Light works

On 9/18/2014 7:38 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/18/2014 7:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/17/2014 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Here we have a very distinct
"rainy season" but I see, probably the majority of, the
bikes on the
road without mud guards/fenders and a closer look shows
that there is
no room to fit fenders as the forks are too close to the
wheels.


The Germans worked that out for you:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/SKSBLADE.JPG

I ride with full fenders, so I haven't tried those. But it
looks to me like the rider's feet and lower legs would still
get drenched, and that the short front fender would fling
water up in front, to get blown back by the relative wind. No?



On a modern race bike that's what fits. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Ever notice the garbage (literally, sections of two liter
bottles and such) duct taped to urban fixies?

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

On 9/17/2014 11:59 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.09.2014 20:22, schrieb Ian Field:

"James" wrote:

It is not often I can say I agree with you, but I think it is safe
this time, so long as increasing conspicuousness does not include
waving flags and wearing DayGlo.

A bit of dayglo never hurt - I just CBA wearing any.

Wearing a necklace with a charm never hurt and never helped.

France has mandated reflective vests for out-of town cycle rides at
night. One year before the law, 31 cyclists died out of town at night,
one year after the law came into effect, 32 cyclists died out of town at
night.
Proven zero effect.

It's possible that the reflective vests were worthless. But after
reading some of the faux helemt "studies" on the anti-helmet web sites
one thing that's clear is that you need to be very careful about
believing "statistics."

Did the law mandating reflective vests result in a lot more out of town
night rides because cyclists thought they'd be safer?

What was the level of compliance with the law?

"Rolf Mantel" wrote in message
...
Am 17.09.2014 20:22, schrieb Ian Field:

"James" wrote:

It is not often I can say I agree with you, but I think it is safe
this time, so long as increasing conspicuousness does not include
waving flags and wearing DayGlo.

A bit of dayglo never hurt - I just CBA wearing any.

Wearing a necklace with a charm never hurt and never helped.

I like the lucky rabbit's foot charm - didn't do the rabbit much good did
it!

"sms" wrote in message
...
On 9/17/2014 11:59 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.09.2014 20:22, schrieb Ian Field:

"James" wrote:

It is not often I can say I agree with you, but I think it is safe
this time, so long as increasing conspicuousness does not include
waving flags and wearing DayGlo.

A bit of dayglo never hurt - I just CBA wearing any.

Wearing a necklace with a charm never hurt and never helped.

France has mandated reflective vests for out-of town cycle rides at
night. One year before the law, 31 cyclists died out of town at night,
one year after the law came into effect, 32 cyclists died out of town at
night.
Proven zero effect.

It's possible that the reflective vests were worthless.

At the top of a hill on my usual route is a bus shelter where I sit and have
a rest, often I see some black guy trundle past with a flashing red light on
his handlebars and no back light - but he wears a dayglo vest, and never
seems to get hit (that I know of).

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On 9/18/2014 7:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/17/2014 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Here we have a very distinct
"rainy season" but I see, probably the majority of, the bikes on the
road without mud guards/fenders and a closer look shows that there is
no room to fit fenders as the forks are too close to the wheels.


The Germans worked that out for you:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/SKSBLADE.JPG

I ride with full fenders, so I haven't tried those. But it looks to me
like the rider's feet and lower legs would still get drenched,

I didn't bother on the front, but I have to keep it dead straight through
muddy puddles.

The crud on my front down tube is over 1/2" thick.

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 8:33:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 10:00:07 PM UTC-4, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



Some people need everything spelled out for them in excruiating detail.



The post was intended to show that even a motor vehicle driver can be charged with "impeding traffic" if they are holding up 4 or more vehicles because the driver is moving his/her vehicle slower than other traffic. Thus if you are a bicyclist and are taking the lane and you're holding up 4 or more vehicles then you too can be charged with "impeding traffic".



Well, they can be charged, depending on what the cop decides. That's a little

like saying you can be sued for anything. But as is often the case, things

are not quite as simple as some people believe.



See http://bikelaws.org/Rt2Road.htm for some more information. The Selz

case in Ohio (the first one listed) was significant, and set a pretty

important legal precedent, I'm told.



Laws vary, though. A woman in Kentucky was recently convicted for not riding

on the shoulder, since Kentucky law uses the word "highway" where most states

and the UVC use the word "roadway." Details on request, and an appeal is

likely.

Ohio law is unusual. But like you say, you have to look at the law in each state -- or even town. The standard UVC provision applies to bikes and prevents impeding traffic, although impeding typically is not tied to a particular number of cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/18/2014 9:50 AM, sms wrote:
On 9/17/2014 11:59 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 17.09.2014 20:22, schrieb Ian Field:

"James" wrote:

It is not often I can say I agree with you, but I think it is safe
this time, so long as increasing conspicuousness does not include
waving flags and wearing DayGlo.

A bit of dayglo never hurt - I just CBA wearing any.

Wearing a necklace with a charm never hurt and never helped.

France has mandated reflective vests for out-of town cycle rides at
night. One year before the law, 31 cyclists died out of town at night,
one year after the law came into effect, 32 cyclists died out of town at
night.
Proven zero effect.

It's possible that the reflective vests were worthless. But after
reading some of the faux helemt "studies" on the anti-helmet web sites
one thing that's clear is that you need to be very careful about
believing "statistics."

Did the law mandating reflective vests result in a lot more out of town
night rides because cyclists thought they'd be safer?

What was the level of compliance with the law?




We've seen a lot of examples here where stats are thrown around and
causal relationships are implied where they are not necessarily proven.
For sure comparing simply the number of accidents with no idea whether
the number of subjects changed is bogus.

On 9/18/2014 10:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgCqz3l33kU


Thanks for posting that. lol.

On 9/18/2014 7:40 AM, Duane wrote:
On 9/18/2014 9:50 AM, sms wrote:
On 9/17/2014 11:59 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

snip

We've seen a lot of examples here where stats are thrown around and
causal relationships are implied where they are not necessarily proven.
For sure comparing simply the number of accidents with no idea whether
the number of subjects changed is bogus.

Well I'm pretty sure that Rolf was not intending to mislead anyone. I
think we've all become pretty cynical due to the AHZs continual misuse
of statistics.

It may also be possible that the requirement reduced the number of night
cyclists in which case the lack of any change in the numbers was
actually a percentage increase. Remember how the AHZs used to claim that
MHLs were proven to reduce cycling levels even though there was no
evidence that this was the case?

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014
19:00:07 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 3:17:53 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Sir Ridesalot considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014

10:13:43 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



On Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:46:07 AM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:29:20 +0100, Phil W Lee




wrote:







John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 17 Sep 2014



08:14:48 +0700 the perfect time to write:







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.)







You can't impede traffic simply by being part of it.



You'd clearly be more at home on a petrolheads forum than here.











Exactly, you cannot impede traffic by being part of it... but what do



you call riding at, say 30 KPH on a roadway where all the other



traffic is traveling in excess of 70 KPH. and demanding a lane to



yourself (taking the lane)?







--



Cheers,







John B.



Where I live, if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going slower
than other traffic, then when there are four or more vehicles behind
you you are supposed to pull over when safe to do so and let those
vehicles pass you. Failure to do that can get you a ticket for
"impeding traffic". And that is a motor veghicle that's impeding
traffic thus a bicycle as a vehicle in the lane can also be ticketed
for holding up four or more vehicles.



I note with interest "if you're driving a motor vehicle and are going

slower than other traffic" and "pull over when safe to do so".



So this regulation only applies to motor traffic, and even then you

only need to pull over when it is safe to do so.



Yet you somehow seem to think that it applies to non-motorised

traffic, and that cyclists should allow faster traffic to pass even

when it is unsafe to do so.



Major logic failure there somewhere.

Some people need everything spelled out for them in excruiating detail.

The post was intended to show that even a motor vehicle driver can be
charged with "impeding traffic" if they are holding up 4 or more vehicles
because the driver is moving his/her vehicle slower than other traffic.
Thus if you are a bicyclist and are taking the lane and you're holding up
4 or more vehicles then you too can be charged with "impeding traffic".

Not here you can't.

The old bill can usually trump up something if you're being a PITA.