure
would be nice to build dynamos with less leakage inductance (ie:
internal
current limiting) so that you could pull more than 3W from the hub at
higher speeds. Alternatively, dynamo lights could adjust their back
EMF as
a function of input frequency (ie: road speed) to also pull more power
from
the hub at higher speeds.

The Sturmey Archer hubs were actually designed to optimise the constant
current characteristic to prevent bulb blowing at high speed - not an
easy task since a filament bulb is almost a constant current load. In
particular; the SA armature has a lot of poles, so the coil reactance
rises a lot with frequency - maybe they overdid it a bit!

There's a page online somewhere describing a project to bond a load of
individual neodymium magnets to a steel ring to replace the one in a SA
hub - the output curve shown on a graph is quite impressive.


I don't even want to think about what happens if one of those magnet
bonds comes loose and the floating magnet jams the hub.

There are some pretty impressive adhesives out there, one I know of is Glass
bond - it says on the packaging you can use it on other things than glass.

Last time I tried to break something off that I'd glued with that stuff - it
took a chunk out of the metal surface instead of failing at the bond.

I believe that all of the small DC motors have their field magnets
glued in these days.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:54:06 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Tue, 16 Sep 2014
08:02:18 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've
been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how
they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.

It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,
but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the
right of way.


That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne
and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on
your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,
perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?

Bloody right I do.
If the assholes in weapons grade vehicles can't use them responsibly
they shouldn't be allowed the use of them at all!
By constantly kow-towing to the over-entitles idiots who have no more
right to the road (and frequently less) you merely reinforce their
sense of entitlement.
If you are bothered by standing up to bullies, fit a video camera or
two. More and more cyclists are doing so, reporting aggressors to the
police and courts, and publishing the results and plate numbers online
This is gradually bringing home to them the consequences of their
actions, as news services pick up on the trend and report on it.
Governments are even taking notice, and equipping the police with
powers to confiscate the vehicles of offenders, even without involving
the courts (see s59 of the Police Reform Act in the UK for an
example).


Damned Right!

The police should confiscate all them damned bicycles that jump red
lights, ignore stop signs and impede traffic.
( the latter exercise being a violation of the law in all of the U.S.
states that I have driven in and likely in the U.K.)

But perhaps it isn't silly, but yet another example of Darwin in
action.

Darwin never claimed survival of the fattest.
And cyclists have a life expectancy a couple of years longer than
non-cyclists, and an active life expectancy that's longer by even more
(so much for the "Danger, Danger" brigade).
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:56:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot considered Mon, 15 Sep 2014
21:48:56 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Monday, September 15, 2014 9:02:18 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:16:25 -0700, SMS

wrote:



On 9/14/2014 4:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:



Since the "Left Turn Crashes" were discussed, some time ago here, I've

been watching a bit closer and to be frank :-) I really can't see how

they are happening, at least based on traffic patterns here.



It isn't really a crash issue on left turns, like it is on right hooks,

but an issue of the cyclist having to yield when the cyclist has the

right of way.





That is really a very silly statement. To use Duane's example, a tonne

and a half, or more of iron and steel traveling at 110 KPH and you on

your carbon fibre bicycle, weighing grams and thundering along at,

perhaps, 25 KPH. And you want to contest "right of way"?



But perhaps it isn't silly, but yet another example of Darwin in

action.



--

Cheers,



John B.

I posted to this newsgroup when I bailed onto the shoulder just before entering a very narrow two lane concrete bridge with no access to the sidewalk once on the bridge. I commented tthat i did so at @40 - 50 kph because there were three 18 wheelers closing rapidly behind me and the third one back had its wheel over te fog line. Someonme told me if I was so "afraid" I shouldn't be riding in traffic and that I *SHOULD HAVE CALLED THOSE TRUCKERS' BLUFFS and taken the labe!* I bailed because i didn't want that rundown feeling that even massive quantities of Geritol wouldn't fix.

To paraphrase Kenny Rogers in "The Gasmbler" You got to know when to keep the lane and know when to leave. When an 18 wheeler squahes yah, there ain't much left to see.

And did you take the licence plates and report them for dangerous
driving?

Oh no, you just gave in to the bullies.

It is pretty difficult to communicate the license number after
contending with those 18 wheels.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 17/09/14 10:21, Joerg wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:

The solution to your problem is becoming obvious.
Get a watch.
Learn to use it.
And start out in enough time that you don't have to ride beyond the
ability of your equipment.


So just because the industry is unable or unwilling to provide equipment
that allows top speed I have to forego top speed on a bicycle but not in
a car?

Makes no sense to me and I am not the kind of guy who accepts that. If
needed I'll build it myself, or at least kludge it.



In Australia we get these critters called Wombats. They have very short
legs and don't move fast, but are built quite sturdy, to say the least,
and have been known to flip cars that impact them on a turn, for
example. They are predominantly nocturnal, dark brown in colour, and
they don't often look at an approaching vehicle to get a reflection off
their eyes at night. They are a danger for motorcyclists. My mate
skimmed one with his 850 Moto Guzzi and left a foot peg behind.

You would think that cars and motorbikes would have sufficient lights to
see things on the road at night at top speed, but apparently not.

From that point of view, bicycles are no different. If you are
operating your vehicle beyond your and it's limits, anything can happen.

--
JS

On 17/09/14 11:14, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Then I can only suppose that all the bicycles that die on the road
were at fault as they "always have an escape path" ?


Your bicycles are alive (precursor to death) and have a conscience? You
can blame your bicycles for being at fault?

--
JS